And when the time of purification according to the Law of Moses was complete, His parents brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord...And when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for Him what was customary under the Law...When Jesus’ parents had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee...[leaving out a lot more references here]...When His parents saw Him, they were astonished. “Child, why have You done this to us?” His mother asked. “Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You.”
Also Luke 4:22
All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips. “Isn’t this the son of Joseph?” they asked.
No, it wasn’t. That’s the point of that verse. The Bible records other people questioning Jesus’ parentage, but the actual writers of the gospel never, at any time, describe Joseph as Jesus’s dad.
Literally my line. Thanks for admitting that the Bible explicitly says “Joseph and his mother” every time its authors talk about Jesus’s earthly parents.
Because that guy is a literal retard who didn't read my comment. His comments are always the opposite of reality with zero evidence yet he thinks he knows everything.
Notice, that in Old Testament, written down by Jews you will not find any mention of daemons, in the best case some tiny hints, but no any real discussion or description. Only in New Testament, written down by people of different etnicity the whole question of daemons pop up. Jesus exorcize daemons from people in real time. So daemons presence was something wide spread at the time, but somehow Jews-written Old Testament omit that topic completely.
And no, Joseph is not Jesus dad. You will not find a single letter in New Testament hinting that Joseph have anything with the Jesus advent.
Official explanation: The Spirit of God overshadowed Mary so that what was born of her was the Son of God.
My details: Since the Angel of God was capable of manifesting as many things and was the preexistent form of Jesus, the Angel simply manifested as the seed (of the woman) and then took on her flesh, i.e., emptied and disseminated itself throughout one spotless cell of her flesh. Upon one cell recognizing another the chemical propagation of the seed's nature is instant throughout the zygotic boundary. From then on the divine nature no longer manifested as a divine-angelic nature but only as a divine-human nature.
(This happened on 25 Dec, 5 BC. Jesus was born on 6 Oct, 4 BC. At 3 a.m. no less.)
Joseph as adoptive father conferred full Jewish and Davidic rights upon his son because adoption was as strong a tie as natural generation. Jesus's adoption was never in question, only his legitimacy.
If Herod really tried to kill the children in Bethlehem around Jesus’s birth, one speculative possibility is that he had impregnated Mary, rather than the conception being miraculous... Trying to prevent an heir I guess...
(Herod was about 68 and was too sick and impotent to have done this wholly unevidenced speculation. His bowels were in the process of premature decomposition. I can check the history if you like. It's a bit facile to accept the Biblical account of Herod's genocide, which gives wholly different reasons, while rejecting the same account on the point of Mary's innocence.)
Jesus never was born by natural methods. Anyone who says and believes otherwise does so to their own detriment and elevates their opinions and their egos above God's Word.
All the sons he didn't kill were busy in other regions than Judea at the time, sorry. His favorite at the moment was Antipater who was stuck in Rome a long time. Sounds very ad hoc and driven by a desire to find something from a distance that those on the scene didn't find. I respect that your sources of authority are not the same as the traditional grammaticohistorical method of archaeology, but it'd be better to test those sources than to put out the misbegotten conclusions first.
Read the Bible. Joseph is never described as Jesus’s dad.
Read Luke 2:
Also Luke 4:22
No, it wasn’t. That’s the point of that verse. The Bible records other people questioning Jesus’ parentage, but the actual writers of the gospel never, at any time, describe Joseph as Jesus’s dad.
So I guess you're a retard who can't read
Literally my line. Thanks for admitting that the Bible explicitly says “Joseph and his mother” every time its authors talk about Jesus’s earthly parents.
Aaaand right to the ad hominems. Did Charles Kirk fail in death??
Because that guy is a literal retard who didn't read my comment. His comments are always the opposite of reality with zero evidence yet he thinks he knows everything.
He's probably just fatigued with the world and fed up with the insanity. If you get tired, don't your comments get shorter, too?
Fatigue doesn't make one spout absurdities and spend all day arguing with people in 17-comment deep threads
Notice, that in Old Testament, written down by Jews you will not find any mention of daemons, in the best case some tiny hints, but no any real discussion or description. Only in New Testament, written down by people of different etnicity the whole question of daemons pop up. Jesus exorcize daemons from people in real time. So daemons presence was something wide spread at the time, but somehow Jews-written Old Testament omit that topic completely.
And no, Joseph is not Jesus dad. You will not find a single letter in New Testament hinting that Joseph have anything with the Jesus advent.
Official explanation: The Spirit of God overshadowed Mary so that what was born of her was the Son of God.
My details: Since the Angel of God was capable of manifesting as many things and was the preexistent form of Jesus, the Angel simply manifested as the seed (of the woman) and then took on her flesh, i.e., emptied and disseminated itself throughout one spotless cell of her flesh. Upon one cell recognizing another the chemical propagation of the seed's nature is instant throughout the zygotic boundary. From then on the divine nature no longer manifested as a divine-angelic nature but only as a divine-human nature.
(This happened on 25 Dec, 5 BC. Jesus was born on 6 Oct, 4 BC. At 3 a.m. no less.)
Joseph as adoptive father conferred full Jewish and Davidic rights upon his son because adoption was as strong a tie as natural generation. Jesus's adoption was never in question, only his legitimacy.
If Herod really tried to kill the children in Bethlehem around Jesus’s birth, one speculative possibility is that he had impregnated Mary, rather than the conception being miraculous... Trying to prevent an heir I guess...
(Herod was about 68 and was too sick and impotent to have done this wholly unevidenced speculation. His bowels were in the process of premature decomposition. I can check the history if you like. It's a bit facile to accept the Biblical account of Herod's genocide, which gives wholly different reasons, while rejecting the same account on the point of Mary's innocence.)
Ah then instead his motivation could be speculated that one of his sons did it.
Jesus never was born by natural methods. Anyone who says and believes otherwise does so to their own detriment and elevates their opinions and their egos above God's Word.
All the sons he didn't kill were busy in other regions than Judea at the time, sorry. His favorite at the moment was Antipater who was stuck in Rome a long time. Sounds very ad hoc and driven by a desire to find something from a distance that those on the scene didn't find. I respect that your sources of authority are not the same as the traditional grammaticohistorical method of archaeology, but it'd be better to test those sources than to put out the misbegotten conclusions first.
Is all good, i like speculating and seeing where it can go.... Cheers.
I love that the basis of a major religion is trusting a woman didn't lie about having an affair.
A billion people too mentally slow to be last.