Was Joseph the Father of Jesus? Prophecy implies this. Why does Christianity say no?

[James Humphreys]

I think that rather than pointing to Joseph as the father of Jesus, the gospel stories are giving hints that Zacharias was his father.

 

[horizon_mj1]

since when???

Good point, although some tales are relevant to History (for instance there was a "Great Flood" at some point in the same Region of proclaimed Noah's Ark. I think one point that is being discounted as well is the evolution and tribal DNA mingling that has been happening for millions of Years. All of the "Tribes" mentioned in Ancient Texts are now mixed or no longer exist. The only lingering effect of such things are beliefs of some or tangible fact (rarely, but at times one in the same).

 

[johnhanks]

It is you that is speculating. Both Matthew and Luke's accounts are correct. The gospels were written just decades after the events occurred by careful historians. Luke 2:1,2 records: "Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Au·gus′tus for all the inhabited earth to be registered; (this first registration took place when Qui·rin′i·us was governor of Syria." You are basing your claim that Herod's death preceded Quirinius appointment on unproven speculation.
According to the Bible Encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures,Vol 2, p.722:
"For a long time this was the only governorship of Syria by Quirinius for which secular history supplied confirmation. However, in the year 1764 an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus was found in Rome, which, though not giving the name, contains information that most scholars acknowledge could apply only to Quirinius.

Most scholars? I could find hardly any. The Lapis Tiburtinus is a fragment celebrating an unknown individual, and speculation that it refers to Quirinius is just that - speculation leavened by special pleading.

Despite your wishful thinking, the scholarly consensus on Herod's death-date remains 4 BCE. Your own chosen source Josephus links it to a known eclipse of the moon in March of that year.

 

[rusra02]

Most scholars? I could find hardly any. The Lapis Tiburtinus is a fragment celebrating an unknown individual, and speculation that it refers to Quirinius is just that - speculation leavened by special pleading.

Despite your wishful thinking, the scholarly consensus on Herod's death-date remains 4 BCE. Your own chosen source Josephus links it to a known eclipse of the moon in March of that year.

This quote from it-1 p. 1094 is pertinent:According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was an eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.

On the other hand, there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E., about three months before Passover, while the one in 4 B.C.E. was only partial. The total eclipse in 1 B.C.E. was on January 8 (January 10, Julian), 18 days before Shebat 2, the traditional day of Herod’s death. Another eclipse (partial) occurred on December 27 of 1 B.C.E. (December 29, Julian).​

 

[rusra02]

I think that rather than pointing to Joseph as the father of Jesus, the gospel stories are giving hints that Zacharias was his father.

The Bible SAYS that Joseph was Jesus adoptive father. It hints at nothing concerning Zacharias.

 

[Skwim]

You realize that Jesus not having blood from King David's bloodline through a father invalidates him being the messiah, right? Someone, somewhere, is lying.

Exactly! However, this is one of those points of difficulty that best be declared irrelevant and swept under the rug.

And Mary's family were also related by blood to the house of king David....so Jesus is heir to the throne through his mothers blood.

Not that this is at all meaningful---the bloodline could only be passed down through males---but where do you find evidence of such a genealogy?

The Bible SAYS that Joseph was Jesus adoptive father. It hints at nothing concerning Zacharias.

Which version of the Bible, and where in it is this "SAID"? It's certainly implied, of course, but I find no instance in which a Bible SAYS "Joseph was Jesus adoptive father." Or are you just using poetic license here?

 

[Me Myself]

There you go again, with your "credible historians" that seems to know all.

Tricky bunch aren´t they? Were it not for your comillias, they would have fooled me too!

I would totally frubal you if only this was not sarcasm!

 

[Pegg]

Not that this is at all meaningful---the bloodline could only be passed down through males---but where do you find evidence of such a genealogy?

only according to jewish tradition....traditional ideas created by men, not God.

Jesus told them "you make the word of God invalid because of your traditions"
This is just one example of how they invalidate the bloodline of the Messiah. The genetic information from women is irrelevant according to Jewish tradition....yet God uses 50% of the genetic information from the woman to create a male child.

Why do men think the womans bloodline is irrelevant? Half of the messiahs blood is from the woman, so genetically, her blood is relevant and she is genetically linked to King David. But what better way to invalidate Jesus as an heir to the throne...if women's dna does not contribute to lineage, then he is not linked to David through his mother.

but the irony is that it is the mans dna which is irrelevant in the the birth of the messiah because the life of Jesus did not require a male sperm... God transferred the life of his heavenly son into Mary's womb.

Which version of the Bible, and where in it is this "SAID"? It's certainly implied, of course, but I find no instance in which a Bible SAYS "Joseph was Jesus adoptive father." Or are you just using poetic license here?

Luke words it this way: Luke 3:23 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was of Joseph,

he uses the expression 'as the opinion was' because Joseph was legally recognized as the father of Jesus. Everyone viewed Joseph as the father because Jesus did not identify himself as the messiah until he was 30yrs old. Before that time, according to all who knew him, he was the son of Joseph.

 

[Me Myself]

only according to jewish tradition....traditional ideas created by men, not God.

Jesus told them "you make the word of God invalid because of your traditions"
This is just one example of how they invalidate the bloodline of the Messiah. The genetic information from women is irrelevant according to Jewish tradition....yet God uses 50% of the genetic information from the woman to create a male child.

Why do men think the womans bloodline is irrelevant?

Maybe because Mary´s genes were quite and submissive, and it was the woman who was deceived, and not the man.

 

[Pegg]

Maybe because Mary´s genes were quite and submissive, and it was the woman who was deceived, and not the man.

you are trying to be funny here, yes?

 

[Me Myself]

you are trying to be funny here, yes?

I entertained myself

 

[Pegg]

I entertained myself

pheww,