info re: joseph Jesus' earthly father?
100127
He was a carpenter from Nazareth.  He was older than Mary.
85534
NOT SURE WHOM YOU ARE REFERRING TO, IF IT IS JESUS STEPFATHER THIS IS WERE HE SETTLED:\n\nToward the close of the first century B.C.E., in fulfillment of prophecy, the promised Messiah, Jesus, was born at Bethlehem in Judea. (Mt 2:3-6; Lu 2:10, 11) After the visit of some Oriental astrologers, Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph, having been alerted by an angel in a dream concerning Herod the Great’s intent to destroy the child, fled with his family to Egypt. Following Herod’s death Joseph did not return to Judea but settled at Nazareth in Galilee. This was because Herod’s son Archelaus then ruled over Judea and also on account of the divine warning given to Joseph in a dream.—Mt 2:7-23.
788145
Jhn 1:41  He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. \n\n\n Jhn 1:42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. \n\n\n Jhn 1:43 ¶ The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. \n\n\n Jhn 1:44  Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. \n\n\n Jhn 1:45  Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. \n\n\n Jhn 1:46  And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. \n\n\n Jhn 1:47  Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! \n\n\n Jhn 1:48  Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. \n\n\n Jhn 1:49  Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. \n\n\n Jhn 1:50  Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. \n\n\n Jhn 1:51  And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. \n\nBelow is an article excerpted from this Web site:\nhttp://crossroadspc.org/thebarrel/2000_01_16.html\n\nOur approach to this passage will hinge our understanding of Jesus' words to Nathaniel. In the past some scholars have distorted this story by presenting Jesus ability to see Nathaniel sitting under a fig tree as the exercise of omniscience of his deity. That is he literally saw Nathaniel, even through the man was physically hidden from sight. This may have been true but I would like us to consider another more likely scenario. Rather than exercising his divine attributes Jesus was demonstrating his human ability to read people and draw conclusions about them based on his observations.\n\nhttp://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN170-START.htm
286041
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe
427699
Jesus Christ was the only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.  We are all sons and daughters of God.  Jesus's biological mother was Mary, and his biological father was our Father in Heaven.  Our Father in Heaven is our Father, but he is not our biological father.
323953
Well, first, Jesus was Jewish...he was NOT Christian.\nSecondly, there is little information available about the historical Jesus - most of what we know is from the writings of others about what Jesus said and taught (again, all within the context of Jewish learning).\n\nregarding "mussulman", I assume you mean Muslim?\nLeast we forget, Abraham and Sarah had two children - Issac and Ishmael (actually, Ishmael was born to Hagar, the handmaid of Sarah).\nBecause of the problems between the two women, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away, but God blessed them as well as the people of Israel.\nIshmael became the family linage to the Islamic faith.\nNow, back to Jesus and whether you will enter heaven if you are/are not Christian: remember, Jesus was Jewish and Jewish faith teachs that all will be blessed in the next world as long as we do acts of loving kindness in the here and now, regardless of what our faith is.\nNow, in my book, THAT is the real grace of God.\nAnd now, you know the rest of the story.
68862
Jesus followed the trade of Joseph which was a carpender not a plummer (they didnt have plumming like we have it)  And Jesus did not have a heavy italian accent.  He lived in what we call the Middle East.
871957
to those that quoted Tacitus his accuracy on the subject is quite suspect considering that he was not even born until 20 years after the supposed death of Jesus. \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus\n\n\nalso the description of Jesus by Josephus has been proven to been corrupted by Christian scribes especially when compared to copies kept in Muslim lands.
984382
You have asked a question that has plagued me!\n\nI'm just trying to fathom this deal.  Joseph was considerably older than Mary.  Is their conjugal arrangement  discussed in scripture? I dunno, but I've imagined a scene that might sound like this:\n\nMary:  Umm Honey?  \nJoseph: Yes, dear?\nM:   I have something to tell you?\nJ:    Yes? What is it?\nM:   Well.  you see...\nJ:    Just tell me. What's the matter.\nM:   Well..\nJ:    Just spit it out.. come on.. what is it?\n\n(Pregnant pause...)\n\nM:    I'm preggers.\nJ:     Excuse me?  You're what?\nM:   Preggers, knocked up.. I am pregnant.. (she's crying)\nJ:    There, there my dear.  Oh.. wait?  (counting on his fingers)\n        It's been a long time since we... Wait   a   minute. You  said\n        you were a .. a.. \nM:    VIRGIN!! (Still crying) yes, I AM a Virgin!   you see.\nJ:    I see?  I SEE??  You tramp!!  Harlot!  Why I oughta..\nM:   Dear Joseph.. it's not like that.  It's like I've been chosen..\nJ:   (Interrupting)  Chosen?? Chosen??? I've got your chosen right\n      here!  (moves toward her)\nM:   (Cowering a little)  JOSEPH.  Stop!  I was visited by an angel\n        of the Lord!  He was so beautiful and all angleific and every-\n       thing!  He said I was Chosen and that ...\nJ:    Chosen!? Angel?  Are you nuts!!?  You got it on with an \n       ANGEL?  What kind of fool do you take me for?\nM:   (Under her breath.. There's no fool like an old fool..) He said \n        I was Chosen and we're gonna have a baby and the \n       baby is going to be the Son of God!\n\nJoseph just looks at her shaking his head.  Mary stands and holds her hands at her sides palms up.  She looks like a statue on a Catholic medal.  There's a little nimbus around her head.\n\nJ:     Jesus Christ! You want me to believe that an Angel  came\n        and did what? \nM:    Actually, it was rather nice.  He sorta glowed in that angel-\n        ific way, and zappo, I'm preggers!  Jesus?  That sounds like\n        a nice name.. hmmm Jesus Christ..\n\nLong pause..\n\nJ:      (Mumbling..) Jesus Christ Almighty!! What's for dinner?    \n         Your mother isn't coming over again is she?\nM:     You're not upset are you?\nJ:      I'll set the table.  (Mumbles.. ) Jesus Christ!  Jeeezus!\n\nMary hums a little supper preparation tune and wonders when Joseph will fix the front door, which hasn't closed right for months.
389737
He had a brother Joseph.
349509
#2 first.  There are contradictions in the two genealogies.  Thus it would be a mistake to take them as an accurate historical record.  Think of them instead in terms of what the Gospel writer is trying to accomplish.  Both are trying to show Jesus' place in the history of salvation, moreso than in chronological history.\n#1 this one requires faith.  It is well known that the Resurrection accounts are not consistent in the usual sense of time and space.  Depending on how we read them there may have been 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension, or both may have happened on the same day.  Well, which one is it?  The answer is BOTH!  Jesus is risen in a glorified, physical body.  In some ways he is subject to the normal laws of the physical world.  He can be touched.  He eats.  He walks.  In other ways he is not subject to normal laws.  He passes through locked doors.  He disappears before the eyes of the two men at Emmaeus.  Most striking, he seems to be present in the upper room with the apostles at the same time (or at least very close to it) as he is with the disciples in Emmaeus, 8 miles away.  The Risen Christ is not subjec to time and space.  He can be in two places at once.  Think about it in modern terms.  We say that Christ is with us.  Wherever two or three are gathered in his name.  That means that he is all over the world, simultaneously.  There are twos and threes all over the world gathered in his name and he is with all of them.  At the same time we say that he is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He is in heaven and on earth at the same time and all over the earth at the same time.
1097599
A:  There are four traditions about Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.\n\n1:  The traditional Biblical Tradition.\nNever married.  Did not have children.  Died on the Cross.\n\n2:  The Kashmir tradition.\nThere are half a dozen variations in this tradition.\n* Never married / married Mary of Magdala.\n* One version states that he visited India prior to preaching the Gospel message.  \n* No Children / One child / not mentioned.\n* Was crucified but recovered / Judas was crucified in his place / Somebody else was crucified in his place.\n* He went south to Egypt, then took the sea route to India / He went north and took the land route to India\n* He was welcomed back as a Saint / He was instantly recognized as a Holy Man\n* He attracted a large following\n* He died in a cave in the Himalayas. (Kashmir and Bhutan are the most frequently mentioned places.)\n\n3: The Glastonbury tradition.\nMarried Mary of Magdala.  Had one child. After the crucifixion he went, with his wife to Egypt, and then to Glastonbury.  \n\nA variation of this tradition holds that they directly went to Glastonbury, with his wife, in a ship of  Joseph of Aramethia.\n\n4: The South of France tradition\n* Married  Mary of Magdala. \n* They had a daughter --- Sara.\n* After the crucifixion she goes to Egypt, then to the south of France.\nIn one Indian tradition, they go as a couple to Egypt, then they separate, she goes to the South of France, and he goes to India.\nIn one Glastonbury tradition, after she goes to the south of France, she goes to Glastonbury, to be with Joseph of Aramathia, and the rest of Jesus' relatives.\n\nThe Biblical tradition is the only one that has early documents to support it. The other traditions are purely oral, and do not appear to have been known, prior to pilgrimages being incorporated into Christian practice.\n\nAssuming that one of the non-biblical traditions is valid, there only was one child --- a daughter at that.  Any descendants would have anonymously blended into the gene pool.\n\nB: The brothers/half brothers of Jesus\n\nOne tradition holds that Joseph was a widower, when he married Mary.  \nThe other siblings were the children of Joseph and his first (deceased) wife.  \n\nA second tradition holds that the brothers and sisters were cousins.  [This is the doctrine of the holy Roman catholic and Apostolic Church.]\n\nA third tradition holds that the siblings were the children of Joseph and Mary.  [This is the usual viewpoint of Fundamental Christianity.]\n\nSince at least five siblings are named, and several others are referred to,  he would have had several nephews and nieces.  [Jewish tradition at that time more or less equated being married, but childless, with being in a state of sin.] \n\nThose nephews and nieces would have formed a bloodline, which _might_ persist to this day.  Mitigating against the persistence of the blood line, is the dispersion of Jews, plagues, and wars.  The latter two are very effective at prematurely terminating blood lines. [Yes, I know about Genghis Khan, and the dispersion of his genes.  I'll also point out that he was the war leader, spread his gene pool over most of Asia, and killed off most of the competing gene pool donors.  By contrast, the family of Jesus was at the bottom of the social scale and confined to a small country.]\n\nIn synopsis.\nA direct bloodline from Jesus:  No.\nA direct bloodline from his siblings:  Probable.\nAny such descendants would only be identifiable, if DNA from Joseph can be found.  [Genghis Khan's DNA was identifiable, not because of an actual sample, but because the same DNA anomalies occur at the same place over the entire geographic area.  They all point to the same common origin in time.  A period that was when Genghis Khan was alive.   It is theoretically possible that the genes are of somebody other than Genghis Khan. The only other candidates with the geographical range, power, nd influence would be his family, and close relatives. ]
182940
Death was not as easily or accurately determined in those days.  A person might be cut down from the cross while still alive.  If Joseph knew that Jesus would come back from the dead because he had not altogether died, he kept his secret through the centuries.  His version of events might then have something of the nature of a cover-up.
295645
jesus never had a father. how can he be called son of a man. i dont know from where ever you got this info, it is wrong
381677
The Joseph you refer to I presume, would be Jacobs 11th son, sent to Egypt in slavery by his older brothers. I seer/interpreter of dreams. Grew to be very wise, saved the Hebrew people during famine. \n  As far as Joshua, I believe he did lead the Jewish people into the promised land. It was Moses and his brother Aaron who could not go in. As well as all the adults who had doubted God during their 40 yrs. exile out of Egypt. read in Genesis/Exodus/Deuteronomy
155009
I am so glad you are still seeking the one true Son of God.\nThe historical Jesus was born in a carpenters home. He learned the tricks of the trade from his earthly father. He was a Jew so I am sure He was different than what you have seen in pictures and movies. He probably had short hair with the long hair hanging like sideburns as the Jewish custom. I believe he was strong since carpenter work was hard work. I believe he was short and dark complected as were most men of the time.\nTalk about a lovable character, He took a beating, and torture, and even death, because He loved us so much.
1068420
Flavius Josephus ?\n\n*he was a jew that lived around the time of Jesus ,they have an original manuscript that claims Jesus is the messiah.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthis could be totally wrong*