It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus's father m.i.a.?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I was reading an article in Time magazine that brought something I never really noticed in the Bible before. During Jesus's birth and other important events, Jesus's father is never mentioned as being there.

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit strange that even during the birth, he's nowhere to be found? Also, there us nothing in the Bible saying when he died, he just kinda disappeared. I find it strange that someone as important as Jesus's father would have so little to do with the story.

I read somewhere that the church had an immence say in what was included in the Bible. Could it be that they had decided to remove some parts of the story in order to cover something up? Where was he? Could the author had not found it pertinent to included his father in the story? Or is it something else entirely?

Any comments?




posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
My veiw on this is that the focus is meant to be placed on Jesus. Perhaps it could have been done to avoid confusion between biological Father and God (The Father).

Either way, I don't think it changes anything. Jesus's message is the same.

If you could post a link of the article that would be great. I would be able to comment more.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Joseph was Mary's husband and therefor had to be Jesus' father...........

BUT.... it would be rather contradictive if in the bible were to go around saying Jesus' was God's son also. So a custody battle began.

Maybe Joseph thought it was a bit evil and rude of god, when he found out god had been putting it in Mary ~ *if you know what i mean* ~ so he went to lay the smack down on God and instead recieved a one way ticket to the "HEII"

Its probably the case of Mary was actually Jesus' wife but the bible bashers changed that to Mary being mommy so all the liddle kiddly winks could sleep better knowing Jesus wasn't a root rat.

And now to the point of 'where did Joseph go?' Nobody knows and obviously know one here thinks enough and/or believes enough of the bible to respond to the question.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
ok well... I tried its only a small part of the story, maybe in an effort to get more people interested I might type the rest but I'm rather tired now...maybe later


www.time.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
God is the Father of Christ. That is simple, and explained in the Bible, Spearhead.
Mary isn't a prominent figure in the story, either, while she does have more lines than Joseph, it is Christ who is the main topic and for good reason.

Joseph just wasn't that important in the Good News.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The bible also said god made man from dust and a flood covered the entire planet. Even say's the earth is flat.


You believe all that too, or do you just pick and choose from the good old bible?

home.sprynet.com...
www.lhup.edu...

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
In the Qu'ran Joseph was never married to Mary he was already in his 80's (a belief also held by Coptic Christians) and was charged by God to be the caretaker of Mary to ensure that the child would be safe. Remember Joseph takes them to Egypt to escape Herod after the birth.

For anyone interested in an alternative view of the "holy family" should read the Qu'ran since it is not focused on Jesus and therefore has a differnet point of view of the virgin birth (which muslims also belive in)

Mary is venerated in Islam and she is mentioned more in the Qu'ran than in the bible, but I don't remember anything specific about Joseph's role after egypt.

Coptic Christianity has a long tradition of Joseph veneration so there may be texts worth checking out for those interested.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Produkt, you inability to understand the Bible is causing YOU to pick and choose from it. You are using an anti-Biblical site as objective evidence?

By the way, the verse doesn't say the Earth is flat, nor does it imply it. Between the mere poetic writing and the political, not geographical reference, your attempts to turn this thread into a Bible-Bash is in serious error.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Those site's are listing off biblical quote's that do indeed imply a flat earth. Do indeed imply the earth as the center of the sol sytem. Etc.

www.answering-christianity.com...
www.theflatearthsociety.org...
www.infidelguy.com...

Not trying to turn this into a bible bashing thread. Just pointing out that alot of the stuff told in the bible (while using actual quotes from the bible) aren't true. So really, it is selective belief's. Unless of course you think it's utterly ok to kill another man just because he cursed his parents.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Ok, I figured if I answered you, you'd stray in a bad way.

This was my fault, entirely.

That being said, get back on topic and take your inaccuracies to BTS theology and spirituality forum. This ain't the palce, huh?

Take my inaccuracies over there, too, will you? I haven't the time to argue the Bible. Too much conspiracy to be had over here.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Right, back on topic.

Found this article about jesus.



www.wsu.edu:8080...

In the teachings attributed to Jesus, it is abundantly clear that he was an apocalyptic teacher who believed that the world would end within the lifetime of the people he was speaking to. The foundation of these teachings was that human beings could be saved by both believing his word and by modelling their lives on the higher moral law of God, that higher moral law that was the foundation of Jewish law. To this end he believed that Pharisaical teaching was an appropriate guide to following this higher moral law; his criticism of the Pharisees was that they did not live by what they taught.

In line with this higher moral law, Jesus of Nazareth preached an ethics of selfless concern for the welfare of others, rejection of material wealth, and non-retribution, all of which were standard in Jewish ethics. In many statements, Jesus of Nazareth explicitly rejects government and politics as a legitimate sphere of human action.


Biblical quote pertaining to the exerpt here.

Matthew 24:29-34
[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. . . . They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. . . . I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. [Emphasis added.]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by piersploughman
In the Qu'ran Joseph was never married to Mary he was already in his 80's (a belief also held by Coptic Christians) and was charged by God to be the caretaker of Mary to ensure that the child would be safe.

Sounds like an extremization of the 'mary's a virgin' motiff. Similar to how some christian groups propose that mary was a virgin forever, and others that she was only a virgin for jesus and then had other children. Muslims vernerate mary along with other women, like, I beleive, one of mohamed's daughter's named "Fatima".

Apparently, in the spainish city of Fatima, where there is still a largish population of post-reconquista muslims along with the native catholics, there are some interesting illustrations of this. The catholics will have a parade on some such feast day or something, and a statue of mary is paraded through the town amoungst a crowd of catholics. The muslims of the area also come out on that day and celebrate from the hilltops, some say recognizing the statue as mo's daugther fatima, or perhaps simply mary, mother of the important muslim prophet jesus.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Hey Nichole!

As you maby can see, my veiw on this matter is clear!

1. "son of God" is a titel! A lot of great men have had that titel before/after Jesus!

2. Jesus's father is mentioned in: Luk. 2.16 (2.1-16)

3. the evidence as I see it, is: Luk. 3.23 and Matt. 1.16

Jesus was of the house of David right? then the case is clear in my opion.

Back to the titel: Before Jesus, the titel was given to Farao Aknaton IV whoe was the first to implement monoteism in Egypt. Aknaton was also given the titel "son fo God" and "son of the sun" the same titels was also given to the Imperor of Japan

An other titel was: Christ (Greek) - Messia (Hebrew) who also was given to the great King: David

To your subject: the Bibel was made as a Canon of the church-fathers and they had a special interest in using that titel. Thats also why you cant find so much about Josef near Jesus.

The Bibel was made, as it is, to legitimate the Church and its politic over 250 years after Jesus.

The "son of Josef" was not in the interest of the church, but again look in: Luk. 3.23 and Matt. 1.16 where it is clear who the father is...

Just as you know, i'll mention that I belive in God and in words of Jesus - Wake up - the kingdom is near...

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Angle 1]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
The bible also said god made man from dust and a flood covered the entire planet. Even say's the earth is flat.


You believe all that too, or do you just pick and choose from the good old bible?


Here you go : Does the Bible say Earth is Flat? ... I realize you already have this all figured out (you're a Biblical scholar/theology major?) but just incase you may have missed something. This page is decent too - What Shape is the Earth In? An Evaluation of Biblical Cosmology by: J. P. Holding. Just for the heck of it (easy to follow chart for ya) Accurate Biblical Descriptions of Scientific Principles (FYI not a young-earther site... iow keep those panties un-bunched if you will
)

I've seen your posts around here and you seem to have this need/desire to debunk the Bible, may i ask how many times, if any, have you read the Bible? Just curious... i'm aware of the skeptics but those who seem to talk about nothing else have me confused. What's the motivation? Trying to save us? Just an observation that always struck me as odd.

FYI there are people who actually still believe the Earth is flat, perhaps you'd want to start with those guys... just a thought. The Flat Earth Society - onward brave crusader.


Ok back on topic...

Jesus's father m.i.a.?



I was reading an article in Time magazine that brought something I never really noticed in the Bible before. During Jesus's birth and other important events, Jesus's father is never mentioned as being there.

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit strange that even during the birth, he's nowhere to be found? Also, there us nothing in the Bible saying when he died, he just kinda disappeared. I find it strange that someone as important as Jesus's father would have so little to do with the story.


Why do you (or the article's author) believe he wasn't there? I'm not arguing with you here necessarily, i simply don't understand the question or the implications (immaculate conception maybe?) Do you have a (free) link to the story?



I read somewhere that the church had an immence say in what was included in the Bible. Could it be that they had decided to remove some parts of the story in order to cover something up? Where was he? Could the author had not found it pertinent to included his father in the story? Or is it something else entirely?

Any comments?


Here's a page from an ATS member (i think he's the same person anyway) Roger Pearse that you may find helpfull:

The Council of Nicaea and the Bible He has alot of info and links on that page, i'm sure if you send him a u2u he'd be happy to help out... he usually contributes to these topics, and i believe he's a (formally educated) Biblical scholar.

This site is pretty good too: www.theology.edu... [Who wrote the Bible (and When)?]

And see this page also:


THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT By: F. F. Bruce

Even when we have come to a conclusion about the date and origin of the individual books of the New Testament, another question remains to be answered. How did the New Testament itself as a collection of writings come into being? Who collected the writings, and on what principles? What circumstances led to the fixing of a list, or canon, of authoritative books?


So far as Books "left out" of the NT are you referring to the Gnostic texts discovered in Nag Hammadi? I'm not sure what they have to say, if anything, about Joseph being MIA in the NT though... those are the only 'alternative' texts that i'm aware of. But i'm certainly no expert so there may be texts i'm over-looking. Here's a "Gnosticism Resources for Study" link that may be of some use: www-relg-studies.scu.edu...



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
If people don't think Jesus earthly father was metioned it was becasue his true father was THE LORD, and Joesph wasn't even around when Jesus was revealed. (Mary was a widow at that time)



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Jesus's father m.i.a.?



Originally posted by nichole
I was reading an article in Time magazine that brought something I never really noticed in the Bible before. During Jesus's birth and other important events, Jesus's father is never mentioned as being there.

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit strange that even during the birth, he's nowhere to be found? Also, there us nothing in the Bible saying when he died, he just kinda disappeared. I find it strange that someone as important as Jesus's father would have so little to do with the story.

Originally posted by Rren
Why do you (or the article's author) believe he wasn't there? I'm not arguing with you here necessarily, i simply don't understand the question or the implications (immaculate conception maybe?) Do you have a (free) link to the story?



I have already posted the link but you can only read the entire story if you subscribe. I read the story in the actual magazine so I had been privilaged enough to see exactly what the author was showing.

I also did some research (in the Bible) about Joesph (Jesus's father) and found that he had not been mentioned in the story at specific times in Jesus's life (i.e. the birth). I'm not saying he hadn't been there for the conception (on a side note, how weird would that be? God: You mind moving over? I'm trying to impregnate your wife. Joesph: Sure, sure I'll go make some coffee.
)





Originally posted by nichole
I read somewhere that the church had an immence say in what was included in the Bible. Could it be that they had decided to remove some parts of the story in order to cover something up? Where was he? Could the author had not found it pertinent to included his father in the story? Or is it something else entirely?

Any comments?



Originally posted by Rren
Even when we have come to a conclusion about the date and origin of the individual books of the New Testament, another question remains to be answered. How did the New Testament itself as a collection of writings come into being? Who collected the writings, and on what principles? What circumstances led to the fixing of a list, or canon, of authoritative books?


Those questions I don't know if anyone can answer but I'll personally U2U them to you if I find out.



Originally posted by Rren
So far as Books "left out" of the NT are you referring to the Gnostic texts discovered in Nag Hammadi? I'm not sure what they have to say, if anything, about Joseph being MIA in the NT though... those are the only 'alternative' texts that i'm aware of. But i'm certainly no expert so there may be texts i'm over-looking. Here's a "Gnosticism Resources for Study" link that may be of some use: www-relg-studies.scu.edu...


The references I'm talking about are not any books left out of the New Testament. I'm referring to the actual book itself.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   


I've seen your posts around here and you seem to have this need/desire to debunk the Bible, may i ask how many times, if any, have you read the Bible? Just curious... i'm aware of the skeptics but those who seem to talk about nothing else have me confused. What's the motivation? Trying to save us? Just an observation that always struck me as odd.


Actually, I've read the bible quite a few time's. I don't believe in god tho. I was never 'moved' by the bible. I ever 'felt' a holy spirit go through me or what not. Reading the bible for me was like reading any other work of fiction. Although the bible was abit more distastefull for me. I'm not particulary fond of a god who says it's ok to have slave's or stone people to death or kill someone because they cursed at their parent's. That's just horrible for a supposed loving god to say. God just sound's like a mere human moron in the bible. Has many human qualities. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if at one point in history someone really was considered a god! Happened plenty of time's before. Ordinary guy who was high ranking or very succesfull get's immortalized as a god.

Motivation... I guess it's possibly the same motivation you guy's have. You try and knock down the truth and we try and knock down the false. Guess it's just a battle over reality and ignorance. It's not that I don't talk about anything else. I'm just tied into a few thread's about this right now that I haven't really gotten into any other discussion's. Before this tho I was knocking down on those people who believe in evil 4th dimensional reptilian overlords of the NWO, which a few even thought I was one of them


Can I ask you something. If someone you know killed someone and claimed god told them too. Would you believe them? Even if they sounded very sincere? Would you try explaining to the police that it's ok because god told him too? There's plenty of statement's of god commanding other's to kill for him in the bible. Of course, that's if you don't pick and choose what part's to take literally


I can see how you can interpret the earth statement's different way's, but during that period of time most culture's did think the earth was flat and did have flat earth cosmologies, if I'm not mistaken.



www.lhup.edu...

This is hardly surprising. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by nichole
I was reading an article in Time magazine ...

Don't ever believe anything that TIME or The History Channel
report when it comes to religion. They have their own rather
... uh ... 'unique' views on religious historical reality. I have
no idea where they dig up their 'experts' in the field either.
Some of them are sad ... sad indeed.


During Jesus's birth and other important events,
Jesus's father is never mentioned as being there.


If this is what TIME is reporting, then their 'experts' are wrong
and haven't bothered to crack open the bible.

Joseph (Jesus foster father) was indeed mentioned in Christ's
early life. He was present at the birth. He was the one that
God called upon to take Mary and Jesus into Egypt to escape
Herod, and he 's the one who God called upon to bring them
back from Egypt. Also, Joseph is again discussed when Christ
is 'lost' for three days and then found in the temple teaching
the teachers ... this was when Christ was around 12 years old
or so.

Scripture doesn't pick up again until Christ is around 30. By this
time Mary is assumed to be a widow.

As stated ... Joseph is Christ's foster father, but GOD is Christ's
'birth' father. God the Father is definately mentioned all through
Christ's life. He was definately there, as scripture shows.

MODS - doesn't this belong in BTS?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
www.crisismagazine.com...

Explains how the cult of St. Joseph arose in the late middle ages, but was a very obscure figure in Christianity before that. Keep in mind that this is the Catholic viewpoint but it does briefly go into the Coptic and Orthodox views as well.

Wasn't John Dominic Crossan one of the experts the history channel uses? As far as some of the other "experts" they bring out - can't say I'm a fan of Margaret Starbird or looney duo of Picknett and Prince



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by nichole
I was reading an article in Time magazine ...

Don't ever believe anything that TIME or The History Channel
report when it comes to religion. They have their own rather
... uh ... 'unique' views on religious historical reality. I have
no idea where they dig up their 'experts' in the field either.
Some of them are sad ... sad indeed.


During Jesus's birth and other important events,
Jesus's father is never mentioned as being there.


If this is what TIME is reporting, then their 'experts' are wrong
and haven't bothered to crack open the bible.

Joseph (Jesus foster father) was indeed mentioned in Christ's
early life. He was present at the birth. He was the one that
God called upon to take Mary and Jesus into Egypt to escape
Herod, and he 's the one who God called upon to bring them
back from Egypt. Also, Joseph is again discussed when Christ
is 'lost' for three days and then found in the temple teaching
the teachers ... this was when Christ was around 12 years old
or so.

Scripture doesn't pick up again until Christ is around 30. By this
time Mary is assumed to be a widow.

As stated ... Joseph is Christ's foster father, but GOD is Christ's
'birth' father. God the Father is definately mentioned all through
Christ's life. He was definately there, as scripture shows.

MODS - doesn't this belong in BTS?




If I'm not mistaken, I thought this was a forum on conspiracies in religion? And I believe that it is a conspiracy that Joesph is only mentioned when it is convenient for him to be included in the story. In fact if you ever bothered to look, I asked about what the reason is that he had not been included which to me sounds a bit suspicious...

I read somewhere that the church had an immence say in what was included in the Bible. Could it be that they had decided to remove some parts of the story in order to cover something up? Where was he? Could the author had not found it pertinent to included his father in the story? Or is it something else entirely?

Apparently there is also some sort of conspiracy going on at Time magazine! Where DO they get their sources? Well, after reading the article in which the story written in Time sites sources in the Bible itself, I did some research of my own. (You really don't think I would post something like that without checking the sources do you?) I found in the Bible that in fact it doesn't mention Joesph at Jesus's birth, just that they had gone to some manger to have the baby, then a whole bunch of stuff about everything else that was going on. (Did you also know that manger's in that time were not outdoors?) Also, he's mentioned only rarely throughout Jesus's life and there is no mention of when Joesph died.

So, next time before you respond to a question of mine, do your own research and respond with your actual thoughts not through your need to prove the Bible accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join