Joseph fathered Jesus?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Salamander, Oct 26, 2005.

  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a topic that is alluded to in the BV,T forum, as if Joseph is the earthly father of Jesus, and God the Father is only the heavenly father of Jesus.

    Any discussion? Or are you like me, no discussion, for this is perfectly understood: Joseph was alowed to act as the earthly father of Jesus, and the Father above actually is His Father. Can't have it both ways, especially since scripture states otherwise.
     
  2. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Salamander,

    The bible speaks of the angel of God appearing to Joseph and telling him that he should go ahead and take Mary as his wife, even though Mary is pregnant with a child he did not father.

    Tha pretty much settles it for me.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Jeseph fathered Jesus. But the seed came from the Holy Spirit.

    I'm the father of a girl who isn't genetically mine. I'm no less her father. Don't believe me? Just ask her. If anyone ever said she wasn't mine, I'd deck them.
     
  4. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Johnv - lol Excellent point. [​IMG]
    You and your daughter sound like two very lucky people.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, she is my gift from God.

    (John bows low, humbly doffing his cap).
     
  6. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Well, here I am again, ready to give my opinion.... [​IMG]

    Bear with me.... ;)

    I believe that the Virgin Birth found in Luke 1:34-35 is parallel to part of the creation story found in Genesis 1:1-3.

    The following is strictly my opinion.

    In the beginning God had made the universe, but it wasn't "habitable". It was "void" and lifeless.

    The Holy Spirit was "brooding"...in my mind that is similar to pacing back and forth just waiting....waiting for what?

    Waiting for the voice of God to speak.

    God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. What light? The stars and moon and other heavenly bodies didn't "glow" until the 4th day.

    What light?

    In my opinion, the "light" of holiness and supernatural creativity of God overcame the Earth. In other words, the brooding Holy Spirit brooded no more. He made the universe, the earth primarily "habitable". Sure, it was already created by God and was a physical thing hanging there in space. But now, the Holy Spirit, who was brooding and waiting on God's authority, now made the physical Earth habitable for life and made more than just a physical creation. It was now a vehicle for human kind, creatures meant to have communion with a Holy God. The only Holy God.

    God didn't need the planet Earth to have communion with His creation. He could have created us right there in Heaven and kept sin away from our understanding and had perfect communion with us from the get go.

    But that wasn't His way or His plan.

    The same thing happened to Mary.

    When she asked Gabriel how she was going to get pregnant if she hadn't been with a man, he explained the same thing to her.

    The same Holy Spirit that made God's created Earth habitable for life with God's permission and by God's command also made her body "habitable" for a supernatural God.

    Gabriel told her that the Holy Spirit would "overshadow" her or in my mind "fall" upon her and make the limitations of her physical body now limitless in its ability to nuture God's Son tranformed into physical flesh.

    She had been created by God and was a living physical being, but now because of God's authority and command the Holy Spirit made her body more than just a physical creation. It was now a supernatural vehicle for Jesus Christ, Himself.

    Jesus could have appeared on the Earth without being a baby first. He didn't need Mary's body to be born in for Him to bring salvation to mankind. Jesus didn't have to be a baby. He could have bypassed the temptations and childhood.

    But that wasn't His way nor His plan.

    Joseph had absolutely nothing to do with the conception of Jesus Christ. To say that he did is blaphemy, because one is saying that Jesus is not the Holy Son.

    Joseph was Jesus' beloved "step-father". Beloved? How do I know when the Bible doesn't speak of their relationship?

    I know that Joseph treated him with all of the love of a natural biological father because he treated Mary with dignity and love.

    Joseph behaved like a "real" man should with Mary. So therefore, I know that he behaved like a "real" father with Jesus.

    Pardon my ramblings.

    Peace-
    Scarlett O.
    <><
     
  7. Brother Ian

    Brother Ian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph was Jesus' earthly father as JohnV spoke of. That doesn't make him any less of a father. God provided the conception and Joseph raised Jesus.
     
  8. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph parented Jesus, to "father" a child is to provide the means of conception, you know, those little squigly things?

    Johnv, no one would ever say you aren't her "father", because in her eyes you are, but to father her, you would have to had the sexual relationship with her mother, or her mother would have to had been artifically insiminated by your provision of little squigly things.

    The provider of the means of conception is the father of the child, no matter how emotionally attached anyone is to the idea otherwise.

    So "deck" me.
     
  9. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    I'll do it for you, Johnv :D

    I'm really unclear what your point is here. We are argueing over English semantics, which last time I checked, did not have an offical rulebook published by the Holy Spirit.

    Everyone here agrees Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.
     
  10. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see emotionalism is the mandate when true defintion is offered. Then yall will have to deal with the fact Jesus "rebuked" Joseph when he said, "I must be about my Father's business"

    BTW, you hit the brick wall for JOHNV, so how's your hand feel?

    I never said Johnv's adopted daughter was anything less, so g'head, abuse me further.
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, you're argueing, I'm settled: Jesus is the Son of God and only a "son" of Joseph, which does not ever mean Joseph fathered Jesus.
     
  12. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deal with what fact! Jesus was refering to God the Father as his Father which is apsolutly true.

    But I'm still missing your point. Is there someone out there who is insisting that Joseph was the "father" of Jesus and at the same time assuming that this must mean he was the biological father.

    My hand is fine. I hit you with a Pogo Stick.
     
  13. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is getting better and better.

    So in one of the chapters of the divinly inspired grammer of the english language, it says,

    "If someone says in 2005 commen English, 'I am his father', it must mean his squigly things were involved. But if someone says, 'he is my son', then it could be squigly things or adoption. THUS SAYITH THE LORD!"
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You should have a chat with Dr Laura. To be quite frank, the provider of the means of conception is the sperm donor of the child. Joseph was 100% Jesus' earthly father. The fact that he was not the gene donor is immaterial.

    I don't at all belittle that Jesus was the Son of God, but Joseph being Jesus' father should not be belittled.

    My daughter knows full well that I'm not the sperm donor. But ask her who her father is, and she'll point to me, and tell you I'm her father 100%. Why would Joseph not have been considered 100% Joseph's earthly father?
    I, too, must be about my Heavenly Father's business. So should you. While I make no attempt to compare any of us the Jesus, it is a fact that God is in every way our Father. Does that mean our earthly fathers are less than our fathers? Absolutely not. But somewhere along the line, we've gotten this idea that Joseph was a third wheel, the guy wearing the red shirt when beaming down to a planet.
     
  15. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    :confused: ... [​IMG] ... [​IMG] [​IMG] !
     
  16. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deal with what fact! Jesus was refering to God the Father as his Father which is apsolutly true.

    But I'm still missing your point. Is there someone out there who is insisting that Joseph was the "father" of Jesus and at the same time assuming that this must mean he was the biological father.

    My hand is fine. I hit you with a Pogo Stick.
    </font>[/QUOTE]No, that was JOHNV you hit, and yes, there are those in the BV,T forum that have argued just that.
     
  17. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0

    You should have a chat with Dr Laura. To be quite frank, the provider of the means of conception is the sperm donor of the child. Joseph was 100% Jesus' earthly father. The fact that he was not the gene donor is immaterial.

    I don't at all belittle that Jesus was the Son of God, but Joseph being Jesus' father should not be belittled.

    My daughter knows full well that I'm not the sperm donor. But ask her who her father is, and she'll point to me, and tell you I'm her father 100%. Why would Joseph not have been considered 100% Joseph's earthly father?
    I, too, must be about my Heavenly Father's business. So should you. While I make no attempt to compare any of us the Jesus, it is a fact that God is in every way our Father. Does that mean our earthly fathers are less than our fathers? Absolutely not. But somewhere along the line, we've gotten this idea that Joseph was a third wheel, the guy wearing the red shirt when beaming down to a planet.
    </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, the Scripture never says "Joseph, the father of Jesus" except as it was "supposed" Joseph to be His father.

    And you don't understand the spirit of adoption which makes us sons of God, whereby we cry Abba, Father!

    I am about my Father's business, and since my earthly,biological, father's dominion over my existence is done away by my being born again, it is my duty to proclaim th Righteousness of God and the Son of God as my Saviour, of which I am doing.

    You fail to see the negatiove implications one can deduce as a matter when it is said, "Jesus had an earthly father", that places Him in the same conflict with God and makes Him born a sinner too after the similtude of the first Adam.

    This is a doctrinal thingy, not an emotional outburst of affections.
     
  18. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, He was, by those who didn't know God was His REAL Father.

    Casey Jones steps up to the plate, Admiral Kirk gives the sign, Scotty winds up, and heeeeeeeerrrrreee's the pitch!! "Energize" brrrrrrrrrooooooiiiiiiinggggg! "Where did Casey Jones go? Where did the ball go? See Spot run! And why are all these people down there?"
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe the basis for this is that some meat head KJVO such as Terry Watkins, started a stupid claim, "The NIV denies Christ's deity by calling Joseph his father in Luke 2:43".

    Never mind the KJV does the VERY SAME THING in Luke 2:41, 48! !

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

    Both Joseph and Mary had received visions from God, so they knew where Jesus had come from. And Luke's source of info was almost certainly either Mary, who was with the Apostles at the "first pentecost", or Jesus Himself.

    By both Roman and Jewish law, Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly father because he was married to His mother when he was born. And he was His de-facto earthly father, or dad in modern English because he provided a home & provided for Jesus' earthly needs during His childhood. Therefore, it's not at all incorrect to call Joseph His father while He was on the earth as a human.
     
  20. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry JohnV, Salamader was too quick for me!

    I see. Well they are quite wrong.

    JohnV is well aware that Joseph did not contribute squigly thinies in the conception of Jesus and that Jesus is not born with original sin and at enmity with God. I'm sure everyone else reading this thread is aware of this too. If someone on the BV,T thread is indeed argueing this, they shouldn't probably be prevented from posting, since that forum exists in the Baptist Debate section and I don't know of any definition of Baptist that denies the virgin birth.
     

Share This Page

Loading...