Joseph fathered Jesus?

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Salamander said:

Actually no. "son of Joseph" only has the Jewsih conotation that Jesus was subject to Joseph,( as a son: one who studied under another such as learned in the carpentry business as his "father in the trade"), but never does Scripture actually say "Joseph was the father of Jesus", except where the tense of the Greek clearly says in English (as was supposed).
And on that note, Salamander hoists his own argument on its own petard.

If there is some sense in which Jesus was the son of Joseph, then in that same sense Joseph was the father of Jesus. To say otherwise is to twist the very definitions of the words beyond all recognition.

Not that Salamander will agree, of course. He will just continue to fancy-dance around the obvious. Such is the life of someone who is so enslaved to the tradition of men that he has to adopt a quasi-Romanist doctrine of the virginity of Mary in order to "defend" the particular wording of a mere English translation of the Bible.

How can I agree? The examples given by JohnV and Rob have eluded to Joseph being the earthly father of Jesus, when the gist is understood to be in a "master teaching apprentice" situation, that is DIFFERENT altogether.

Now, if you would re-evaluate what I placed into the parenthetical phrase, then deduce the same ideal you placed above, then your ability to comprehend has some rather large holes in it.

Jesus told it to whom ye call His earthly father: "I must be about my Father's business". That quote from the mouth of God the Son over-rides anything else any man has to say about the matter, except to comply with Jesus, Who knows exactly who His Father always is, and always has been.

I'm amazed at you.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
Jesus established the Truth; Joseph was never His father

Your claim requires us to adhere to a belief that scripture lies when it referrs to both Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents, since Jesus' words, by your stance, refutes scripture.

And you accuse others of selective definition. That's completely laughable. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh no, a man cannot have two fathers, except those in Adam.

Your failure to UNDERSTAND that Jesus has only One Father and is not "in Adam" amazes me still.

 

[Salamander]

It may be that refusing to eat your crow fully cooked has affected you in an objectionable fashion to warrant your remarks as excusable, but if you will onyl add a proper amount of salt to the meal, it will not only make the meat tastier, but purify it to some extent. (that is if your pride doesn't get in the weay and you choke )

 

[rsr]

 

[Salamander]

since Jesus' words, by your stance, refutes scripture.

Everytime anyone spoke contrary to the truth, yes. That is why I gave the example of the accusers that Christ was a "winebibber, a gluttonous man" as a proof text that everything stated in the Word is only Truth in full context, not each selective phrase as yall keep adhering to.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by rsr:

You equestrial abuser!!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> since Jesus' words, by your stance, refutes scripture.

Everytime anyone spoke contrary to the truth, yes. That is why I gave the example of the accusers that Christ was a "winebibber, a gluttonous man" as a proof text that everything stated in the Word is only Truth in full context, not each selective phrase as yall keep adhering to. </font>[/QUOTE]You are making no sense whatsoever. The scriptural narrative of the KJV clearly referrs to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents. You're insisting that the scriptural narrative is wrong.

 

[rsr]

I ain't the one wielding the stick ...

 

[Ransom]

Salamander said:

when the gist is understood to be in a "master teaching apprentice" situation

Who says?

Now, if you would re-evaluate what I placed into the parenthetical phrase

I have evaluated it. You have started with your presuppositional commitment to KJV-onlyism, and then chosen your definition of the word "son" merely because it can be shoehorned into your presuppositions.

Since I am not enslaved to the KJV-only tradition, I have no need to "re-evaluate" the obvious relationship that was between Jesus and his stepfather Joseph.

I'm amazed at you.

You amaze easily.

 

[Johnv]

Ransom, the KJV issue is a nonissue, since the KJV clearly referrs to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' parents. That blows a wide gaping hole in the KJVOist theory of non-KJV's "parentizing" Joseph.

 

[Ransom]

The same people who claim that Joseph could not have been Jesus' father in any sense will also argue that a "father" is something different than a male parent.

KJV-onlyism is not a non-issue, because it is KJV-onlyists who raise this issue. I have yet to encounter any non-KJV-onlyist who took issue with a Bible translation that identified Joseph as Joseph's "father" in some sense.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> since Jesus' words, by your stance, refutes scripture.

Everytime anyone spoke contrary to the truth, yes. That is why I gave the example of the accusers that Christ was a "winebibber, a gluttonous man" as a proof text that everything stated in the Word is only Truth in full context, not each selective phrase as yall keep adhering to. </font>[/QUOTE]You are making no sense whatsoever. The scriptural narrative of the KJV clearly referrs to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents. You're insisting that the scriptural narrative is wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]No, the answer Christ gave to the Scriptural narrative does.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by rsr:
I ain't the one wielding the stick ...

At least you admitted you're dead.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Salamander said:

when the gist is understood to be in a "master teaching apprentice" situation

Who says?

Now, if you would re-evaluate what I placed into the parenthetical phrase

I have evaluated it. You have started with your presuppositional commitment to KJV-onlyism, and then chosen your definition of the word "son" merely because it can be shoehorned into your presuppositions.

Since I am not enslaved to the KJV-only tradition, I have no need to "re-evaluate" the obvious relationship that was between Jesus and his stepfather Joseph.

I'm amazed at you.

You amaze easily.

Not really, i have read many of your posts. It seems to readily amaze the onlooker that you are so decidedly ignorant of the passage in it's Doctrinal accuracy.

Besides, there is no actual relationship between a step-father and a step-son, except on paper actually.

Jesus is not said to be the step-son of Joseph; but actually, Jesus corrects the assumption of all in attendence to the Scripture, except for some here on BB.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Ransom, the KJV issue is a nonissue, since the KJV clearly referrs to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' parents. That blows a wide gaping hole in the KJVOist theory of non-KJV's "parentizing" Joseph.

OK, if that is right, then keep that "issue" in the correct forum.

This is a Bible study theorum, which the Doctrinal Truth outways any theology or speculative ideal.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:
The same people who claim that Joseph could not have been Jesus' father in any sense will also argue that a "father" is something different than a male parent.

KJV-onlyism is not a non-issue, because it is KJV-onlyists who raise this issue. I have yet to encounter any non-KJV-onlyist who took issue with a Bible translation that identified Joseph as Joseph's "father" in some sense.

I see coherency has no place among your relative "non"-issues. Either KJVOism is a non-issue, or it is an issue, not-"not a non-issue".

If any "non-KJV-onliest" ascribes that this isn't a doctrinal issue, then that is proof text the either decided ignorance of thus said, or it is proof text that the MV's are therefore WRONG!! (since your trying to turn this into a KJVO issue.) So be real careful what ye condemn.

Jesus straightened out many accusations stated in Scripture, including the ideal that Joseph and Mary are His actual father and mother.

"Wist ye not, that I must be about my Father's business?"

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
You are making no sense whatsoever. The scriptural narrative of the KJV clearly referrs to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents. You're insisting that the scriptural narrative is wrong.

No, the answer Christ gave to the Scriptural narrative does.

</font>[/QUOTE]Prcisely. Your view requires us to believe scripture lies, on in the very least, is in error. My view has scripture being consistent, and truthful throughout.

 

[Ransom]

Salamander said:

It seems to readily amaze the onlooker that you are so decidedly ignorant of the passage in it's Doctrinal accuracy.

By my count, the only "onlooker" who has been "amazed" by my "ignorance" is you, and since it is your interpretation of the passage that is the very issue, you don't count.

Jesus is not said to be the step-son of Joseph;

Yes, he is. Mary was Jesus' mother, and Joseph was married to her. That is a stepfather, by definition. Do you deny that the Bible teaches this?

but actually, Jesus corrects the assumption of all in attendence to the Scripture, except for some here on BB.

I see no reason to accept your interpretation as the only correct one.

Your subsequent two posts to me were incomprehensible gibberish. Learn to write in English, and maybe I will answer them.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
You are making no sense whatsoever. The scriptural narrative of the KJV clearly referrs to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents. You're insisting that the scriptural narrative is wrong.

No, the answer Christ gave to the Scriptural narrative does.

</font>[/QUOTE]Prcisely. Your view requires us to believe scripture lies, on in the very least, is in error. My view has scripture being consistent, and truthful throughout. </font>[/QUOTE]Not. My view is the Bible view: Jesus told those He had been subject to that He was not their child, but the Son of God.

You introduced the accusative of any expose' of a "lie".

You also accuse anyone who reads the passage of being illiterate in their ability to comprehend even the simplest of Truths.

The consistency of the Bible is perfect: any misinterpretation by any character throughout Scripture has been answered by Truth. At best, the accounts given are presumption that Joseph is the earthly father of Jesus, but Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our salvation, according to Truht, corrected all who read the passage intent, except for you and Ransom and RSR and Rob.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
My view is the Bible view: Jesus told those He had been subject to that He was not their child, but the Son of God.

So Mary wasn't his mother either? Boy, what twisted logic you use.

You also accuse anyone who reads the passage of being illiterate in their ability to comprehend even the simplest of Truths.

I accuse you of being selectively illiterate. The KJV CLEARLY AND PLAINLY referrs to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' parents. And this is the biblical narrative that does so, not some quote accusing them of something.

The consistency of the Bible is perfect: any misinterpretation by any character throughout Scripture has been answered by Truth.

You're correct. Scripture is consistent. Joseph and Mary were Jesus' earthy parents.

Jesus ... corrected all who read the passage intent, except for you and Ransom and RSR and Rob.

So, you will have us believe that Jesus referrs to the scriptural narrative as a lie, or in the very least, an error. Again, your warped view of scripture falls on its face.