Joseph fathered Jesus?

Salamander said:

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.

By my last estimation, I am member number 12097, so you are pushing a lie, I do count.

12,095 members of the BB (not counting you or me) are "amazed" at my "ignorance"?

You polled them all personally, right?

Stop making me laugh, and try arguing with facts, if you have any, instead of made up garbage.

My interpretation is Doctrinal, yours is bi-lateral at best since it opposes itself.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you?

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?

The Bible teaches quite the contrary.

What are you talking about?

The Bible teaches that Mary was Jesus mother, right? Yes, it does.

The Bible teaches that Joseph was married to her, right? Yes, it does.

A "stepfather" is, by definition, the husband of one's mother, right? Yes, it is.

What does the Bible say that is "contrary" to this?

Try arguing from the viewpoint of reality for a change, instead of fantasy.

Ah! A man of non-education now insists my literate posts are somehow not understandable?

I have a BA in English from the finest university in Canada. I make my living as a writer and editor. What are your qualifications, newt?


Besides, I don't require you accept my interpretation

Great, so we're agreed then that it's useless to me.

 

I had just concluded a discussion of this very thing in the "versions" forum, and here it is again!

No matter which Bible version(s) one uses, there are several undeniable FACTS in Scripture. They are:

Joseph was married to Jesus' mother before he was born,(Matt.1:18-25) thus becoming His legal earthly father by both Jewish and Roman law and tradition.

Luke, an Apostle, calls Joseph and Mary His PARENTS several times in the KJV(Luke 2:27, 41, 48) and Joseph His father(Luke 2:48)

He was reckoned(supposed) by His neighbors to be Joseph's son. (Luke 3:23) Now, why would His earthly neighbors thus reckon Him had not Joseph acted as His father in every earthly way?

We must remember Luke wrote many years after Jesus' resurrection, and he'd had plenty of time to have learned the facts, especially from having walked with Jesus Himself, and from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He wasn't being loose when he called J&M His PARENTS, and I'm 100% convinced he was correct in quoting Mary as calling Joseph His FATHER. Jesus was NOT correcting Mary when He said He must be about His Father's business("Father lower case in Mary's words, capped in Jesus' words). Jesus was reminding her who His ULTIMATE father is, of His purpose for being there.

I reckon Joseph to have been His earthly stepfather in every sense...legal, traditional, and didactic...by the plain, undeniable teachings of Scripture. This was never argued before some KJVO brought it up in an attempt to discredit the NIV. However, we don't hafta go beyond the KJV to sink that ship of error quickly.

Deny it all ya like, Sal, but this whole argument was begun several years ago by some bright KJVO, prolly Terry Watkins, in a desperate moment with his brain in Granny Gear.

 

That's amusing coming from someone who denies the very words of scripture that clearly and concisely refer to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' parents.

 

You have just confirmed my point. You believe scripture lies. I do not.

 

Does scripture ever use the term "father" in a non-biological sense? Yes.

Molehill, not mountain.

 

Sal, it's plain to see you're defending someone who believes the same myth YOU do, even at the expense of denying the truth of the words of the very Bible version you say you hold in highest esteem. Your argument is useless, unless you can prove Luke didn't mean "parents" when he wrote "goneus" & that he didn't mean "father" when he wrote "pater". I believe the true Scriptures over man's guesswork every day, while YOU seem to value a man-made myth about one Bible version over that very version. Your argument makes no sense against what's written in that version and all other valid versions.

 

Okay.

First, definitions of "fathered" do not require the conception. Definition one in fact is "A man who begets or raises or nurtures a child."

Joseph fits that description in that he raised and nurtured Christ.

Joseph took the responsibility for Christ. He hid him from Herod. He taught him a trade. He behaved like a parent in regards to the child.

Was God evident in all of it? Definately. Did Christ make distinctions between the two father figures? Yes. He references God the Father as "my heavenly father."

The fact that Joseph is an earthly father is important. Both Mary and Joseph are descendants of the House of David. We, as Christians, know that God is the Father of Christ, but it was important to Jews of that day to know that Christ was a descendant of David. Chrisitians understand that Mary is the key in that, Jews needed to see that Joseph was.

 

Edited per the request of poster, TexasSky

By

Blackbird

[ November 29, 2005, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Salamander,

I believe I stated that Mary being a descendant of David was important. I also never said that Christ was not the Son of God.

I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose or not, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that the word "fathered" carries many meanings, and that the answer to your question rests on how you actually define the word.

If you are asking, "Who conceived the Christ child." The answer, hands down, is God.
If you are asking, "Who handled the routine day to day duties of being a father to Christ." The answer is Joseph.
If you are asking, "Who nurtured and looked after Christ like a father." The answer is both Joseph and God.

 

Any denigration of character is self-imposed by your own words. No sleight of hand is even necessary, let alone committed. BTW, it's "sleight of hand", not "slight of hand" ("sleight" means "dexterity").

I wasn't even referring to any reference of someone referring to Jesus as "son of Joseph". I was referring to Luke himself in Luke 2 referring to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents in the KJV.

If I adhere to your "either or" scenario, then the result is a belief that scripture lies, and Luke was wrong. Such a belief is heretical and blasphemous. If, however, you look at the passage of Luke 2 as a whole, and understand that Jesus was referring to the work that his Heavenly Father had sent him to earth to do, then both the word of the juvenile Jesus as well as Luke's narrative are consistent and noncontradictory, and the infallibility and truthfulness of scripture remains intact.

Since you believe Luke's narrative is wrong, then you believe scripture is capable of lying.

Comprehending scriptural consistency is by no means dangerous. In fact, letting scripture interpret scripture is often beneficial.