Was Joseph Jesus' biological father or adoptive father? Joseph is a major figure in the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. Along with Mary, he. Venerated as a saint in many Christian sects, Saint Joseph is a biblical figure who is believed to have been the corporeal father of Jesus Christ.
Jesus famously turns water into wine in John — Do something. Before he was born, angels appeared separately to Mary Luke and Joseph Matthew , affirming that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. She was at least three months pregnant before she married Joseph Luke There was no hiding the pregnancy.
Tyler St. In Mark, John baptizes Jesus, and as he comes out of the water he sees the Holy Spirit descending to him like a dove and he hears a voice from heaven declaring him to be God's Son Mark — Matthew associates the birth of Jesus with the reign of Herod the Great , who died around 4 BC, and Luke mentions that Herod was on the throne shortly before the birth of Jesus,   although this gospel also associates the birth with the Census of Quirinius which took place ten years later. If we assume that Mary became pregnant and Joseph was not the father but became her legal husband we are left to our imagination as to how the pregnancy might have come about. Mary in the New Testament.
Everywhere Jesus went, crowds swelled around him until there was no room, but at the same time the Pharisees are beginning to turn against him. So, they decided they needed to step in.
The people who knew Jesus best and the people who supposedly knew God the best were completely taken by surprise when Jesus began his ministry. Who did Jesus think he was? His family stood outside and sent someone to fetch him. As he hung on the cross, Jesus saw John and his mother, bewildered and grieving.
In his darkest moment, Jesus made sure that Mary would be cared for:. Despite his divinity, there was much about Jesus that was ordinary. He was fully God and fully human.
He ate food and drank water. He slept.
He walked. So how could any human have been his father? As for Jesus himself, it appears that, even as a child of twelve years, he knew that God was his Father. Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father? More than that, throughout his ministry Jesus time and again testified that he had God as his Father, and therefore no human. How could Jesus have had a prehuman existence and have come to earth if Joseph had been the one that had given him life?
The apostle Paul witnesses to these very same truths. Had Jesus had some imperfect human instead of God as his Father he could not have fulfilled the purposes for which he came to earth. Further, God purposed that his Son Jesus furnish the supreme example of a perfect human creature keeping integrity in spite of all that the Devil could do, and the Devil did try his worst to cause Jesus to break his integrity, both by temptations and by persecutions.
Despite all the foregoing testimony, there are many who raise objections. For example, they note that time and again Jesus is referred to as the son of Joseph. True, but since Joseph, by taking Mary as his wife when she was pregnant, in effect adopted Jesus as his son, Jesus could be spoken of as his son. Generally, adopted sons are spoken of as the sons of the fathers who adopted them, are they not?
Why not? Because in the very same connection they slurred Jesus as being a Samaritan and having a demon, which they obviously knew was not the truth. Then again, many attack the virgin birth of Jesus on the basis that the first two chapters of Matthew and of Luke were added at a later time, and by some other hand. But there is absolutely no basis for this claim. For one thing, the writing style of the chapters in question is exactly the same as that of subsequent chapters.
Nor is there any manuscript evidence to support such claims. For example, there is evidence that Mark and John — were added by a later hand; but there just is no manuscript testimony for impugning the authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.
Neither the oldest Greek-manuscripts nor the versions or translations hint of such a thing. The fact that the most noted vellum manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures go back only to the early fourth century has been used as an argument by some that the chapters in question might not have appeared in the original writings. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. Another objection raised is that the two accounts of Matthew and Luke do not agree.
True, they are not identical, but there is no conflict between them. That a virgin birth is contrary to science is another objection raised.
But, as one scientist observed, today one no longer can say something is impossible. All that can be said is that something is improbable on the basis of present knowledge. And the fact remains that in creation there are ever so many examples of parthenogenesis, that is, of females giving birth without benefit of the male sperm.
Others have objected on the ground that pagan myths tell of virgin births. But they do not. The fact is that instead of virgins being limited to women who never had intercourse, in ancient times prostitutes as well as unmarried women who gave birth to children were also included in the term. Nor can Matthew and Luke be accused of incorporating myths or legends in their Gospels.