Joseph fathered Jesus?

[Salamander]

Originally posted by 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.

By my last estimation, I am member number 12097, so you are pushing a lie, I do count. My interpretation is Doctrinal, yours is bi-lateral at best since it opposes itself.


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?

The Bible teaches quite the contrary. It is evidenced by the very words of God the Son that Jesus is neither the son of Joseph, nor is mary God's mother. Only the influence of the catholic church tells as you also presume

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.

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

Besides, I don't require you accept my interpretation, but the answer the Son of God does, since it is exactly according to the very Words of God. Regardless of your mental acceptance, God is still God and He has made the passage very clear

 

[Ransom]

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.

 

[Salamander]

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.
--------------------------------------------------

I'm not amazed that your arguement pits itselg against the voracity of the Scripture. the information offered by Luke exposes the misconceptions of Joseph, Mary, and ANYONE who reads the passage to come to only ONE conclusion: Jesus is the Son of God, and Joseph and Mary are only "supposed" to have been his father and mother.

You institute a "lie", but there is actually and only a misconception of Who the Father of Jesus is. (especially on the belief system you apparently hold to)

You fail to see the danger your beliefs instill on the minds of the simple.

 

[robycop3]

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.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:


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

You polled them all personally, right? No. And neither have you so stop trying to speak for the majority.

Stop making me laugh, and try arguing with facts, if you have any, instead of made up garbage. I'm not amazed you laugh at Bible Doctrine: the fact still remains, "Wist ye not I must be about my Father's business"

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

You ignorantly replied, "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?" Maybe you should re-evaluate, if you evaluated the statement at all. Bi-lateral reasoning offers two parallel opinions as supposed truths, but since one is nullified by Doctrinal Truth, the other is therefore a mis-interpretation; much as Joseph, Mary, and many others mis-interpreted just Whos IS the Father of Jesus, yourself included.

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." So by your estimation, Jesus was only "fantacising" that His Father being actually God???


"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?" Am I amazed at this??? LOL!!! No wonder you can't rightly divide the Scripture, you've been corrupted willingly by your institution of "higher education" and your pride is at the forefront!!!

(now we have a Canadian teaching us English? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!) I have graduated from an American highschool with an "A" in advanced English in my senoir year, which actually squashes your "BA" at any Canadian institution by a surmountable length at worst. And not just one of my consultants has his masters in English and taught for 12 years in a Christian college. Is your present teaching vocation at a Christian college , and was your education even Christian? No, can't be, your answers prove other wise.


Besides, I don't require you accept my interpretation

"Great, so we're agreed then that it's useless to me." Yes, I'm afraid Bible Doctrine is "useless" to you.

I will now have to ask, are you now employed by what secular humnaistis organization? And, praytell, is it one of those Canadian newspapers who hate Christians and God?? [/QB]

 

[Salamander]

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.

Funny thing, Rob, Jesus denied your "facts". You keep interjecting a versions issue, but the real issue you have is that you don't believe the words of Jesus and hold to a tradition of your own making, which you also condemn a the version you hate as a traditional viewpoint as so-named "KJVO". But if you have any more humorous statements like the above, be my guest LOL

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
... the real issue you have is that you don't believe the words of Jesus ...

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.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
... the real issue you have is that you don't believe the words of Jesus ...

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. </font>[/QUOTE]And many things are in the Scriptuire that Truth overwhelmingly corrects as false assumptions called by the very same Scripture as suppositions; of which you adhere to.

 

[Johnv]

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

 

[natters]

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

Molehill, not mountain.

 

[robycop3]

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.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
You have just confirmed my point. You believe scripture lies. I do not.

No, you're making a false assumption, and denigrating my charatcer by slight of hand, I might add.

The false assumption on the behalf of the persons calling Jesus the "son of Joseph" is corrected in the passage.

I asked you which do you agree, the words of those supposing Jesus to be the son of Joseph? Or the words of God the Son who told them all He was about His Father's business?

I do NOT believe any portion of any scripture "lies", but the false assumptions when taken at the value you give them as authoritive over the very words of God as a "lie", you then make t God a liar because you invented the "lie" as accusative when all the while it was no more than a false assumption.

You are dangerous in what you espouse, friend, dangerous!!!

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by natters:
Does scripture ever use the term "father" in a non-biological sense? Yes.

Molehill, not mountain.

Not, the molehill has grown by leaps and bounds w/o understanding of the passage: to call Joseph the father of Jesus is not found in Scripture, but quite the opposite. As well, Jesus is not both the son of Joseph and the Son of God, not according to the supposition offered: that Jesus is the "son of Joseph", before Jesus straightened out their premise by the reply, "Wist ye not I must be about my Father's business".

As many others, who also held to the supposition that,"Is not this Jesus, the son of the carpenter?", the mole hole thereby collapses.

And for all those who wish to continue holding to the supposition May God richly bless you and grant you all wisdom.

 

[TexasSky]

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.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by robycop3:
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.

Why do you keep introducing a non-issue? You repeatedly try to turn the Doctrinal discussion into a "mv/kjvo" clash. Keep that garbage in the trash can/ BV&T forum, where it belongs!!!

Your obsession has diluted your mind, Rob, that is evidenced as an obsession by your multiplicity of involvement in EVERY discussion in the BV&T trash can.

I offer reason. I am not "arguing", you and others are arguing with the very words of Christ.

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

Let us all see who has the authority in the passage: Jesus? Luke? Joseph? Mary? Scribes? Greek? Jesus.

 

[TexasSky]

Edited per the request of poster, TexasSky

By

Blackbird

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

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
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.

You are right ONLY in the traditional aspect according to Jewry: for the Jews to accept Jesus as King, He must be the descendent of Joseph, but for Him to be accepted in the Levitical realm, Jesus must be the descendent of Mary. BUT!!! To be the "Lamb of God", Jesus has to be the Son of God. You choose: Is Jesus after the order of Melchisedec? Or is He after the order of Aaron? (Now that yall insist on getting deeper into the discussion, except for Rob, of course.)

 

[TexasSky]

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
No, you're making a false assumption, and denigrating my charatcer by slight of hand, I might add.

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").

The false assumption on the behalf of the persons calling Jesus the "son of Joseph" is corrected in the passage.

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.

I asked you which do you agree, the words of those supposing Jesus to be the son of Joseph? Or the words of God the Son who told them all He was about His Father's business?

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.

I do NOT believe any portion of any scripture "lies"...

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

You are dangerous in what you espouse, friend, dangerous!!!

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

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
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.

According the the theme of the passage in Luke 2-3, Jesus answered their supposition. But according to traditional thinking, ( Joseph as the father of Jesus), God is left out of the equation. Since the first Adam had no father but God in the traditional sense, why is it impossible for God to have "fathered" Jesus all the while Joseph only played the role? I make that statement in answer to the traditional thinker, else Jesus was not only tempted in all points as we, but took on some of the same attributes of Joseph. Now that would take on the possibility that Jesus may have "sinnned" as His "father Joseph", especially since every son has the eventual character trait of his earthly father, at least to a degree. IOW, Jesus was temtpted, yet w/o sin. He could not sin. God does not sin.