It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by spearhead

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.

Different Mary. Mary was his mom. Mary Magdeline has the highest chance of being his wife. According to conspiracy theorists, the Catholic Church wanted this to sound far from the truth, so they painted Mary Magdeline as the unnamed prostitute mentioned in another story.

Also, if you were a 30-year-old Jewish man, and you were unmarried... there was something wrong with you. Sexual relations with a woman you are married to does violates neither Jewish nor Christian law.

My guess as to why Joseph was not mentioned at the story of Jesus' birth is that Mary did all the baby-pushin' work herself.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama]

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by nichole
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...

And I showed how he WAS included. TC also said that Joseph
wasn't the focus or purpose of the scriptures and that he was
only mentioned as was necessary - which wasn't much. Others
have said that it was widely believed, even in the early church,
that Mary was a widow by the time Christ entered his public
life. She HAD to be when Christ died. If Joseph had been alive
then Christ wouldn't have 'given' Mary and John each other
as He died on the cross. He never would have said 'woman,
behold thy son, son behold thy mother'. Joseph would have
been there to take care of Mary and none of that would have
been necessary.

I read somewhere that the church had an
immence say in what was included in the Bible.

Yes. There are many threads that have discussed this.
The bible slowly gained acceptance over a course of time
and was more or less accepted in the mid 300's. Some
parts of the bible (Revelation for example) didn't catch on
for hundreds of years after that, even though it was

(Did you also know that manger's in that time were not outdoors?)

Yep. They were usually built off of caves in the side of hills
or under other foundations.

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.

What a joke. You've only been here 9 days.
Don't tell me what to do, Junior.

I DID respond with my thoughts as well as facts -
which is something that is done at this site - back up
opinion with facts.

TIME and the History Channel are known for digging up some
rather radical 'experts' who come up with some strange
'history' and 'truth'. Scripture clearly has Joseph around for
the flight into Egypt and the trip back, as well as when
Christ is found in the temple. These are times he figures
in a key way, so he is mentioned. He wasn't 'MIA'.

[edit on 2/21/2006 by FlyersFan]

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 02:11 PM
Here is where we get our information on St. Joseph:

Sources. The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically also the only reliable sources, for, whilst, on the holy patriarch's life, as on many other points connected with the Saviour's history which are left untouched by the canonical writings, the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents; and, even granted that some of the facts recorded by them may be founded on trustworthy traditions, it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated. Among these apocryphal productions dealing more or less extensively with some episodes of St. Joseph's life may be noted the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Pseudo-Matthew", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary", the "Story of Joseph the Carpenter", and the "Life of the Virgin and Death of Joseph".

Taken from:

I feel that there is plenty written about Joseph but I do find it odd that he just seems to disappear without any mention of his death. It must have happened during those "missing years" before the gospels start on Jesus' ministry. Read into that what you will.

As descendant of Sicilian immigrants St. Joseph will alway hold a special place for me as his feast day (march 19) is a time for family and good food. He is supposed to have answered the prayers of Sicilians to end a long drought in the middle ages.

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by piersploughman
As descendant of Sicilian immigrants St. Joseph
will alway hold a special place for .....

St. Joseph is my patron saint. Honorable mention
goes to St. Peter, St. Dismas and St. Raphael.

You'd like 'The Month of St. Joseph' by St. Peter Julian Eymard.
It's a beautiful day-by-day prayer/meditation for the month
of St. Joseph - March.

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:01 PM

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?

Originally posted by nichole
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.

Yeah i checked the link and wasn't interested in subscribing to read the article... no biggie just wondering what the 'flavor' of the article was. Aside from 'isn't weird Joseph doesn't play a more prominent role in the Scriptures,' you didn't give much to go one with your comments and with no source to check i was just curious... You have this in the conspiracies in religion forum so i was wondering what the conspiracy was... i see now that there is none.

posted by Nichole

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.

Technically he's Jesus' stepfather, no? Why do you think it would have been necessary to include more info on him? Why would the "church" have a need to remove info about him? I guess what i'm asking here is; What's your point?

Originally posted by Rren's link
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?

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

I provided you with some pretty detailed sources on this, which specifically addressed your questions. You chose to ignore them and say "...i don't know if anyone can answer..." Um, ok...

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:

posted by Nichole

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

Ok but, in your original post you said, " 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?" I provided you with links to how the NT was assembled, who authored them, and also the gnostic texts (ie the removed stuff)... i'm right back where i started. What's your point; what info are you looking for? You only wish to discuss his absence in the NT, but without actually discussing how/when/who was responsible for compiling the NT. Offering only your commentary on how weird it is that he isn't mentioned more (TC and flyers fan offered some legitimate reasons imo, that you've ignored)... heck of a discussion technique you've got here.

Originally posted by Produkt

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.

Produkt we usually provide references when we make BIG statements around here. For example - the high ranking guys (you said happened plenty of times) who were immortalized as a god. You said "I wouldn't be suprised" followed by "happened plenty of times before"... which is it? Do you have examples of the "plenty of times before" or are you just pretty sure? No offense man but based on your posts around here i'd be willing to wager that you've never actually read the Bible... aside from the occasional verse taken out of context or the old 'boy God sure was mean in the OT,' maybe it's just a coincidence that all your arguments represent the usual (et al) stuff and instead these really are your opinions based on your research... i've been wrong before (i think). There are quite a few threads which discuss your issues over in BTS (where this thread should be imo) that you might want to take a look at. If i say atheists are morons would that be cool with you?

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.

Dude you're a bigot. Firstly i have no motivation to convert anyone... on the rare occasion that i get involved in a religous discussion it's never to tell someone what to believe (unlike you). When somebody says something so ignorant as the Bible says the Earth is flat and if you don't believe that you're picking and choosing, i'll usually chime in. IMO, again based on what you write, your 10x more the evangelist then i'll ever be. "You try and knock down the truth and we try and knock down the false." - you're priceless guy... show us the way oh enlightened one.

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]f you don't pick and choose what part's to take literally", you honestly believe that the Bible (as a whole) is to be taken literally? No metaphor, parables or poetry involved eh. Interesting... you've obviously spent alot of time researching this, i stand corrected. Your hypothetical is absurd but no i wouldn't tell the police it's ok cause he said God told him to do this that or the other... cool?

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.

I'm not saying that people didn't think the Earth was flat back then (even showed you some who still believe it). I'm saying that it isn't an accurate Biblical interpretation... in the very least you can't use it to debunk Scipture (as i showed you can use scripture to show the Earth is spherical.) But yes people did believe that, yup they even thought it's what the Bible said... i imagine they looked up at the moon and said, 'yep see just like that, round and flat.' We now know better and we've moved on... well some of us anyway.

Have fun guys... don't try to save us all at once.

*off to knock down some more truth* sheesh

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:54 PM
In regards to the orignal post, we must first take the position that the Bible is true. That being the case the Bible makes it quite clear that Jesus' father is God, thus Joseph is not the father of Jesus, just Mary's husband. As a result one would not expect the Bible to refer to Joseph as Jesus' father.

The Bible also mentions that after (I'm not exactly sure how long after)Jesus rose from the dead he ascended into Heaven, therefore it seems quite logical that there is no mention of him after that time.

As other posters have mentioned, there is no need to mention Joseph too often as he is not a core element of the Bible message.

This is my take on the whole thing, of course, I could be wrong.

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:55 AM

Ever read the book of enoch? Why was it left out of the official version of the bible? IDK why myself, yet. But I've been reading it. Pretty interesting book. And low and behold, good ol' enoch discuss's a flat earth cosmology. Very similar to other flat earth cosmologies that were believed in durring ancient time's. Heh, go figure.

I've read the quote's in the official version of the bible again, even some on those site's you gave me, especially the sciency one. No where have I been able to come to the same conclusion's they have. The verses are very vauge and CAN be taken either way, but given how the people of that time believed in thing's I would think it's safe to assume they DID NOT hold modern day belief's. But your right, it isn't wholly accurate to use today's bible to show the earth is flat, despite the fact that those verses can be taken in either context. Which would be why perhaps that people continue to this day to quote it to show that it's a flat earth book, but like I said, enoch describe's exactly a flat earth cosmology along similar line's of other culture's of that time.

<< 1   >>

log in