Joseph fathered Jesus?

[robycop3]

Salamander: Is it not important for all to understand that Jesus is the Son of God? ( to answer anyone and everyone)

Who's saying He wasn't God's son, and was God's son before Adam was created, back into infinity?


Adoption is only to orphans, that becoming an orphan by desertion or death.

I beg to differ. Under HUMAN law, my Dad had two moms. His bio mom and dad had divorced before he was born, & Gramps married the woman who raised him shortly after he was born. His bio mom named him, but Gramps' new wife did most of the raising. She killed herself when dad was 6, and his stepmom raised him completely after that. But for 6 years, he had 2 moms...called BOTH of'em Mom.


God never died, and never deserted Jesus, but now God did turn His back on Jesus when He became sin for us.

But by His power, Jesus became a human baby who was born like every other human has been(including C-sections, etc.), and who lived a normal babyhood/childhood, until at least age 12. like it or not, Joseph served as His earthly father until He came of age. And Luke 2:51 says He was subject to THEM, not just His mom.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by bapmom:
I don't know Petrel, Im KJVO, and I can't figure out what his real point is, either.

I can tell you...some unlearned KJVO "author", Terry Watkins, at "Dial-The-(anything but the)Truth Ministries", wrote that "The NIV denies Christ's Deity by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43". He completely overlooked the fact that the KJV does the VERY SAME THING in Luke 2:27, 41, 48. Therefore, as a KJVO, Sal is trying to make excuses FOR the readings in the KJV while trying to prove the VERY SAME THING WRONG in the NIV. It's what is commonly known as a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[bapmom]

robycop,

I understand.

Being KJVo myself I really see no reason to try to reconcile any of it. I understand the reasoning behind being against changing the wording in Luke 2:43. Without that there then you have one more place in the Bible which does not reiterate that Jesus was God's Son, and not Joseph's.

But here in this forum of people who basically understand and agree with the deity of Christ is really not the place for these sorts of assumptions.

This isn't really a KJVo issue, so much as its a point of view being ascribed to people wrongly.

 

[robycop3]

Bapmom, I appreciate your thoughts, but I believe anyone should clearly be able to see that Joseph was the earthly stepfather of Jesus. He had become a human baby by God's power, was born same as an ordinary baby, grew as any ordinary baby grows, but began displaying His special knowledge at age 12...but He then remains subject to J&M as Luke 2:51 says, and we don't know anything of His life twixt 12 & 30 except that He learned the carpenter's trade. It's VERY apparent that Joseph raised Jesus, serving as His earthly stepfather, same as has been the case for millions of ordinary children.

Now, Salamander is a smart person, and knows all this. Why he wants to defend a piece of junk written by the likes of Terry Watkins, I don't know.....ESPECIALLY when the KJV, which he claims as "the" Bible, calls Joseph Jesus' father.(I reject the feeble attempt to say a male parent is not a father.)

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
Adoption is only to orphans, that becoming an orphan by desertion or death.

Once again not true and once again a false analogy. A person may give a child up for adoption (quite different from desertion in my pov) or have his or her custodial rights terminated by law. And the analogy does not exactly hold because of the singular nature of this event. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes, but you cannot see that you're applying a modern abd very liberal dictate of men to biblical grammar. Man never has the final say in biblical matters, he thinks he does for a short period, then God over-rules.

All I have done is allowed everyone to respond, allowing ones' self ample opportuntiy to realize the previous statement.

Applying modern and liberal thinking to the Bible is where all men err. Parents in the time of Luke didn't "give up" their children for adoption, that has only a modern application.

One can "parent" a child, but Luke 2 specifically from the mouth of Jesus, tells all of us who His Parent really is, and that the understanding of Joseph being the "father" in any hint of imagination is only "supposed".

So, let me ask: Would you rather believe the words of Jesus? or what modern scholars say about the passage? I'll stick with Jesus.

There is some one far greater to reckon with than man's finite thinkability on the subject, thus Jesus never had two fathers, thus neither of us have either.

BTW, God the Father was neither the "biological Father": for God to be "biological" ERROR!!!

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Salamander: Is it not important for all to understand that Jesus is the Son of God? ( to answer anyone and everyone)

Who's saying He wasn't God's son, and was God's son before Adam was created, back into infinity?

By calling Jesus the "son of Joseph" w/o the parenthetical phrase: "as was supposed", you are.

Adoption is only to orphans, that becoming an orphan by desertion or death.

I beg to differ. Under HUMAN law, my Dad had two moms. His bio mom and dad had divorced before he was born, & Gramps married the woman who raised him shortly after he was born. His bio mom named him, but Gramps' new wife did most of the raising. She killed herself when dad was 6, and his stepmom raised him completely after that. But for 6 years, he had 2 moms...called BOTH of'em Mom.

You're applying modernism to something accurate and ancient, but not outdated.

God never died, and never deserted Jesus, but now God did turn His back on Jesus when He became sin for us.

But by His power, Jesus became a human baby who was born like every other human has been(including C-sections, etc.), and who lived a normal babyhood/childhood, until at least age 12. like it or not, Joseph served as His earthly father until He came of age. And Luke 2:51 says He was subject to THEM, not just His mom.

So now you're saying they had "c-sections" in the days of Joseph and Mary?

I agree, Jesus was subject to Joseph and Mary, that is Divine and then following we conclude that Divine patience has it's order when Jesus reproved both of them by the statement, "Know ye not that I must be about my Father's business"

Also, you are only able to suppose that Jesus actually led the "normal" life of a child. I'd rather understand that Jesus/ God, knew who He is all along.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Bapmom, I appreciate your thoughts, but I believe anyone should clearly be able to see that Joseph was the earthly stepfather of Jesus. He had become a human baby by God's power, was born same as an ordinary baby, grew as any ordinary baby grows, but began displaying His special knowledge at age 12...but He then remains subject to J&M as Luke 2:51 says, and we don't know anything of His life twixt 12 & 30 except that He learned the carpenter's trade. It's VERY apparent that Joseph raised Jesus, serving as His earthly stepfather, same as has been the case for millions of ordinary children.

Now, Salamander is a smart person, and knows all this. Why he wants to defend a piece of junk written by the likes of Terry Watkins, I don't know.....ESPECIALLY when the KJV, which he claims as "the" Bible, calls Joseph Jesus' father.(I reject the feeble attempt to say a male parent is not a father.)

I'm not defending anything written by anyone except that the Word of God is defending itself. Your thinking processes are suppositional at best. It might do all good to define supposition in comparison to mere thought, in fact it would accomplish wonders.

Thought doesn't over-rule supposition, supposition acts only upon thinking minus the facts. But thought is understood to be based upon determinable facts, yet still somewhat in theory, but then we are faced with the facts revealed to us all by Jesus. Those facts establish sound doctrine. Suppositions? allow room for error. Thought? only impresses other men, but God then gives undenaible light in such matters of reckoning expressed by thought processees. All the "great thinkers" are confirmed as nothing more that thinkers, that is why God gives us the FACTS.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry, Sal, but I see right through your guessing game and attempts at word play when you have no accurate or truthful answer to the facts. These facts are that Jesus, who is God along with His Father & the Holy Spirit, became a human baby, delivered of a human mother, raised as a child by His human mother & her husband who was His earthly legal father by both roman & Jewish law, and by tradition since he married Jesus' mother before He was born.

Sal:You're applying modernism to something accurate and ancient, but not outdated.

You've said that several times, but ADOPTION and SURROGATE PARENTHOOD is both ancient and modern. And in more than one land, a man who marries a pregnant woman before she gives birth, becomes the father of her new child regardless of whom the bio father was.

I'm not defending anything written by anyone except that the Word of God is defending itself.

But YOU deny it when you deny Joseph was Jesus' earthly male parent.

So now you're saying they had "c-sections" in the days of Joseph and Mary?

I dunno where you came up with "C-sections" in this conversation, but since you asked...YES. Caesarean sections are so named after JULIUS CAESAR(D.44 BC)who, according to more than one authority, was thus delivered...so they WERE known in J&M's day.

...but then we are faced with the facts revealed to us all by Jesus.

Why, when I suggested that perhaps Jesus Himself gave Luke his info, you added that perhaps it was the HOLY SPIRIT. Whomever the source was, Jesus chose to have Luke's words preserved as Scripture, & that Scripture calls Joseph His earthly stepfather by calling J&M together His parents.

...All the "great thinkers" are confirmed as nothing more that thinkers, that is why God gives us the FACTS.

...Facts which you continue to deny in part. Scripture clearly calls Joseph and Mary Jesus' PARENTS, while YOU try to invent all kindsa excuses to attempt to deny what Scripture PLAINLY says...all for the sake of a false, man-made myth.

 

[Salamander]

You've said that several times, but ADOPTION and SURROGATE PARENTHOOD is both ancient and modern. And in more than one land, a man who marries a pregnant woman before she gives birth, becomes the father of her new child regardless of whom the bio father was.

Nope. God the Father never allowed any idea of the likes to stand. You're just another "supposer".

You say that "we all said we understand Joseph not to be Jesus' "biological" father, but then that idea opens the door to saying, in turn, that God the Father is His "biological" father. Simply not so!! God the Father is NOT biological in any degree.

No one is playing on words except you, Rob, and that attempt is to validate your assumption/presumption/supposition.

The account in Luke is given for clarification.

Luke knows Joseph was NEVER the father of Jesus, thus "as was supposed" is in the completed thought of the passage.

You're taking the account as proof text, when in actuality, the account of Jesus at the Temple is fully understood to reveal just Who is the Father of Jesus, barred Joseph implicitly.

You don't have to accept the Truth, but if you make it to the Judgement Seat, and I hope you do, God will just have to straighten you out there, I suppose!

 

[Salamander]

Scripture calls Joseph His earthly stepfather

Where? In what translation? Yours?

 

[robycop3]

quote:You've said that several times, but ADOPTION and SURROGATE PARENTHOOD is both ancient and modern. And in more than one land, a man who marries a pregnant woman before she gives birth, becomes the father of her new child regardless of whom the bio father was.
_____________________________________________

Salamander:Nope. God the Father never allowed any idea of the likes to stand. You're just another "supposer".

I suggest you read a little history & do a Google on Roman & Jewish law.

You say that "we all said we understand Joseph not to be Jesus' "biological" father, but then that idea opens the door to saying, in turn, that God the Father is His "biological" father. Simply not so!! God the Father is NOT biological in any degree.

The TRUTH is that God is as biological as possible! The Greek 'biotikos' pertains to life, and GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ALL LIFE! Now, tell us again that God isn't biological!

No one is playing on words except you, Rob, and that attempt is to validate your assumption/presumption/supposition.

The TRUTH is that YOUR fave BV states it quite succintly, and YOU are playing with words by trying to say 'parents' do not equal father & mother.

Mary knew exactly where Jesus came from...the HOLY SPIRIT. Yet, she called Joseph his father. Why? because, legally, Joseph WAS His earthly stepfather. You just CANNOT avoid that, Sal.

The account in Luke is given for clarification.

So whyncha let it clarify your silly denial?

Luke knows Joseph was NEVER the father of Jesus, thus "as was supposed" is in the completed thought of the passage.

But Luke calls J&M His 'PARENTS'.

You're taking the account as proof text, when in actuality, the account of Jesus at the Temple is fully understood to reveal just Who is the Father of Jesus, barred Joseph implicitly.

And YOU'RE still trying to say I'm linking Joseph with the biological conception of Jesus as a human child. You just don't seem able to grasp the idea that Joseph was His earthly stepfather...but methinks you're so adamant(and wrong) because you're trying to defend the goofy false writings of Terry Watkins or one of his koppie-kattz.

You don't have to accept the Truth, but if you make it to the Judgement Seat, and I hope you do, God will just have to straighten you out there, I suppose!

Speaking of accepting the TRUTH...

YOU are rejecting the truth as set forth in your very own fave Bible version. You're trying to dodge it by a silly claim that parents don't equal father & mother. You forgot( possiblY DELIBERATELY) that Mary, an ordinary human, was chosen to give earthly birth to GOD'S SON, and by all accounts, had an ordinary pregnancy and delivery. If a HUMAN WOMAN could be chosen by GOD to give earthly birth to HIS VERY OWN, ALWAYS-EXISTING SON, why could He not have had an earthly stepfather? Your claim makes no sense unless you have a deeper purpose such as defending a KJVO author's ridiculous claims.

 

[Salamander]

Obviously I am wasting my time with a person who lacks any discernment and loves to bicker with only incomprehensible remarks.

Main Entry: 1par·ent
Pronunciation: 'par-&nt, 'per-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin parent-, parens; akin to Latin parere to give birth to
1 a : one that begets or brings forth offspring (this would only fit God the Father as "parent")

b : a person who brings up and cares for another
this only fits Joseph as His "parent", but NOT His "father"

Mary did NOT give "earthly" birth to Jesus, the entire conception, prenancy, and birth were all MIRACULOUS!!!

Now you're saying "step-father" and "father" are the same, they are NOT!!!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
b : a person who brings up and cares for another
this only fits Joseph as His "parent", but NOT His "father"

Your selective double standard is abundantly clear. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

fa·ther (fäthr) n.
1 A man who begets or raises or nurtures a child.

(also as a transitive verb)

v. fa·thered, fa·ther·ing, fa·thers
v. tr.
1 To procreate (offspring) as the male parent.
2 To act or serve as a father to (a child).

v. intr.
To act or serve as a father.


Consider your claim fully refuted.

 

[robycop3]

Sal: Obviously I am wasting my time with a person who lacks any discernment and loves to bicker with only incomprehensible remarks.

Actually, you're wasting your time trying to convince me(or anyone else) that Joseph was not Jesus' earthly stepfather by God's will and by the earthly law under which he and Mary lived.

Main Entry: 1par·ent
Pronunciation: 'par-&nt, 'per-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin parent-, parens; akin to Latin parere to give birth to
1 a : one that begets or brings forth offspring (this would only fit God the Father as "parent")

b : a person who brings up and cares for another
this only fits Joseph as His "parent", but NOT His "father"

Kewl...to a point. I was gonna post a definition for "father", but JohnV already has, so I'll just say, "Read and learn".
The Greek reads"goneus"(parents) and "pater"(father).

Mary did NOT give "earthly" birth to Jesus, the entire conception, prenancy, and birth were all MIRACULOUS!!!

The conception of Jesus as a human baby was miraculous, but there's nothing in Scripture suggesting His gestation and birth were anything more than ordinary.

Now you're saying "step-father" and "father" are the same, they are NOT!!!

The Scriptures say otherwise. However, in those days, the terms "stepfather" or "surrogate father" were not in existence. The Greek is "pater"; you simply cannot get away from that unless you say the Greek manuscript is wrong.

Sal, you're a LOT more intelligent than to keep denying the facts. Joseph acted toward Jesus as any ordinary father/stepfather acts toward his son/stepson. YOU KNOW THAT! That's why I say you're actually using a back door to try to defend Terry Watkins or some other goofy KJVO author's great big false claim.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Mary did NOT give "earthly" birth to Jesus, the entire conception, prenancy, and birth were all MIRACULOUS!!!

So are you saying that Jesus was not human in any way? If He did not have an "earthly' birth, as you claim, he could not be human.

His conception was the miraculous part, the rest was normal and the same we experienced. Are you possibly claiming the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate COnception - that Mary had no "sin seed?"

 

[bapmom]

Salamander........

you are not helping anyone's cause with this continued attempt of yours to prove ..... I don't know what.


How in the world could Mary not give "earthly" birth to Jesus, when the Bible plainly said that Mary brought forth her firstborn son?

 

[Nomad]

No offense to anyone in particular, but this has to be the weirdest thread ever (although there are several worthy contenders).

 

[robycop3]

Actually, Nomad, I believe it arose because unlearned KJVO author Terry Watkins either invented or copied the goofy notion that "the NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph His FATHER". Never mind that the KJV does so in three nearby verses. Never mind that adoption and surrogate parenthood have existed from early in man's history. Never mind that J & M had each received a separate vision telling them exactly where Jesus came from. Never mind that there's no Scriptural indication that Jesus was anything but an ordinary boy in the sight of man till sometime in His 12th year. Never mind that after the incident in the temple that Jesus was subject to J&M as every other normal child of the same age was, as is plainly stated in Luke 2:51. Never mind all that; to some people, saving the face of an errant KJVO author is more important.

Jesus, for a time, was GOD become FLESH; as such He lived as a man, except that He did not sin.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
b : a person who brings up and cares for another
this only fits Joseph as His "parent", but NOT His "father"

Your selective double standard is abundantly clear. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

fa·ther (fäthr) n.
1 A man who begets or raises or nurtures a child.

(also as a transitive verb)

v. fa·thered, fa·ther·ing, fa·thers
v. tr.
1 To procreate (offspring) as the male parent.
2 To act or serve as a father to (a child).

v. intr.
To act or serve as a father.


Consider your claim fully refuted. </font>[/QUOTE]Not by a selective and inferior definition, not!

 

[Salamander]

The conception of Jesus as a human baby was miraculous, but there's nothing in Scripture suggesting His gestation and birth were anything more than ordinary.

Oh, and how many "other" virgin conceptions, gestations, and births do you know of?

The Scriptures say otherwise. However, in those days, the terms "stepfather" or "surrogate father" were not in existence. The Greek is "pater"; you simply cannot get away from that unless you say the Greek manuscript is wrong.

First you define "pater" as father, then you re-define "pater" as step-father?

Sal, you're a LOT more intelligent than to keep denying the facts. Joseph acted toward Jesus as any ordinary father/stepfather acts toward his son/stepson. YOU KNOW THAT! That's why I say you're actually using a back door to try to defend Terry Watkins or some other goofy KJVO author's great big false claim.

You bring my intelligence into the converstaion?

You must have left yours out! You equate "father" with step-father, you equate "son" with step-son. You're CONFUSED!!! You also bring in this Terry Watkins into "play" when I have only the idea that he is some one you disagree with, not that I even know who you're actually talking about: a tangent is what that is called. Then you bring the anti- KJB slurr" KJVO" as you call it into the mix

I understand you'll never comprehend the Truth with your modern mindset; it is an impossibilty.