Jesus literal son of God, or son of Joseph?

[Rainbow Mage]

John 1:45 Then Phillip findeth Nathaniel and sayeth to him: we have found the one spoken of in the law and prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth.

The Gospel of John lacks a birth narrative, and so does the Gospel of Mark. The birth narratives and geneologies of Matthew and Luke differ. Is this really to be taken literal? I think Jesus was Joseph's son.

 

[arthra]

"Son of God" in the Baha'i view was an important title of Jesus and also coveyed His spiritual relationship with God like a son to a father.. just as Abraham was "friend of God".. It doesn't mean in our view that Jesus was literally, genetically the Son of God.

 

[fallingblood]

Looking at the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, they are clear that he is supposed to be the literal son of God. That is why the writers claim that the virgin birth fulfilled prophecy.

So it was meant to be taken literally. Logically, Jesus is the son of Joseph.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

When Jesus walked the earth the religious leaders of the time were always looking for anything they could to discredit him. Since the prophesy was understood that the Messiah was to come out of the "House of David", this was probably the first place these religious leaders would look.
Hence, as we read genealogies of Jesus in both Luke and Matthew, we see that they show a different ancestry. But they both lead back to David. If one were to look carefully, one should notice that the account in Matthew Chap. 1 shows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke Chap. 3 shows us the lineage of Mary, so both Mary and Joseph came out of the lineage of David.
But WAIT! you'll say, the lineage described in Luke leads down to Joseph also.
That is because the Joseph in Luke was Mary's father, and as we read through both lineages, not a single female is noted because of the patriarchal society and culture of the times.
Jesus was God's son, but raised by Joseph as a descendant of David. Having two parents from the house of David satisfied the prophesy and those who were always looking to discredit Jesus.

 

[Sententia]

"Son of God" in the Baha'i view was an important title of Jesus

I never understood why people accept this. Son of God, who died on a cross for your sins you inherited through no actions of your own.

How are people in the present treated who claim to be the son of god?

How are people in the present regarded who claim to personally know the son of god?

What god? Where? Thor or Osiris? Isis or Zeus? Mystra, Cyric, Set or Allah?

Son of god... Why? Cause the bible says it is so? Is this guy the son of god?

[youtube]vwyFvIsoAnw[/youtube]
YouTube - Religulous ( The sceond coming of Jesus ) clip

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John 1:45 Then Phillip findeth Nathaniel and sayeth to him: we have found the one spoken of in the law and prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth.
The Gospel of John lacks a birth narrative, and so does the Gospel of Mark. The birth narratives and geneologies of Matthew and Luke differ. Is this really to be taken literal? I think Jesus was Joseph's son.

MurphTheSurf makes a good explanation of both Jesus maternal line and paternal line giving Jesus both the natural and legal right to David's throne.

Why did you stop at John 1 v45 when at John 1 v49 Nathanael continues and answers that Jesus is the Son of God....?

 

[fallingblood]

When Jesus walked the earth the religious leaders of the time were always looking for anything they could to discredit him. Since the prophesy was understood that the Messiah was to come out of the "House of David", this was probably the first place these religious leaders would look.
Hence, as we read genealogies of Jesus in both Luke and Matthew, we see that they show a different ancestry. But they both lead back to David. If one were to look carefully, one should notice that the account in Matthew Chap. 1 shows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke Chap. 3 shows us the lineage of Mary, so both Mary and Joseph came out of the lineage of David.
But WAIT! you'll say, the lineage described in Luke leads down to Joseph also.
That is because the Joseph in Luke was Mary's father, and as we read through both lineages, not a single female is noted because of the patriarchal society and culture of the times.
Jesus was God's son, but raised by Joseph as a descendant of David. Having two parents from the house of David satisfied the prophesy and those who were always looking to discredit Jesus.

There is no evidence of that though. It is accepted that both are of Joseph, the husband of Mary. The Gospels make this clear. Also, they never suggest anything else. That is the reason why most, if not all scholars accept that both genealogies are of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

 

[arthra]

BalanceFx,

Thanks for quoting part of my post!

You quoted:

"Son of God" in the Baha'i view was an important title of Jesus

If you quote me why not include the entire sentence?

"Son of God" in the Baha'i view was an important title of Jesus and also coveyed His spiritual relationship with God like a son to a father.. just as Abraham was "friend of God".. It doesn't mean in our view that Jesus was literally, genetically the Son of God.

I suppose a partial quote though is better than none?

 

[ChristineES]

Some Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus was the son of Joseph and the Son of God.

 

[dogsgod]

I never understood why people accept this. Son of God, who died on a cross for your sins you inherited through no actions of your own.

How are people in the present treated who claim to be the son of god?

How are people in the present regarded who claim to personally know the son of god?

What god? Where? Thor or Osiris? Isis or Zeus? Mystra, Cyric, Set or Allah?

Son of god... Why? Cause the bible says it is so? Is this guy the son of god?

I think his claim to being Christ is as legitimate as any. [SIZE=-2] not that that is saying anything[/SIZE]

 

[Breathe]

Son of Joseph; Son of God is a term meaning 'holy man', 'righteous man', 'prophet', etc in my opinion.

 

[Thief]

I suppose hearing a Voice declare....
'This is MY son...in whom I am well pleased.'

The story varies from one gospel to another...one rewrite to another.

But the account is offered as though it is God....making that declaration.
(baptism of Jesus)

 

[logician]

John 1:45 Then Phillip findeth Nathaniel and sayeth to him: we have found the one spoken of in the law and prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth.

The Gospel of John lacks a birth narrative, and so does the Gospel of Mark. The birth narratives and geneologies of Matthew and Luke differ. Is this really to be taken literal? I think Jesus was Joseph's son.

Is any god myth meant to be taken literally?:sleep:

 

[MurphtheSurf]

There is no evidence of that though. It is accepted that both are of Joseph, the husband of Mary. The Gospels make this clear. Also, they never suggest anything else. That is the reason why most, if not all scholars accept that both genealogies are of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

The thing is that these "scholars" are atheists just like yourself. How many times have you seen these "religious epics" on the History Channel and have seen these "Bible scholars" always trying to explain away how things actually happened in biblical times to discredit God? In my opinion any Bible scholar that disbelieves everything in it is missing out.
You mentioned "evidence". Okay, how much evidence of your existence will still be around in 2000 years?

 

[logician]

The thing is that these "scholars" are atheists just like yourself. How many times have you seen these "religious epics" on the History Channel and have seen these "Bible scholars" always trying to explain away how things actually happened in biblical times to discredit God? In my opinion any Bible scholar that disbelieves everything in it is missing out.
You mentioned "evidence". Okay, how much evidence of your existence will still be around in 2000 years?

Absence of evidence is not apriori proof of existence, it's just absence of evidence.:sleep:

 

[Zadok]

The question about Jesus is if on the 3rd day (according to ancient methods of counting) he rose from the dead to immortality?

If there is any hope of justice, if there is any idea that we will someday make an accounting of why we lived, if there is any reason to hope to exist again knowing the individuals we shared our life experience with then there is reason to hope that life does have purpose greater than our short morality as we know it and that there is possibility that an immortal being as physical as we are, loves us and has at great personal cost opened a means by which we may follow beyond the death we cannot see.

In order for Jesus to have accomplished such a thing his father could not have been Joseph. Jesus had to be able to make himself g-d. I offer my sincere hope that there is merit to each individual willing to consider this possibility that they will live again and all things for which we all exist has purpose and meaning beyond the years of mortality and that even children taken from life will have just meaning and reasonable purpose.

And to the skeptic – if you have reason to hope for something else – I would be willing to consider the purpose, justice and hope of your reason.

Zadok

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What do those of you who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus make of other virgin births like that of Guatama Buddha or Krishna?

 

[Zadok]

What do those of you who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus make of other virgin births like that of Guatama Buddha or Krishna?

Anciently what has been translated into English as “virgin” meant something different than what we think in modern times. Concerning Alexander the Great, Gautama Buddha, Krishna and others with rare exception did not physically rise and “live” as an immortal physical being. As near as I can determine there is but one “living” G-d with which we can have hope to likewise live again.

Zadok

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Zadok nice way of dodging my question. Clearly some Buddhists did believe virgin meant just that, virgin. There were and still are people in Pure Land Buddhism who believe Guatama Buddha was God. Some of them still accept the virgin birth of Buddha for the same reason Christians accept Jesus.

 

[Thief]

No one seems to be using the word....'literally'...as 'literally'.....

The topic thread begins as a play on 'words'.

If you believe in God...doesn't God have something to say, as to who His son might be?

Then, you might consider the Lord's Prayer.
When you recite this item...with heart felt earnest....
are you not declaring yourself....a son of God?

Heaven would hear such things as you say them.....so too the devil.

Or perhaps you don't have any say in such matters?