Who Was Jesus' Father?

[1989]

Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God and part of a Trinity that's existed since before forever or something.  How can he possibly be the son of David if he already existed?  If he's not of the line of David, he can't be the Christ.  I've heard the argument that Mary was from the same line, but how would you go about proving that an does it even matter in the context of a patriarchal ancient society?  Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

[Lyra]

He existed by God's holy spirit in invisible ghost form, and then flowed into Mary's womb with no human father or scientific process.

It was God's magic. 

[Justus]

11 hours ago, Lyra said:

He existed by God's holy spirit in invisible ghost form, and then flowed into Mary's womb with no human father or scientific process.

It was God's magic. 

 

God's magic or the wonder of random genetic mutations of scientism which naturally allows anything you believe to be possible  

 

14 hours ago, 1989 said:

Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

I would say that your justification is that you believe those ignorant people who wrote the Bible were so stupid that they couldn't even be taught how to read and write using the spoken word so they had to teach themselves, but of course  unlike yourself who wouldn't have been able to read and write the spoken word except somebody else taught you.

 

So do you think they taught themselves how to read or write first?

[mwc]

15 hours ago, 1989 said:

Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God and part of a Trinity that's existed since before forever or something.  How can he possibly be the son of David if he already existed?  If he's not of the line of David, he can't be the Christ.  I've heard the argument that Mary was from the same line, but how would you go about proving that an does it even matter in the context of a patriarchal ancient society?  Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

     The bible is bullshit.

 

     Other than that I would say that Cyrus the Great was considered the messiah and he was not even Jewish.

 

          mwc

 

[1989]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

I would say that your justification is that you believe those ignorant people who wrote the Bible were so stupid that they couldn't even be taught how to read and write using the spoken word so they had to teach themselves, but of course  unlike yourself who wouldn't have been able to read and write the spoken word except somebody else taught you.

 

So do you think they taught themselves how to read or write first?

 

What does that have to with my question?  Either Joseph was the father or God was, and the Bible makes it clear which one it was.  If Joseph wasn't the father, Jesus wasn't of David's line, and therefore not the Christ, not the Messiah, and not the Savior.

 

And yes, the people who wrote the Bible knew how to read and write.  As for their ignorance, the people who wrote the separate parts of the Bible were not the people who codified it, so your question is moot.

[1989]

14 minutes ago, mwc said:

The bible is bullshit.

 

Dammit, foiled again!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, Justus said:

the wonder of random genetic mutations of scientism which naturally allows anything you believe to be possible

Genetic mutations do not naturally allow anything you believe to be possible, nor does genetic variance and crossing-over, with which you are confusing genetic mutations.

 

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-genetic-variation

 

https://study.com/academy/lesson/genetic-crossing-over-definition-lesson-quiz.html

[Justus]

6 hours ago, 1989 said:

 

 Either Joseph was the father or God was, and the Bible makes it clear which one it was. 

If you didn't catch that man doth not live by the Bible alone part then I take the Bible made it clear that if you don't know who taught you how to read then you wouldn't need the scriptures to tell you who his Father was since it is by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD does man live.  

 

Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.  John 8:19
 

6 hours ago, 1989 said:

If Joseph wasn't the father, Jesus wasn't of David's line, and therefore not the Christ, not the Messiah, and not the Savior.

Really, you think that if he didn't have David's blood running in him that Jesus couldn't have been the Christ?  

 

6 hours ago, 1989 said:

And yes, the people who wrote the Bible knew how to read and write.

Sure the Hebrews  knew how to read and write hieroglyphics, but only those hieroglyphics drawn in Hebrew. 

 

Everybody knows that the Egyptian hieroglyphics are drawn in Egyptian while the Hebrews drew their hieroglyphics in the Hebrew tongue.    

 

However, up to that point the Egyptians only knew how to read the written word, which is evident by their heavy use of hieroglyphics since they not developed the ability draw the spoken word.  But of course it is easy to draw the image of something you can see but a little more difficult drawing the image of something that can't be seen like the spoken word? 

 

However, since those who claim that to know how to read the Egyptians drawings, I find it quite curious they the can't see the hieroglyphic word for invisible.   Of course I would write it in hieroglyphic which would allow you to hear it but if I drew it then I doubt you could see it without being first being taught how to speak in hieroglyphics.

 

LOL

[Justus]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Genetic mutations do not naturally allow anything you believe to be possible, nor does genetic variance and crossing-over, with which you are confusing genetic mutations.

 

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-genetic-variation

 

https://study.com/academy/lesson/genetic-crossing-over-definition-lesson-quiz.html

 

I stand corrected. 

[1989]

47 minutes ago, Justus said:

Really, you think that if he didn't have David's blood running in him that Jesus couldn't have been the Christ?  

 

Yes, I really think this.

 

https://messianicprophecy.bible-history.com/MESSIANICPROPHECYThe_Seed_of_David.htm

 

If God impregnated Mary before she coupled with Joseph, how could Jesus be of David's line?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.  John 8:19

Nah, jesus was just admitting that neither he nor the father were real.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

Sure the Hebrews  knew how to read and write hieroglyphics, but only those hieroglyphics drawn in Hebrew. 

 

Everybody knows that the Egyptian hieroglyphics are drawn in Egyptian while the Hebrews drew their hieroglyphics in the Hebrew tongue.    

 

However, up to that point the Egyptians only knew how to read the written word, which is evident by their heavy use of hieroglyphics since they not developed the ability draw the spoken word.  But of course it is easy to draw the image of something you can see but a little more difficult drawing the image of something that can't be seen like the spoken word? 

 

However, since those who claim that to know how to read the Egyptians drawings, I find it quite curious they the can't see the hieroglyphic word for invisible.   Of course I would write it in hieroglyphic which would allow you to hear it but if I drew it then I doubt you could see it without being first being taught how to speak in hieroglyphics.

Thank you for the lesson in historical linguistics.  Now please stop dodging the question and answer it.

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 9:51 AM, 1989 said:

Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God and part of a Trinity that's existed since before forever or something.  How can he possibly be the son of David if he already existed?  If he's not of the line of David, he can't be the Christ.  I've heard the argument that Mary was from the same line, but how would you go about proving that an does it even matter in the context of a patriarchal ancient society?  Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

 

Given that the genealogies in the bible disagree a Christian cannot say with confidence that Mary's line proves he's from the line of David. And as you point out, the Jewish people pass their lines down through the father not the mother, so the Mary thing is just a shoehorn attempt (Possibly by the writers) to justify their claim.

 

If it did prove that then he's just a man, which is more in line with Messiah prophesises, but wreaks Christian theology.

 

Are you just looking at this for your own understanding, or attempting to argue the point with a Christian? If it's the latter, depending on how much of a rabbit warren you like to explore, you could start with getting them to justify God's existence and Jesus as the actual son of God, not just an historical or made up figure.

 

Also the bible is bullshit  

 

[LogicalFallacy]

13 hours ago, Justus said:

 

God's magic or the wonder of random genetic mutations of scientism which naturally allows anything you believe to be possible  

 

Only in the minds of the ignorant or the dishonest.

 

Creationists keep wanting to see a crocaduck which they will never see. Ever. (And yes I know of the 'crocaduck' dinosaur, no it's not actually half duck half crocodile.) The mere fact that they ask such a question highlights their profound ignorance and in some cases batshit stupidity (Enter Kent Hovind et al) of the subject matter.

 

The only people I know of who literally believe anything is possible are religious people. The rest of us are sadly constrained by reality. Thus I will never see a fire breathing dragon, despite their total epicness in concept.

[1989]

4 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Are you just looking at this for your own understanding, or attempting to argue the point with a Christian? If it's the latter, depending on how much of a rabbit warren you like to explore, you could start with getting them to justify God's existence and Jesus as the actual son of God, not just an historical or made up figure.

 

I was mostly doing this for my own understanding/entertainment.  I don't think I could get a Christian to justify God's existence.  I'm not that good of an interrogator.

 

8 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Also the bible is bullshit  

 

Dammit!  Got me again!

[LogicalFallacy]

13 minutes ago, 1989 said:

 

I was mostly doing this for my own understanding/entertainment.  I don't think I could get a Christian to justify God's existence.  I'm not that good of an interrogator.

 

Right. Well I'd imagine if you ask this sort of question as a Christian to family or pastor you'd likely get shutdown due to the basically impossible to answer rat hole the question produces. You'd probably get told to just have faith, or accept that's what God did, even if you didn't understand.

 

One possible answer is that Jesus can be the son of David via his mother, and that the eternal nature of God is not an issue because the son Jesus which was a man didn't come into existence until 4Ad - 6BC or thereabouts. As far as the line coming down through the father question, the NT is the new covenant with God so it over rides the old therefore the old Jewish way of passing sonship down had no bearing of whether Jesus was of the line of David. It as sufficient that Mary was.

 

Can I take my Christian hat off now? I'm feeling 30 IQ points stupider already.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 2/27/2019 at 3:51 PM, 1989 said:

Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God and part of a Trinity that's existed since before forever or something.  How can he possibly be the son of David if he already existed?  If he's not of the line of David, he can't be the Christ.  I've heard the argument that Mary was from the same line, but how would you go about proving that an does it even matter in the context of a patriarchal ancient society?  Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

 

Ok in my life I think I can figure this one out pretty quick. 

 

More than likely Mary and Joseph had been on a date one night..... Maybe had a few cups of wine to many. They probably got a little hot and heavy but didn't want to take it to far before marriage. So they split ways. However Joseph's best friend who had been with them that night saw how tore up and horny Mary was and offered to teach her how to please Joseph on her wedding night. To bad her parents didn't tell her where baby's come from or that there is a way to tell if someone is a virgin or not. So Joseph's best friend who was a descendant of David actually impregnated Mary. When Mary realized that she was pregnant with Josephs best friends baby and that she would be soon labeled a whore and stoned to death, she told Joseph that it was God's. She also convinced the best friend to get Joseph high on acid one night. While Joseph was tripping on acid he dressed up like a heavenly angel and appeared to Joseph declaring that Mary's baby truly was the son of God and that it was a virgin birth.

 

After that Joseph married Mary and claimed sweet baby Jesus as his own with all the evidence of Mary's unfaithfulness being obliterated by the birth of his best friends baby. Hence the birth of Jesus and how he truly is the son of David. They really botched the cover up with that family history though. 

 

DB 

 

Sorry just having a little fun. Thought ya might enjoy the humor

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 2/27/2019 at 3:51 PM, 1989 said:

Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God and part of a Trinity that's existed since before forever or something.  How can he possibly be the son of David if he already existed?  If he's not of the line of David, he can't be the Christ.  I've heard the argument that Mary was from the same line, but how would you go about proving that an does it even matter in the context of a patriarchal ancient society?  Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

 

Ok here is a serious answer. The truth is that the gospels were written well after Jesus' death and also after most anyone who was alive at the time. Every word in the gospels is from second hand accounts. The oldest gospel is considered to be Mark which didn't have a geneology. Basically for the scriptures used to justify the story of Jesus being the son of God on earth to be true he had to be traced back to David as the Old testament scriptures had said. I'm sure that the scriptures that the early christians were quoting were coming under heavy scrutiny especially by anyone who was actually Jewish. This is probably an example of one of the first attempts at a cover up for the holes in the christian narrative. OOOooooo I know lets write another gospel with his family tree on it so they will know that he was also the son of David. So they knew a few of Davids descendants made up a few then popped ole Joseph or Mary in there and boom. See Jesus is the Son of David. 

 

There are forgeries all over the new testament that were written for various reasons. Mostly to promote one doctrin over another. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these bogus geneologies were written to give the Jesus narrative some credibility with the ignorant masses and to attempt to strengthen the already shaky foundations of the new testament. 

 

Dark Bishop

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,  2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.  3. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.  4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.  Genesis 6

 

As far back as before the flood, the bible mentions young women running around pregnant and claiming that their child was the result of some god, or son of god, or angel, or devil.  Mary wasn't the first girl to come along with her belly tucked under her chin claiming to have been impregnated by a deity.

[Justus]

 

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nah, jesus was just admitting that neither he nor the father were real.

 

Kind of curious that you would  base your argument on the belief that a non-existent person would be admitting anything.  Very interesting.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

 

Kind of curious that you would  base your argument on the belief that a non-existent person would be admitting anything.  Very interesting.

 

 

“I dunno,” said Harry. “Maybe it’s better when you do it yourself. I didn’t enjoy it much when Dumbledore took me along for the ride.”

Fictional characters admit to fictional things in fictional stories all the time.  I find it interesting that you don't know this.

[Justus]

55 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Fictional characters admit to fictional things in fictional stories all the time.  I find it interesting that you don't know this.

 

I can't help but find it curious that you found it interesting that I didn't know something,  especially when considering the number of times you have commented that I didn't know anything. 

 

While I don't deny the fact that I probably know less about more things than anybody else, which some might find that to be interesting too, but then again that might be the reason that I didn't omit "probably" from my statement.  

 

However, it really shouldn't be that interesting that I don't subscribe to your decree that the Bible is a work of fiction anymore that it does that I didn't  subscribe to your belief that the Bible was the word of God.   But then again, as written in the quote Hitchens 3:16, "For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten Son that whosoever shall believe him should believe anything."  

 

In such,  I believe the writings within the book of Charles Darwin  entitled 'On the Origin of Species' to be a work of fiction.

 

 

[Justus]

21 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

One possible answer is that Jesus can be the son of David via his mother, and that the eternal nature of God is not an issue because the son Jesus which was a man didn't come into existence until 4Ad - 6BC or thereabouts.

 

Talk about believing anything is possible.   What did you just say about those who believe anything is possible?

   

Quote

"...because the son Jesus which was a man."

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

 

Talk about believing anything is possible.   What did you just say about those who believe anything is possible?

   

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

 

 

Your point? Do you have a point? Perhaps you could rephrase so i understand what you are getting at in context of what you quoted of me?

[Lefty]

On 2/27/2019 at 1:51 PM, 1989 said:

Jesus is supposed to be the Son of God and part of a Trinity that's existed since before forever or something.  How can he possibly be the son of David if he already existed?  If he's not of the line of David, he can't be the Christ.  I've heard the argument that Mary was from the same line, but how would you go about proving that an does it even matter in the context of a patriarchal ancient society?  Any explanations besides the Bible is bullshit?  I'm looking for justifications, not facts .

1

 

You pose several very interesting questions, each of which could be its own discussion. Though I must admit it puzzles me when you ask those questions, then state you want "justifications, not facts". What specifically are you trying to accomplish? The thread title is simple enough; Joseph.

 

I'll offer that the justification for Jesus' father to be Joseph is as already pointed out, the lineage back to King David. Do you know why Jesus' lineage is critically important to the requirements of a perfect sacrifice for Isreal according to Judaic Law? The Law demands that the sacrifice must meet certain requirements, and for a man in the flesh to meet those requirements, he must be of the lineage of Judah because part of the sacrifice deal, the high priest had to offer up the sacrifice on the altar. This is why he is referred to as the "Lion of the tribe of Judah". Why Judah of all tribes? Only the tribe of Judah can be high priests in the temple from what I remember.

 

The Jesus character plays several roles all at once, including High Priest in the temple service, and the sacrifice on the altar, a pure lamb, i.e. "The Lamb of God", no sin, etc. Documenting their genealogies has been a pretty regular thing throughout the history of the Hebrew people, the main reason based on the 12 tribes. I have no idea how accurate they have been at it, so we pretty much have to trust what documentation that may be available. If the man Jesus was not from the line of Judah, the story doesn't work. He would be an unacceptable sacrifice, thus by Judaic Law, Jesus' sacrifice of himself could not offer forgiveness. The family line of Jesus' mother Mary is irrelevant. According to the story, Mary fulfilled her part as the virgin mother, that's it. She was never to be worshipped in any way, only "...highly praised above all women". Because both of Jesus' parents in the flesh are alleged to be of Judah, so much the better. The way I see it, only genetic tests can ultimately prove or disprove biological lineage, so we are left to just believe it or not. But it's clear what the storyline demands, and according to the story, Jesus' flesh father of record is Joseph of the tribe of Judah.