-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Matthew 1: 18-20
- Thread starter Awoon
- Start date
Matthew 1:18-20New International Version (NIV)
Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[b] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Well, I don't see a lie. I see a man concerned for Mary and he was being discrete.
Likely, given the moral convictions of the ancient Jews, nothing need to have been said about the pregnancy.
It's doubtful anyone would have challenged the validity of the child or questioned who the father was.
I was going to come up with a funny but was afraid of spending eternity in hellfire.
(is that going to get me another mod warning?)
( cum'on it's a joke )
Joseph adopted Jesus as his son. Luke 2:48,49 says; "Now when his parents saw him, they were astounded, and his mother said to him: “Child, why did you treat us this way? Here your father and I have been frantically looking for you.” But he said to them: “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?”
Thus, Jesus knew his Father was Jehovah but recognized Joseph as his earthly parent. (John 6:42)
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
even today we see the same thing. some have a biological dad and an adoptive dad. Nothing out of the ordinary if Joseph cared for the young child as if it were his own.
It was not a hidden thing. When a man produced an child for his deceased brother, everyone knew whose child he was legally as well as whose child he was biologically.
Whether people wanted to believe the truth in the matter might be a different story. So too is there not always a need to hold up a sign and tell anyone Tom, Dick, or Harry passerby what was family business as if they had an inherit right to know by just existing.
It was not a hidden thing. When a man produced an child for his deceased brother, everyone knew whose child he was legally as well as whose child he was biologically.
Whether people wanted to believe the truth in the matter might be a different story. So too is there not always a need to hold up a sign and tell anyone Tom, Dick, or Harry passerby what was family business as if they had an inherit right to know by just existing.
Last edited:
Joseph did not bear false witness against his wife but for her.
For and against are different fyi.
For and against are different fyi.
No where in the scriptures.
If Joseph isn't Jesus biological Father then there is no need for the genealogies.
Joseph didn't bare any witness to anyone. Only the story teller says what Joseph thought.
Mountain_Climber
Active Member
You are right. There really was no need for genealogies except to satisfy the minds of men as to who Jesus was.
Why is there no need of genealogies for Jesus' being the receiver of the promises to be true?
Daniel 4:17 "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."
Daniel 4:32 "And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
Just comb the Old Law to see who it was that did all of the choosing when it came to priests and to kings. Israel of old did not vote their kings and priests into their positions as if by democracy. God was always the one who did the choosing.
When you are done pondering that, go give Paul, the apostle, another chance.
Remember: Matthew 3:9 ".. think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
But God never ever raises up children from stones. It's easy to threaten when writing stories. It's hard for people to realize that it's just that, STORIES.
Mountain_Climber
Active Member
If that one point makes you comfortable go ahead and just ignore the rest.
I'm very comfortable.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
By being Joseph's oldest boy by adoption, Jesus inherited the legal right to be King's David's heir to the throne. (Mathew 1:6-16)
He was already of David's offspring thru Mary via a different genealogical line. (Luke 3:23-32; Romans 1:3)
The genealogies proved both of these things.
The word "adoption" by Joseph isn't in the scripture.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
It is though how people in general perceived him.
"And they began to say: 'Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven?"'"
- John 6:42
It was assumed Joseph was the father, and that is how it was registered.
Not all things are in the scripture. I am sure there was no legal proceeding to say Joseph adopted the boy.
It would be natural for all who were not intimately involved to simply make that assumption.
Here is the man and woman that "brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah." (Matthew 2:22)
What is more, Jesus was credited the "firstborn." (Matthew 2:23; 15:55)
"And they began to say: 'Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven?"'"
- John 6:42
It was assumed Joseph was the father, and that is how it was registered.
Not all things are in the scripture. I am sure there was no legal proceeding to say Joseph adopted the boy.
It would be natural for all who were not intimately involved to simply make that assumption.
Here is the man and woman that "brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah." (Matthew 2:22)
What is more, Jesus was credited the "firstborn." (Matthew 2:23; 15:55)
Brian Stoin
Member
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129. Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19. Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke. We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
More words then Jesus spoke. I wont read all that.