Contrast with Blake's "The Birth of Christ."
Posted on 12/11/2006 6:29:15 AM PST by xzins
What happened to Joseph the father of Jesus
We know very little about the years of Jesus prior to His public ministry. The gospels are without notation of any childhood events beyond Christ's birth except one reference that is found in Luke. It is the very last time that Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, is ever mentioned.
Luke 2:41 reads: "Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.' 'Why were you searching for me?' he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?' But they did not understand what he was saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."
It is supposed that Joseph, the father of Jesus, died during the quiet years of Jesus' life. We do know that he trained Jesus in his trade, as that of a carpenter. He do know that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born: James, Joses, Simon, and others.
Perhaps the cause or timing of his death is not nearly as important as the strength of character he displayed. In first hearing about Mary's pregnancy, Joseph did not want to subject Mary to public scorn. After hearing from the angel who confirmed Mary's incredulous story, Joseph obediently accepted the role as surrogate father for the baby Jesus, the Christ child. Matthew 1:24-25 says, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
The last reference about Joseph in Luke confirms that Joseph was a devout follower of the customs of his religion with his observance of Passover. It implies that Joseph made certain of good spiritual training for the children in his family. Joseph proved his integrity and willingness to be obedient to God's direction and guidance.
It's sinful to view a person as a means to an end.
Exacly the reason this "elegant theory" is filled with peril. I don't buy into it myself, but it makes for interesting discussions.
I think that we have no evidence either way for the existance of descendants of Mary and Joseph. It's possible, but who knows?
I didn't opine one way or the other. Having many Catholic friends, I know better than to tread on this topic.
;)
As I pointed out, Catholics view original sin as lack or privation of grace, so there's no question of it being "transmitted" as though it had ontological existence by itself.
So I don't have any idea who those "others" you think are less "judicious" might be, but they aren't my co-religionists.
Joeseph took Mary because an Angel came to him. His betrothal was not based on sex or attraction at all. The betrothal was to protect Mary's virginity and fulfill the prophecy about the Messiah.
A manly, virile man as a model of what a man should be, and how a man should act -- the Jesus I read about in the Gospels is so exuberantly normal. He must have had a good (if not perfect) model in Joseph. To this day, the expression "Momma's boy" suggests that the target of the epithet is effeminate, a wimp, a sissy, never fully weaned. NOT words that come to my mind when I think of Jesus.
One point conceded, I should have said "imputed", not "transmitted". BUT-I'm intrigued. If this is so, why is there a need for Mary to be Immaculately Concieved? I was of the understanding that it was to protect her from the imputation of original sin.
Integrity, godliness, and chastity between spouses requires normal intercourse. Jesus did not grow up in a dysfunctional home, presided over by a pair of frauds in a sham marriage.
This is a question we Orthodox have as well...
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
I love the picture but I didn't realized Jesus had red hair.
I think it rather sad that Christians spend Advent trying to prove Mary had other children.
Google Catena Aurea and you can read what the Early Chruch Fathers had to say about the matter. Begin with Luke
You will discover y'all are resurrecting old myths in an attempt to prove the Church Jesus established is in error.
Y'all really have not only been taught, you believe, the Church Jesus established, the Church He sent the Holy Spirit upon to Teach all truth, the Church He promised to be with until the end of time, the Church the Bible describes as the Pillar and Ground of Truth is a pack of liars and the Church He established is a Church He abandoned to error so as to lead hundreds of millions to Hell.
I find that a very odd idea of the reliability of promises made by God.
But, that is just me. I am sure y'all have very good Biblical evidence the words of Jesus are unreliable.
Contrast with Blake's "The Birth of Christ."
One of the things I find interesting about Joseph is that after the angel annouced to Mary that she would have a baby, God dealt exclusively through Joseph; appearing to him about Mary's condition and to take Mary as his wife, telling him to go to Egypt, and guiding him back to Galilee.
So did many of the original reformers. Maybe you are unaware of this:
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Jesus said lusting after a woman was sin...was he too a nut?
There are still plenty of childhood stories. That they didn't make it into the canon should not be surprising.
Augustine may have been overcompensating for his own wild youth. ;)
Who knows? The Pre-Raphaelites in general seemed to have had a thing for redheads.
It appears you did render an opinion on this subject, having copied a line from above article and quotes.
I don't think you wanted to lie, I just think you were not aware of to what my origianal post to you pertained. (Just check the 'To ##" under each post for that information.)
For example this one should say "To #3"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.