Parents vs father

I saw I was right long before you thought YOU were.

 

So? The overview shows Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly and de-facto father. Just because the term "stepfather" wasn't in use in Luke's time doesn't mean step-parents didn't exist then. In fact, adoption was much-easier then than now.

Reality: who raised Jesus as a human child? Who supplied His earthly needs? Who taught Him the carpenter's trade? Who are PARENTS? Father and mother, that's who.

Once again, Askjo, you're gluing feathers onto a hippo, but it just won't fly. You CANNOT win this discussion.

 

robycop3, I don't see why not... there was no sin involved. I'm sending you a private message, too. Thanks

 

Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (KJV)

Luke wrote parents. That is plural - which includes both father and mother. So, here Luke did clearly call Joseph Jesus's father.

 

This thread reminds me of two different parties both tilting at windmills - one tilting at the windmill of KJVOism and one tilting at the windmill of a supposed mistranslation.

Have we not real giants to fight?

This kind of discussion is well suited to something John Cleveland published in 1644 in his 'The character of a London diurnall'. (diuranll = diary/journal - might we say "discussion board" today?)

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

 

Great quote, C4K!

 

You're wrong as usual, Askjo. But you cannot make a point without resorting to the disproven tripe of misguided individuals such as Ruckman and others. Your argument here just doesn't hold water at all. First you say Luke didn't call Joseph Jesus' father, but merely quoted Mary. Then when it is shown that Luke did call Joseph Jesus' father then you have no valid answer for the truth. Your weak and unfactual arguments just don't stand up at all against the truth except in your own error-filled mind.

Luke's writings, whether translated in the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV or any other version, do not stand against the doctrine of Jesus Christ. But the error that condemns MVs for doing the same thing the KJV does is certainly not in line with guidelines and doctrines set down in God's word.

BTW, Askjo, where is your support from other KJVO folks? Could it be that they see the total futility of your arguments? Could they realize, unlike you, that your arguments are definitely wrong?

 

We are to abstain from all appearance of evil. If people believed Jesus was born outta wedlock, that woud be an appearance of evil. However, we see no one wishing to stone J&M for sinning, as we saw in the story of the woman caught in adultery.

 

We both know this very thingie has been discussed umpteen times before. It has been clearly established through Scripture that Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly stepfather, who provided for His earthly needs & taught Him the carpentry trade. That Scripture shoulda been the end shoulda been the end of that silly argument long ago...but every few months we have some KJVO performing CPR on that dead argument, hoping to revive it, or some newbie reading the tripe of Terry Watkins or others at "Dial-A-Lie Ministries" or a similar site & thinking they've really made some earth-shaking discovery.

And who started this latest tilt? Not the Freedom Readers! However, if we simply ignore the challenge, we are giving less-experienced Baptists the impression that the KJVOs are right. i hope the newer Christians reading this will check the archives if this board alone to see how mant times this has been discusses.

This is the most tedious thing about combating the KJVO myth...they repeat the same ole long-disproven codwallop every 4 months or so, which causes us to hafta repeat the same ole answers and rebuttals over & over. And we know that's how these discussions usually end...the KJVO repeats one of their mantras, we dispute it with the same proofs we used before, and the KJVO "just fades away" for the time being, only to re-surface with the same ole stuff again. This is what we have here. sad but true, we gotta rebut this same ignorant KJVO point yet again.

"Originality" is the least-used word in the KJVO vocabulary.

 

Yes...W/O the KJV there'd be no KJVOism. However, it's not the fault of the KJV translators that some men who came along later made a false doctrine about their work.

 

While I am not robycop3, my own alter-ego is Language Cop.
And, bein' the nice guy I am ("NOT!" - Language Cop) ("LC, who asked you??" - Ed), I'll attempt to answer your two (2) questions you asked.

I would say "No.", but that is just my opinion.

Although I personally would have said. "Dear Mom and Dad...", I guess if that is the way your parents choose or chose to be addressed , and that is the way your family speaks, I should answer "Yes."

Sorry, that's three questions!

Ed

 

It has been rightly (and wrongly) said more than once: Joseph is the father of Jesus! And I, for one said it. Since you apparently managed to miss my post, I'll repeat (with feeling) at least some of the relevant parts for your benefit. (How you managed to miss the very first post responding to your opening spiel, 'er premise, is beyond me, but nonethele...)

Are you with me so far? Or do I need to type slower? Just checking! Now, continuing -

Do you now get it?

Ed

 

While on the cross. Jesus said, to John, referring to Mary, "She is your mother." And to mary, He said, "He(John) is your son." Of course, this wasn't LITERALLY true, but in the terminology and practices of that time, it was a committment for John to look after Mary as if she were his own mother.

All this boils down to the fact that Joseph was Jesus' legal and de-facto earthly father, whether Askjo likes it or not.

 

This is good! I did not (and don't recall ever mentioning any such thing about anyone else, save using the misguided but common designations of Arminian and/or Calvinist in 'group settings' of almost 1700 posts on the BB) mention anything about what kind of "ite" or "ist", or sycophant anyone is or was at any time, for "Who cares?" That is completely and totally irrelevant. I don't care if something is or was said, written, or supported by anyone from A. B. Colvin to Spiros Zodhiates, or anyone in between, the only questions that matter are along the lines of "Is it Biblical?", "Is it edifying to any and/or all?" "Does this exalt the Lord?" or "Does this exalt the questioner?" "Yes!" to the first three are good! "Yes!" to the fourth shows a real problem, IMO!

We have just been over this multiple times. But I will say something once more. Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, both as to do with Jewish law, and Roman law. Joseph is the 'familial' father of Jesus. Joseph is the father of Jesus, as to succession to the throne of David. And Joseph is called the father of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, as the author of Scripture. Period.

No, I disagree. "The virgin birth is dimished" when one attempts to spin Scripture, in the misguided attempt to 'improve on' or 'strengthen' what The Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write, in the first place. I suggest that The Holy Spirit is fully capable, and filling His roles of "Revelation", "Inspiration", and "Illumination". What we probably need, filling our role, is a little more "Perspiration".

Is the question of what Luke (or any other Bible writer, for that matter, from the book(s) of Job, Moses, and Joshua to the books Peter, John, Jude, and The 'Revelation') actually wrote even a legitimate one?
Absolutely! Unequivocably! Yes!! Without question!!
Is questioning what Luke (or any other ... - You know the drill!) wrote (or should have written) on the basis of what it does to some supposed doctrine that one believes to be taught elsewhere? in Scripture, or how it might affect one's theology a legitimate question?
Absolutely! Unequivocably! NOT!! For that is actually a reverse sub-silento argument against verbal inspiration, and a clandestine acceptance, albeit often unwittingly, of Neo-Orthodoxy - i.e. "The Bible 'contains' the Word of God." and/or "The Bible 'becomes' the Word of God as it speaks to me." And that is 'unbelief', and un-Biblical false doctrine, IMO. And I rank some of this "canonized rhetoric" at the exact same level.

Why does this last 'exchange' not surprise me?? Or should I be??

Ed