Joseph fathered Jesus?

[TexasSky]

Salamander,

"Acting like a father" is "being a father".

Again, you need to define what you call a father.

 

[Salamander]

You said

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.

Then you said

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

I believe the narrative as given by Luke that the supposition was corrected, nothing else. You introduced your "lie" theory as a "SLEIGHT OF HAND" in the effort to disqualify and discredit my post concerning the matter. Just as you corrected my missing the "e" in the same effort.

Don't TELL me what I believe, then denigrate my character in the same sentence. I don't believe what you insist upon. I told you what Jesus said, and according to the theme of the passage, Jesus is correct, you are WRONG!!

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Salamander,

"Acting like a father" is "being a father".

Again, you need to define what you call a father.

Already did, scripturally, I might add. No matter how I define "father", Jesus defined "Father" for us all.

Beg to differ?

 

[TexasSky]

According to whose traditional thinking?

Jesus WAS tempted in all points as we are. That, my friend, is part of the salvation story itself.

There is an athiest that I have wittnessed to who makes the claim, "The death and resurrection of Christ is not a big deal. After all, he was God,he wasn't tempted to do wrong and he knew he'd live again. He probably didn't even suffer."

Needless to say the athiest is wrong on every point except that He was indeed God.

Christ came to earth and lived 30 years as a human being who did NOT surrender to temptation, but He did FACE temptation. That is why He is the perfect sacrifice. Not because he was never tempted to sin, but because He never gave into sin.

There is also the simple scriptural evidence that contradicts your theory.

The men and women of Christ's hometown, in fact, his own half-brothers, did not believe He was the messiah in the early days of His ministry. Had God been the provider, the protector, the obvious supplier of His needs as God was in Eden, the people around Christ when He was a child would have realized that Joseph was NOT the one doing these things and would have known, early on, that Christ was divenly protected.

Instead, it is VERY clear that the people went, "Wait a minute? Isn't that the carpentar's kid?"

 

[Ransom]

Salamander said:

[quoting me]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 [sic] IS the Father of Jesus, yourself included [sic].

What is this chicken vomit? Is it even English?

Do you deny that the Bible teaches that Joseph was married to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and was therefore, by definition, the stepfather of Jesus? Yes or no? Stop banging out gobbledygook and answer this simple question.

I have graduated from an American highschool with an "A" in advanced English in my senoir [sic] year, which actually squashes your "BA" at any Canadian institution by a surmountable length at worst.

ROFL! Dream on.

 

[Ransom]

Johnv said:

TW, it's "sleight of hand", not "slight of hand" ("sleight" means "dexterity").

Don't argue with Salamander! He got an A in high school English, doncha know.

 

[TexasSky]

I wonder how many Americans know that a significant number of tenured professors in the universities of the United States are citizens of Canada.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Don't TELL me what I believe, then denigrate my character in the same sentence.

I didn't tell you what you believe. Your own words are self-evident. You believe Luke's narrative is wrong. I don't.

I don't believe what you insist upon.

You keep saying that, but then you go on to again say that Luke's narrative is wrong, clearly making you the sleight of hand artist here.

I told you what Jesus said, and according to the theme of the passage, Jesus is correct, you are WRONG!!

No, you tols me what you believe Jesus meant. But if your belief is correct, then scripture contradicts itself. If, otoh, one lets scripture interpret scripture, then your belief is incorrect.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
According to whose traditional thinking?

Jesus WAS tempted in all points as we are. That, my friend, is part of the salvation story itself.

There is an athiest that I have wittnessed to who makes the claim, "The death and resurrection of Christ is not a big deal. After all, he was God,he wasn't tempted to do wrong and he knew he'd live again. He probably didn't even suffer."

Needless to say the athiest is wrong on every point except that He was indeed God.

Christ came to earth and lived 30 years as a human being who did NOT surrender to temptation, but He did FACE temptation. That is why He is the perfect sacrifice. Not because he was never tempted to sin, but because He never gave into sin.

There is also the simple scriptural evidence that contradicts your theory.

The men and women of Christ's hometown, in fact, his own half-brothers, did not believe He was the messiah in the early days of His ministry. Had God been the provider, the protector, the obvious supplier of His needs as God was in Eden, the people around Christ when He was a child would have realized that Joseph was NOT the one doing these things and would have known, early on, that Christ was divenly protected.

Instead, it is VERY clear that the people went, "Wait a minute? Isn't that the carpentar's kid?"

So now you say Jesus/God the Son was capable of sin????????????? NOT!! Tempted yes, capable NO!

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:


What is this chicken vomit? Is it even English? You know chicken vomit better than I, and English as well as a disoriented Frenchman.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you deny that the Bible teaches that Joseph was married to Mary,

No.

the mother of Jesus,

Another discussion

and was therefore, by definition, the stepfather of Jesus?

step-father and father are not the same.

Yes or no? Stop banging out gobbledygook and answer this simple question.

Last I read it was "chicken vomit" and that you were the connoissuer.

I have graduated from an American highschool with an "A" in advanced English in my senoir [sic] year, which actually squashes your "BA" at any Canadian institution by a surmountable length at worst.

ROFL! Dream on. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, but you're the one at the disadvantage since you cannot comprehend English, just edit at it.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ransom:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What is this chicken vomit? Is it even English?

You know chicken vomit better than I, and English as well as a disoriented Frenchman.

Do you deny that the Bible teaches that Joseph was married to Mary,

No.

the mother of Jesus,

Another discussion

and was therefore, by definition, the stepfather of Jesus?

step-father and father are not the same.

Yes or no? Stop banging out gobbledygook and answer this simple question.

Last I read it was "chicken vomit" and that you were the connoissuer.

I have graduated from an American highschool with an "A" in advanced English in my senoir [sic] year, which actually squashes your "BA" at any Canadian institution by a surmountable length at worst.

ROFL! Dream on. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, but you're the one at the disadvantage since you cannot comprehend English, just edit at it. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Johnv said:

TW, it's "sleight of hand", not "slight of hand" ("sleight" means "dexterity").

Don't argue with Salamander! He got an A in high school English, doncha know.

The editor must needs edit his espoused error in slang to be considered a credible editor: it's "don'tcha"

 

[Salamander]

JoHnV dribbles some more:

No, you tols me what you believe Jesus meant. But if your belief is correct, then scripture contradicts itself. If, otoh, one lets scripture interpret scripture, then your belief is incorrect.

To believe what you believe, friend, one must believe every statement made in the Bible as a statement of undeniable truth: inclusive of every statement of the serpent.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
JoHnV dribbles some more:

I'm not good as basketball.

To believe what you believe, friend, one must believe every statement made in the Bible as a statement of undeniable truth: inclusive of every statement of the serpent.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Actually, it's apples and skyscrapers. The serpent's words were quoted. No, I don't believe that a quote from someone in scripture is to be taken as truth. But we're not talking about something in quotes. We're talking about the narrative. The narrative of scripture is truth. I fail to see why you lack the ability to discern between a quotation and narrative.

Your belief requires one to not view scripture as 100% true. Mine does not.

 

[Ransom]

Salamander said:

the mother of Jesus,

Another discussion

Poor Li'l Orphan Jesus. He didn't have a father to raise him, and whether Mary was his mother is "another discussion."

 

[rsr]

Folks, I can find nothing edifying in the past few pages and think the discussion, if it can be called such, has run its course.

Therefore, the thread is closed. Stick a fork in it; it's done.

Move along, now; there's nothing to see here.