@@TestifyApologetics The bible claims the world is 6000 years old, flat with a dome over it, thats all you need to know it cant be believed! So tell me why didnt joe have sex with his wife? Why did he believe her excuse of magic!
The History Channel's Ancient Aliens show has already dropped some hints about who they theorize fathered Jesus. Spoiler: their theory doesn't match scripture. I don't think they theorized anything about Joseph though.
Joseph's absence has always been particularly conspicuous to me, ever since I was reading the Bible as a little kid. If the Gospels were nothing more than myths constructed decades or even centuries later, you'd think that Matthew (the Gospel which emphasizes Jesus' status as the Messianic son of David) would have made Joseph a much more central character.
Always start with believing the Bible is true. Then the answer is easy. Mary and Joseph were both of the House of David. Mary came from the line of servants and Joseph was from the line of kings (Matthew 1). Jesus was born to Mary and adopted by Joseph. Likewise we are born again of the Holy Spirit and adopted by Jehovah. There's a symmetry there. Joseph was from the line of kings. That means while he was alive he was the rightful King of Judah. For Jesus to be the King of the Jews (Judah), Joseph had to be dead.
I like at the beginning you said “3 year olds can’t do that you Dawah boys” because some Muslims will say that Rebekah was 3 years old at the time which is ludicrous, false, and purpose is to deflect from Muhammad marrying a 6 year old.
Yeah and they don’t even try to make it seem abhorrent. They just go “w-well you guys did it TOO!!!” As if that’s okay that Muhammad married a 6 year old.
It's good to know that I'm not the only one who has these questions. It's strange that I've read both Genesis 24 and 29 so many times but I've never completely focused on Bethuel's absence. Thanks for shedding light on this!
Wow. You're one of those people who find things in Scripture that we who read it day in and day out miss. Bethuel - I never noticed it. Joseph - I noticed it but never really processed it. Thanx for the share.
These videos are fantastic in Quality and explanation Erik. Thank you greatly. Have a blessed Easter. Your channel has been an important part of my faith journey for the past few years.
You missed a couple verses, Joh 6:42 ISV They kept saying, “This is Jesus, the son of Joseph, isn’t it, whose father and mother we know? So how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” And Luk 4:22 ISV All the people began to speak well of him and to wonder at the gracious words that flowed from his mouth. They said, “This is Joseph’s son, isn’t it?” And Mat 13:55 ISV This is the builder’s son, isn’t it? His mother is named Mary, isn’t she? His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, aren’t they? None of these verses can absolutely confirm that Joseph was alive at that time. They can still use present tense words with past knowledge. My non-biblical opinion is that somewhere near the time of Jesus ministry that Joseph had a building accident and had died. The importance of Jesus ministry swallowed up the obituary news.
Very good comment. Note that Jesus is always referred in these verses a being the son of Joseph or the carpenter. Joseph is not referred as the father of Jesus or Jesus's father Joseph. Also, in other instances where his Mother and Brothers are mentioned, if Joseph was with them it could have caused confusion for them to say "your Father", because he is not his father. Also Jesus says in Matthew 23:9 NASB1995 [9] Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Jesus is God, he has always been God, he is God in the same way as God the Father is God and God the Spirit is God. Jesus is the begotten son of God the Father, making Jesus, God the Son.
@@deividhac probably cause it wasn't essential to the salvation story. If Mother Mary was taken into heaven it makes more sense since He came from her body and modern science proves that a child's cells remain in the body of a mother for the rest of her life. God cant stay in the grave cause, well God is the Life of the world and neither could His human cells.
@@deividhac I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30
I think it's likely Joseph died while Jesus was younger, and Jesus, being the oldest child, worked to provide for his family. This would explain the lack of information about Jesus' life prior to his ministry and the absence of Joseph during his ministry.
there is no verse that says Jesus was MARY&JOSEPH"s oldest child. maybe that's a modern certain kind of protestant conclusion. it could be that jesus was one of many children from mary and joseph's marriage. joseph could have been married before (as tradition records) and had children already (who would still be jesus' siblings). jesus' brothers and sisters could also be closeR relatives, like half brothers, step brothers, cousins, second cousins, neighbours, citizens (of the same city), uncles, aunts, close friends, compatriots, associates etc (for such is the semantic range of אח).
@MossEYE- There is no evidence whatsoever for that in the Bible, nor is there evidence that Joseph and Mary had no children together after Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. In all likelihood, Joseph was a man in his mid-to-late twenties who had recently established himself as wealthy enough to provide for a family, and Mary was a girl in her late teens to early twenties who made a good match. There's also no mention of any children traveling with Jospeh and Mary before or right after Jesus's birth. No mention of them on the travel to Bethlehem, when they stayed in Egypt, etc. Just Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. You don't think Luke, the detail-oriented writer of one of the four Gospel books, would have at least mentioned at all that there were children in the family before Jesus? Edit: autocorrect decided that "virgin" *had* to have meant "Virginia," which is now fixed.
Bethuel could be on his deathbed, so he could not partake in his role as a familys head. That could explain why he exists in the story, but cannot be bigger part of it, explaining his absence in rituals and lack of mariage gift, which was most probably split between others. It could be because the family saw it as inapropriate in a way to 'require' a mariage gift, for family member who is going to pass away any day now.
It's a popular but yet a bit controversial opinion that Joseph was much older than Mary when he married her, and much older than we usually assume. It's very much possible that Mary had around 15 when pregnant, thus during the Passion of the Christ, somewhere between 45 and 50 years old. Joseph being 40 years old, would have 70 by the time of Jesus ministry. Well it's very easy to comprehend how a profession of "builder" can wear out a man, even today. Imagine being a builder at that time! That also helps to explain how Jesus gave so much importance to the care for the widows.
There is no evidence to support the notion that Joseph was significantly older than Mary. In fact from the gospel accounts we have it points to the fact that they were of a similar age. Why do I say that. For one there is no evidence of any kind of power imbalance here. They both seem mature and respectful of one another, I don't think this would be true if Joseph was significantly older. Secondly you have to bear in mind what happened when Joseph found out Mary was pregnant. He was troubled by it and considered divorcing her quietly. You get the sense that he isn't sure how to handle the situation. This isn't somebody with years of experience behind them, this is somebody who is unsure of themselve. So even though we don't know what age they were from the gospel accounts we can make a rational conclusion that they both of a mature age and were probably of a similar age
@@ShinAk1raSama again this is something you just pick from the way they interact with each other. From the passage they both act quite young in the accounts. This isn't definitive proof of their being the same way but if they was a large age gap you wouldn't expect them to behave the way they do. If Joseph was significantly older you would expect Joseph to be more assertive in the way he handles Mary and it just isn't there. Not only that but nobody thinks their relationship is abnormal in any way. It's not addressed by anyone. Again if there was a significant age gap why did nobody think Mary could be Joseph daughter. All this is to imply common sense logic to the passages and you will be hard pressed to find any evidence that Joseph was significantly older than Mary as no bible account provides any evidence for it
@@pgpython Are you seriously basing it on personalities? You know-- something that isn't proportional to age? The other problem you have here is that you're implying that a stark age difference during the time of Jesus MUST be uncommon. Do you have evidence to show that it was, or are you applying your personal views into it? Common sense logic only really works, if you can also appropriately apply context. The Bible never claims that it states everything, so you'd have to go to extra-Biblical sources to understand context. It also doesn't help that it's implied that Joseph died before the start of Jesus' earthly ministry but definitely would have been dead by the time Jesus was crucified; otherwise, Jesus' asking John to take care of Mary would have made no sense.
@@ShinAk1raSama I wish I could remember where I found this, but indeed when I was searching into this I found that culturally, young jewish people were in a similar age bracket when getting betrothed and married. The range seemed to be 14 to 20 with a difference that seemed to be 5 years give or take, which would make a very large age difference an irregularity. The same was also present in Germanic cultures. It was Roman, Middle Eastern and possibly Eastern cultures in which large age gaps were not so uncommon. Even then, most regular betrothals between regular people happened in a similar age bracket. In the cultures listed above (barring Middle Eastern as I am not as well versed on that!) large age gap relationships were still uncommon outside of political and financial pairings. If someone more knowledgeable corrects me in the future, thanks in advance!
7 months later but my perspective on Joseph was that he must have died at some point between Jesus as a boy at the temple, and starting His ministry at 30. I had assumed that John being told to take care of Mary was because Jesus, as the son of a widow, was by default responsible during His life for taking care of her, and at His death, He ensured that she would be taken care of by commanding John to adopt her as his mother. I assumed that there would be no need for this if Joseph were still alive, so Mary must have been a widow, and the lack of any mention of Joseph during Jesus' ministry lines up with Joseph dying before Jesus began His ministry.
I kind of want to do a dramatization of that Mark 3 passage. After a time of Jesus refusing to see his brothers and mother, James forces his way through the crowd and yells at Jesus. "Ever since dad died you've been trying to cope by this religious preaching, when you should be grieving with the family." Jesus replies. "You're father, James, not mine. My Father has always been in heaven."
@@katrinbarbey, in terms of text? No, all of this was indirectly stated in the Bible. In terms of mannerism? Yes, Jesus said to mourn with those who mourn and rejoice with those who rejoice. Why would He abandon His family? Whether or not they’re His mother's children.
I think there is a more plausible narrative reason for why Joseph disappears from the Jesus stories in the gospels, and that is simply that having his "father" there all the time with his mother and brothers and sisters would cause confusion with his "real" father.
@@Mike00513 I am doing fine. How are you? Well, I may have told you before, but I basically just react to videos that appear in my feed. This one popped up, I watched it, and I thought I'd chip in my two cents.
Interesting thought. Although it should be noted that when Jesus goes missing as a twelve year old, "his parents" are still mentioned. So Joseph is still present at that time, despite not being recorded as saying anything.
@@MatthewFearnley You said: _"Interesting thought."_ Thanks. You said: _"Although it should be noted that when Jesus goes missing as a twelve year old, "his parents" are still mentioned. So Joseph is still present at that time, despite not being recorded as saying anything."_ Yes, and that story serves to pivot of the narrative of Jesus from a human kid to the Son of God, so that from that point on forwards, Joseph would be in the way of the message. I think this supports my view.
I always wondered what happened to him. I used to confused the the man named joseph who paid for jesus's tomb as his dad but later learned it was a different guy.
What he did is that he is the peak example of Masculinity to strive towards , silent protector of God Incarnate and the perfect Husband to the Mother of God .Demons hate him because God chose him to guard ever the Divine Son .
@@jeremysmith7176 Just imagine the heavenly host surrounding Christ in the spiritual realm as they traveled to Egypt. I doubt any demon could get within 50 miles.
It is likely that Joseph died many years earlier and that Jesus and Mary resided with Clopas, brother of Joseph, and his wife "the other Mary" and their children - first cousins so close as to be called siblings. James was indeed the son of Clopas.
I think in this way, Bethuel simply wasn’t held important role for managing his daughter marriage and the only alternative is to go Rebekah mother and her brother to grant the marriage request. But with Joseph case, some said Joseph died before Jesus in teenage phase which it seems likely to be happened. With Joseph silenced in the Gospel, we can see that importance of Mary being the mother of Jesus and as an eyewitness to Jesus.
My take on the 'absence' of Joseph in the account of Jesus is that he is mentioned along with Jesus' brothers. I believe it would have been confusing for none believers who were being taught the Gospel to mention Jesus' adoptive father when we know that Jesus' Father is Yahweh. They would probably have argued how he could have two fathers. I am curious if earlier texts didn't say family instead of brothers and sisters.
Well, I am glad I watched this channel just to learn that Gn 24:50 mentions Bethuel. I honestly don't recall that. In fact, I distinctly remember it saying that Bethuel had died, lol. After doing a word search, it doesn't say that at all.
Bethuel is interesting case of author 'being one of characters', where he knows many details, but deems them as inapropriate to spell out. Joseph's death of old age is an important fact on paper, but for people who knew or heard of him writing about his passing could seem inapropriate. Bethuel could be on his deathbed, so he could not partake in his role as a familys head. That could explain why he exists in the story, but cannot be bigger part of it, explaining his absence in rituals and lack of mariage gift, which was most probably split between others. It could be because the family saw it as inapropriate in a way to 'require' a mariage gift, for family member who is going to pass away any day now. At least thats how I see it.
"death of old age" There's no reason to believe he died of old age. He presumably died, yes, but to claim he died of old age is to insert something that isn't there. It is common among Catholic beliefs to assume he was ridiculously old when he married Mary, but there's no Biblical backing for it and in fact is very unlikely. (Especially since the Apostle John lived to be until his 90's.) Very possible he died of a sudden illness or even an accident. This isn't our modern day where we can easily shrug off a plague or disease with our more advanced medical technology. Leprosy was a very common disease back then that was quite deadly as well, but we don't see any problems with it in today's day and age.
This video is great, I love your content and devotion to the Bible. I just have one little addition which you probably already know about. Joseph is not completely absent in the Gospels after the mention in Luke 2, when 12 year old Jesus goes to the temple. He is mentioned when the Jews that knew him growing up saw him teach publicly, for example in John 6:42 and Matthew 13:55
Mary wasn’t exactly talked about much either approx 19 mentions and mostly all within the same story. Joseph was mention 14 times. So it’s not really worth the worry
@@jrconway3 So were lots of people do you pray to them also? But she isnt mentioned do you have a scripture?Just seems like a far stretch to justify idolatry. Jesus is the word. He isn’t me up ed all through old test and new. He’s even spoken of in Revelation
What I'm absolutely certain is, to us it does not matter what happened to Joseph. It will not change our faith or salvation in any way. It's one of those things we'll find out later if it still matters to us then.
The lack of explanation about Bethuel exemplifies that although the people who wrote scripture may have known why he was overlooked when decisions were made about Rebecca, they did not include the explanation in the scriptures. Just like the New Testament scriptures do not mention why Joseph was not mentioned in the later parts of Jesus's ministry including important times like the cross.
In the case of Bethuel, he is most likely incapacitated and near death. Later when looking for "Laban son of Nahor" Nahor probably outlived his son Bethuel and was possibly still alive. In the case of Joseph, he is likely dead by time Jesus starts his ministry. However in both cases the eldest son would assume the responsibilities as the head of the family. Laban would have been the eldest and therefore would have had to deal with the wedding, Jesus as the firstborn son handed this responsibility to his younger brother who was next in line while hanging on the cross before his death. The Author of the Bible is God, If he needed us to know something else, it would be included, God did not omit important details or hide something.
Except He didn't have any younger brothers to pass this responsibility to, so He gave the responsibility to His disciple, John. The brothers mentioned are either sons of Joseph by a previous wife, or they are more distant relations; they are not sons of Mary, and therefore, Mary is not their responsibility.
@@andrewpatton5114 This is a false Catholic belief. Jesus designated the role to John because John was far more of a brother to him that his "actual" brothers were. Jesus makes this VERY clear throughout the entire New Testament. "Who are my brothers? I tell you, these are my brothers and sisters" It makes no sense for Mary to be running around with "Jesus' brothers and sisters" all the time if they're not HER children, and are older than Jesus. Jesus passing over Mary's other children and giving that to his brother John was showing how much closer he was to John than to his "actual" half siblings, the children of Mary, because Mary was not a perpetual virgin and there's no Biblical evidence to back this claim up. That said, @p739-n2i claimed that Jesus passed it onto his next youngest brother. That is not accurate. He passes over his brothers and gives it to his spiritual brother, John, instead. Jesus' "actual" brothers (Mary's real biological children she had with Joseph) did not follow Jesus until after his resurrection. At that point they hesitated to call themselves his brothers because they did not wish to elevate their position. Other Apostles like Paul, however, continuously still refer to them as "the brothers of the Lord".
@4:41 Bethuel probably wasn't mentioned because in a clan/tribal system it was more important to be called by the head of the clan than the actual father. In this case, Nahor, Abraham, and Haran were the chief heads of their clan/tribe so you would ask is Laban son of Nahor here. Similarly, God always said "I am God of your FATHERS ..." they are the chief fathers in the past
Yeah, I never really thought much about Joseph until I was watching the Chosen and I’m like, “Oh right, I guess he wasn’t really around or mentioned much.” This was a cool video, thanks.
Erik - you say, at 6:40, "notice Jesus' hometown crowd refers to Jesus not as the son of Joseph but only as the son of Mary." Matthew13, verse 55: Is not this *the carpenter's son?* is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Mat13 Interesting content as always, but is there a reason you omitted Matthew 13 in your analysis?
@@TestifyApologetics I was just asking if there is a reason this vid didn't include Matthew's account of Jesus being called, in the present indicative, "the carpenter's son"? This video raised Mark's parallel passage at 6:15 and then at 6:40 stated that in the narrative account of Jesus' visit to his hometown, "none of the people said anything at all" about Joseph. It seems to me that an account where people refer to Jesus as the quote, "Carpenter's son" in the present tense would be highly relevant to the discussion at hand. I wasn't charging you with purposely omitting it. Or with accidentally omitting it. I wasn't charging you with anything! I was just genuinely asking a question :] Only one of us has perfect knowledge (his name is JESUS.) The rest of us are brothers & sisters learning together. Thanks for the cool content, as always. Cheers
@@AnHebrewChild But why do you think the crowd said "carpenter's son" rather than the "son of Joseph" ? Was Joseph possibly more widely known as the "carpenter" instead of his own name ? Intriguing. Respectfully from Florida USA
@@TestifyApologetics Matthew 13's "is not this the carpenter's son?" represents the vlast reference, directly or indirectly, made of Joseph in all the gospels (chronologically). It seems like this is important. I didn't know if maybe you'd already discussed this reference in another recent/related vid or if it's a disputed reading or.. 🤷♂️ I was just asking. It seems like in a video discussing the bible's last references to Joseph, that the very last reference to Joseph would be relevant. Even if he's not named by name.
When I first read the Gospels as a nonbeliever, I noticed this. My guess at the time was that Joseph may have run out on his family, and that this was why Jesus felt so strongly about divorce.
The focus of the writers was one the line of David which came through Mary so that’s why they didn’t focus on Joseph and designate him as “son of Joseph”. As for the people there during His ministry on earth, there are other cultural indicators that Jesus was the man of his household which would mean his earthly father had passed.
I asked Jesus about this and he led me to a few passages that may not seem relevant at first. So... In Matthew's genealogy, we see how the title of Prince of Judah was passed down once God chose Nashon, son of Amminadab to lead the tribe in Numbers 2:3. Did you notice in Matthew 1, that title went from Josiah to Jeconiah but didn't follow Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? Here's where it gets interesting... In Jeremiah 22:28-30 the Lord declares that Jeconiah is to be counted as childless, "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah"? Yet it is written that the title of Prince of Judah (and rightful heir to David's throne) was passed to Shealtiel. How could this be? This is where Luke's genealogy of Joseph comes in. At the same time that Jeconiah had his son Shealtiel, Neri, the son of David's son Nathan, also had a son named Shealtiel. This Shealtiel had a son named Zerubabbel, the Prince of Judah who was made Sheshbazzar, Governor over Judah, by Cyrus. Thus we see that the royal line and title of Prince of Judah transferred from the sons of Solomon to the sons of Nathan. Now we go back to the genealogy in Matthew and see how a carpenter in Nazareth was the Prince of Judah. The reason we don't see Jospeh after Jordan is simple. While we see Jesus subject to both Joseph and Mary for 18 years after he tried to take up his mantle at age 12, Jospeh couldn't see his wife's firstborn baptized at Jordan... Because Jesus had to go see his cousin and be baptized as the Prince of Judah. Joseph had to go to his fathers for Jesus to begin his ministry. That's why Jesus was, by birth, the King of the Jews. He inherited the title from Joseph when the man he called "dad" died. You see, Matthew's genealogy follows God's blessing all the way from Abraham to Judah, and then from Judah's son Pharez to Nashon, the first Pince of Judah chosen by God, leading all the way to the last son of Adam to be Prince of Judah, a carpenter in Nazareth named Joseph... Luke's genealogy isn't for Mary as is commonly taught, it's Joe's actual bloodline, all the way back to Adam.
Hey there! Catholic here. Yes, it is understood that Joseph had died at some point after finding Jesus in the Temple. In fact, there is a large devotion to Joseph as being the patron of a happy death, as he would have had both Mary, the Blessed Mother, and Jesus, Son of Joseph and Son of God, at his bedside. Catholics likewise pray for the grace to be accompanied by them in our final hour. As for his death, there is some speculation that he may have had an 'assumption' moment, similar to Mary. Either at his earthly death, or he was among those spirits who wandered about at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt 27:53) and was assumed into heaven as Mary would be at the end of her earthly life. Although, I must declare this aspect of Joseph is a very niche and not widely attested to in Catholic circles, being more speculative rather than dogmatic as is the case with Mary (whose assumption is also speculative as to whether she was alive during it).
It makes sense that Mother Mary was assumed and I as a Catholic always struggled with this teaching. Modern science attests that a mother will forever carry the cells of her offspring in her body and that hey will actually fight for her health and immunity against many diseases. That helped complete the story for me, that God could not allow His celss or any part of Himself to stay in the grave. Never considered that she might have been dead but now that I recall the old stories did say that she was laid to rest in a flowery bed and that her body was missing thereafter. I think the Orthodox say something similar and instead of Assumption tyey say her Dormition or falling asleep.
@@RedRiverMan That thing you said about the Blessed Mother carrying the cells of her offspring as all mothers do... bro... I'm not crying... you're crying!
As a non Catholic I could agree with Mary being sinless (based on other scripture), and her being assumed to heaven. But I struggled with the idea that J and M remained chaste and didn't have other children considering the other verses that suggest otherwise. But considering that Joseph was older and may not have lived much longer after Jesus' birth makes it a lot more reasonable imo.
I think that the most straightforward explanation in regard to Joseph is that by the time Jesus began his ministry Joseph had already died. Saying that Jesus was the son of Mary simply reflected the fact that Mary was still around. It doesn't contradict the fact that they considered him to be the son of Joseph. In regard to Jesus' instructions from the cross in regard to taking care of Mary, I think it is much more significant that Jesus entrusted her care to John, rather than to his own brother and Mary's son James (presumably the next eldest).
James was the son of Mary of Clopas, "adelphoi" refers to close cousins in those pages. Read the whole of the Gospels for context. In Matthew alone: Mary of Clopas and Mary, mother of Jesus are described as "adelphe" (sisters)... Mary and Mary? Really? Mary of Clopas had kids named "James and Joses," too. Really? Moreover, in the Gospel of Mark, Mary of Clopas is identified as the mother of "James the younger (son of Alphaeus) and Joses" More likely that both Joseph and his brother Clopas/Alphaeus married women named Mary (popular name). Mary of Clopas gave birth to the "brothers" (close cousins) of Jesus. The virgin Mary gave birth to Christ. They probably lived in relatively close quarters, which would make sense. "Adelphoi" is used numerous times throughout the Bible to refer to brothers in a figurative sense or close kin. This is not an isolated event.
Jesus and James had the same mother. The only reason to cast James and the others as cousins, or as older step-brothers by a previous wife of Joseph, is in support of the notion that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. Mary was MARRIED to Joseph. There is nothing unclean or lacking in virtue for Joseph and Mary to have made love after the time that Jesus was born. In fact, it would have been inappropriate for them NOT to have done so.
Hey Erik, Why don't you do a live stream or a good ppt presentation for the maximal case for the resurrection, because I wanted to explore the maximal case but I see no youtube videos really addressing it perfectly, I just see some pieces here and there
When I read the Old Testament I end up sort of glazing over the names and not really reading them. This video showed me that that is a mistake and I should struggle to understand and remember the names and relations of the people presented
The reason Joseph doesn't appear is probably because he was doing what fathers do -- WORKING to earn a living for his family. If he had been dead, Matthew would not have had a source for the Nativity story in his Gospel. Furthermore, Mary and her sons would not have had the money to travel all over Israel as they did. Nor would they have been invited to any fancy weddings. You don't invite impoverished people to fancy weddings. Joseph wasn't at the Crucifixion because he was at home taking care of business. That is the only scenario that makes sense. And the Gospel writers didn't talk much about Joseph because they wanted to stress that Joseph was NOT Jesus's father.
I'm not saying I disagree that Joseph was still alive, but I'm sure Jesus and Mary's other children had been working in some capacity for years by that time, since you were considered an adult in your early teens.
@@ingloriousMachina Sure. But they didn't have a retirement system. And Joseph was just in his late forties or early fifties when Jesus was crucified. So he was likely doing what men do -- work.
@@CCoburn3 Its not impossible he was still alive and working, but this argument falls apart once it gets to the crucifixion. The fact that Joseph still isn't present and Jesus gives Mary to John doesn't make logical sense if Joseph was still alive and just busy working.
@@jrconway3 Actually, the point you bring up is another reason to believe that Joseph was alive. If Joseph was dead, it would have been Jesus's duty, as the firstborn, to take care of Mary. But Jesus was NOT doing so. She was living at home -- or at any rate, away from Jesus. So if Joseph was dead, Jesus was not performing his duties as a son. In essence, he was NOT honoring his mother. Thus, your theory is that Jesus broke the 5th Commandment. I reject that theory. It makes more sense to say that Jesus was looking to the future. He was saying, "When Joseph dies, I want John to fulfill my duties toward Mary."
@@CCoburn3 not likely since in scripture jesus says that the apostles will take care of mary. if joseph was alive then jesus wouldnt have needed to say tht and if jesus did have brothers he wouldnt have needed to say tht. The term brother in the bible meant how we use it today "cousin, friend, family friend" it wasnt limited to siblings.
Laban's is not nahor's son but bethuel (Genesis 29:5) Rebecca was daughter of bethuel (Genesis 24:22-28), and laban is Rebecca's brother (Genesis 24:29) In Genesis 24:22-28 we can see bethuel is nahor and milcah' son.
This is exactly what he says though. Except that Genesis 29:5 doesn't mention Bethuel. If says Laban is the son of Nahor (as the video states), but the Hebrew can mean a less direct relationship - so it can easily mean grandson. And so some translations go with that for clarity. It is still odd to mention Nahor instead of Bethuel, which is what he's saying here.
While I hear what you are saying, how does this work with Joseph? What is odd about not calling Joseph Jesus's father? Joseph being called the father of Jesus is almost unheard of. He's almost never called anything at all in reference to Jesus except the husband of his mother. So why would he be mentioned as a father or as anything when talking about Jesus's family? Seems to me it would be more odd for the gospels to refer to him as a relative at all. The absence of calling Joseph the father of Jesus when god is supposed to be his father seems pretty normal to me. Don't you think it would be out of place, to say the least, to constantly refer to Joseph as Jesus's father?
That's not the point. First of all, while Jesus himself knows Joseph is not his father, the people of Nazareth see him as Jesus' father. Some passages even flat out say he is. "Is this not the carpenter's son?" The point is that Joseph is never mentioned being present--not once--after Jesus' ministry begins. The last chronological mention is when Jesus teaches at the temple when he's 15. Not in ANY of the four books is Joseph mentioned being physically present, while his mother and brothers and sisters are mentioned. Joseph could be off doing things some times, but you'd think he would show up every once and a while, and he'd DEFINITELY be present at the cross. He'd be there and Jesus would not have to "give" Mary to anyone, because Joseph would be there. The obvious explanation is that Joseph is dead by this point. However, its never out right stated Joseph is dead. All four books are consistent on this, though, despite being written by different authors.
As far as I can gather, he most likely passed away before Jesus’s ministry began. It’s not mentioned in explicit detail because it wasn’t necessary to mention as they always pointed out that Mary and his siblings were around during his ministry. So it’s safe to assume he passed or was simply no longer around.
It’s not really that big of deal to say that Joseph died before Jesus was in his 30’s. He was a carpenter in 1st century, could’ve easily fell off a house or killed
Some comments are saying Joseph was married prior to his marriage to Mary and had older children but LUKE 2:4&5 said he went to Bethlehem for the census with Mary who was great with child. It doesn’t say he took any other relatives with him because as a man he would have to account for all his wives and children. That is his taxes worked then and if he didn’t pay the right amount he could be crucified or flogged by Roman soldiers. This scripture allows me to assume with confidence that Joseph only had kids with Mary
Yes! The most straightforward account is that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, and that subsequently she and Joseph went on to have four more sons, who are named, and at LEAST two daughters, who are not.
@@nycsguy Wrong. All those named sons are of other women and men. And the word used merely denotes brethren. The idea Mary had other kids comes from atheists in the 1800s trying to disprove Jesus.
@thehitomiboy7379 Matthew 1 explicitly states that Joseph WAITED until Jesus was born. Then, Mary and Joseph.... did their thing after Jesus was born.
I was told that people in Jesus community didn't recognize Miriam's husband as his dad because the nature of where they were when recently married and the holy nature of Jesus birth.
Nope, it is written that God sent his angel himself to explain to Joseph that the child that Mary conceived was spiritually conceived and that he shouldn't be afraid to marry her.
There is a tradition that Joseph died when Jesus was about 19 years old. Whether or not this is true, it does seem that Joseph was dead before Our Lord began His public ministry.
Interesting observation! Also, check out the story of Adam and his wife, who was with him, in the Garden of Eden. She did not have a name until after they ate of the forbidden fruit, and God pronounced curses upon them and the serpent. And only then did she receive her name: Genesis 3:20 - "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." What significance might this have? 🤨🧐
@@macmaccourt The thing is that Adam was the name for both the man and the woman, read Genesis 1:27, if you read the word for man in Hebrew, it Adam, which is the name for both male and female. In Genesis 2, The first human is named Adam, but if we remember Genesis 1 both are Adam, if anything the one with no proper name is Adam. Because Adam was never named as Adam by no one. Adam is what he is, not his name, until he need to be denoted as the first human to differentiate from all the other humans/Adams that would be born later. The one with proper name was Eve, because of her seed the messiah would come, but originally her name was just Adam as well until the fall.
@@shulkash8799 I had never heard that "Adam was the name for both the man and the woman". Interesting. I wish I knew the Biblical Hebrew language. I appreciate your comments. Thanks
I love your content testify but I would love to get this across to the new viewers Actually Jacob calling Laban son of Nahor makes incredible sense and speaks volumes of how accurate Genesis as scripture because Abraham's direct brother was Nahor and he heard about his family span after the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah and since he directly didn't delegate the marriage of Rebecca to Isaac since Eliezer did, so Jacob would refer to him as such since he was his grandson and what he'll know about his family would've been passed down to his from Isaac who was taught by Abraham
@5 The reason Joseph was "strangely" missing is obvious. He was working 4 10 hour shifts, and just wanted to go home and read the paper. He trusts his son, who was a grown man, to play well with his friends. He wasn't going to hound him. Also, Joseph just wanted to watch tv. On his days off, work in his shop, go fishing. I mean, if you were in your late 20's would you want your dad around? Duh. Seriously, dude. And, this is true, cause I saw it on tiktok and that's where all the experts on Christianity go. (wink)
According to some traditions, Joseph was much older than Mary and already had children from a previous marriage. This would explain why Joseph might be dead by the time Jesus was 30 but left a large family behind.
Yes, the Catholic church makes that claim so they can keep Mary a perpetual virgin. It is not backed by the Bible at all, though. Joseph most likely died due to an illness or an accident. He was a carpenter (some translations suggest he might have actually been referred to as an "artisan" instead, so he might have actually been more of a stonemason). This kind of hard labor can easily result in an accidental death.
Zippori or Sepphoris is the ruins of an important ancient Jewish-Roman city, located in the lower Galilee on the Jezreel Valley, midway between Haifa and the Sea of Galilee ..When Jesus is about 15, Joseph is injured due to a work accident in this town. A heavy load of tiles is going up on the roof of a house, but falls down and injures Joseph so that he dies. Jesus, who is the eldest son, now becomes the one in the house who must provide bread and money for the family's survival.
Interesting story. It'd be nice if there was truth backing up to this, however, this is a good example of what could have happened to Joseph. We cannot simply assume Joseph "died of old age", there are many ways Joseph could have died. Hard labor is very intensive and can cause serious injuries, even death. Joseph could have died via an accident (like this story suggests) or of a sudden disease. Living to die of old age was very rare back then. There's no necessity of Joseph to be significantly older than Mary for him to still be dead by the time Jesus' ministry begins.
True but heres the rub, you cant have the story as we understand it without them. Every character holds the whole story in a different aspect in him or herself. We don't get to isolate Jesus and consider all other characters only incidental, God doesn't do human relations that way in the bible.
@@RedRiverMan Roman Catholics will be insulted, but Joseph and Mary are beneath him. But yes, God is relational, he created us in his image to be with him. In a way, he is isolated from them. Speaking of silence, he might not be Mary's egg either. Paul (our apostle) said he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come in sinful flesh. Words are chosen carefully in the Bible. Mary rightly said she need a savior, as she was born under the curse of Adam.
@@nickma71 I think the Catholic view that Christ's sacrifice allowed Him to be Mary's Saviour before her own birth so that she was born cleaned of original sin, thus making her cells non-sinful flesh makes more sense than a bizarre claim that Mary isn't even Jesus' real mother. Don't let your Protestant attachment to insulting Our Lord's beloved mother lead you into denying Jesus' own humanity.
@@telephonebear21 That is all made up BS. I don't care what people make up, including Muslims, Mormons, JW, or the church of Rome. I don't want them in hell, so the gospel shall be preached. Mary is a sinner the same as everyone else. Romans 3. She will be resurrected with the others after Jacob's trouble (great tribulation-70th week) and placed in the land promised to the Fathers.
My opinion, I always take it as Joseph missing as the Father of the messiah symbolizes God, who appears a lot in the beginning of Old Testament as he speak to everyone clearly In Genesis. But speak everyone differently afterwards. Which I say tell us it’s the actions of not the Father that create the work of the Father, but all his women and children who lay the foundation for his kingdom. As work of God no longer just off great man miracles but of the communication and love the rest the family can produce.
My spiritual director told it to me like this. Joseph completed the mission of a parent and like all good parents he truly completed ot by going away. He let Jesus go bwcause Parents MUST let their child go at a certain point
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Luke 2:48-50 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” Yet his parents did not understand the statement he spoke to them. Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli. John 6:42 And they said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
Just want to comment that Essau sold his blessing to Jacob for... A bowl of soup I think, well before Jacob 'stole' the blessing by tricking his father. Essau is admonished in the New Testament for this. Feel like this detail is too often skipped over when discussing Jacob.
Not exactly. To be Jesus's stepfather, Mary would have had to be married previously to Jesus's biological father. But Jesus didn't have a biological father, and Mary didn't have a prior marriage, because you can't be married to God. It's more correct to say that Joseph was Jesus's adoptive and legal (earthly) father. When Jesus was presented in the Temple as a baby, that's when Joseph formally claimed his as his son, so that Jesus was recorded in the Temple genealogy records as the son of Joseph.
Maybe Joseph went out for a pack of cigarettes. And thats why the authors left it out, they decided a absent father wasn't needed but didn't understand that actually makes Jesus more like us. This of course is just a shot in the dark.
6:35 One explanation I once heard for why Jesus is referred to as the "Son of Mary" was that it was an insult- a roundabout way of stating that Joseph wasn't His father. Technically true, but they didn't mean that in the "Born of a virgin as proof of His divinity and in the fulfillment of prophecy" sort of way. People in a small town like Nazareth would have known that Mary became pregnant with her oldest boy before she'd tied the knot with Joseph, and some people likely never let her forget it. Your thoughts?
That’s what I have thought. Never in history have illegitimate children been treated well, so I am sure that Joseph not being the father of Jesus would have been thrown at them the entire time they lived in Nazareth. So the mistreatment of Jesus by the Jews began at his birth, and not just at the end of his early life.
Good question. No, an argument from silence is more like this: "If the virgin birth happened, then Paul would've mentioned it. Paul didn't mention it. Therefore, it didn't happen." The argument occurs when there's some kind of misconception about what an author would or would not mention. The difference here is that in the Gospels, nowhere are we told what happened to Joseph. There is a consistent and silent presumption of his death without any positive affirmation of that fact. This suggests that the Gospel authors knew more about the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ father, Joseph, than they explicitly tell us in their accounts. This is a hallmark of truthful reporting rather than fictionalization. If anything, Joseph, being a descendant of David, would have provided a marvelous opportunity for a fiction writer to craft an interesting story and embellish details. Instead, the Gospel writers show a lot of restraint.
If either of these men had multiple wives they may have not been totally involved in the managment of multiple families and may have deligated much of the running of their lives to themselves.
📚📖🧐...all the early "orthodox" (Coptic; Greek; Syriac and Latin) apocryphal Gospels describe Joseph was very old man in his 80s (beyond sexual desire) when he married Mary...all of Jesus brothers and sisters are much older from a previous marriage...which is why Mary was entrusted to John- none of them were not her children...Joseph dies at the ripe olde age of over 100yo...when Jesus was about 18yo.....[ references available upon request ]
They're blatantly wrong, but yes, that is a tradition passed around so they can keep their false belief of Mary's perpetual virginity. The logic falls apart when you remember that these brothers and sisters of Jesus, who were supposedly Jesus' older siblings, are still following around Mary who isn't even their mother. If they are younger siblings, however, and Mary's ACTUAL children, this does make sense. (Nevermind the fact that the Bible makes it very clear that Joseph did not officially lie with Mary until after Jesus' birth; making it clear he DID have sex with his wife, which is fully expected of a wife.) The reason why Jesus skips assigning the role to his younger siblings is because he wasn't close to them. He was far closer to John. Its a very spiritual matter. Ordinarily that role would go to the next sibling in line, but Jesus bucked the trend to give it to his spiritual brother, which is a point he keeps making throughout the entire New Testament.
If this was the History channel it would be hinted that Joseph was abducted by aliens.
👽
LOL!!!
@@TestifyApologetics The bible claims the world is 6000 years old, flat with a dome over it, thats all you need to know it cant be believed! So tell me why didnt joe have sex with his wife? Why did he believe her excuse of magic!
@@TestifyApologetics Gay joe and fictional fairy tales!
The History Channel's Ancient Aliens show has already dropped some hints about who they theorize fathered Jesus. Spoiler: their theory doesn't match scripture.
I don't think they theorized anything about Joseph though.
Joseph's absence has always been particularly conspicuous to me, ever since I was reading the Bible as a little kid. If the Gospels were nothing more than myths constructed decades or even centuries later, you'd think that Matthew (the Gospel which emphasizes Jesus' status as the Messianic son of David) would have made Joseph a much more central character.
Lol. Wouldn’t even know where to begin with you.
@@a5dr3 so arrogant, this is why no one likes atheists
Always start with believing the Bible is true. Then the answer is easy.
Mary and Joseph were both of the House of David. Mary came from the line of servants and Joseph was from the line of kings (Matthew 1). Jesus was born to Mary and adopted by Joseph. Likewise we are born again of the Holy Spirit and adopted by Jehovah. There's a symmetry there.
Joseph was from the line of kings. That means while he was alive he was the rightful King of Judah. For Jesus to be the King of the Jews (Judah), Joseph had to be dead.
I agree. This coincidence is very impressive.
No because Joseph is supposedly not Jesus' biological father and Jesus' "true father" is God.
I like at the beginning you said “3 year olds can’t do that you Dawah boys” because some Muslims will say that Rebekah was 3 years old at the time which is ludicrous, false, and purpose is to deflect from Muhammad marrying a 6 year old.
@@jameswest9469 6, I thought it was 9? Not that it makes it any less damning.
@@Mars-5103, he married her when she was six, and waited until she was nine.
Yeah and they don’t even try to make it seem abhorrent. They just go “w-well you guys did it TOO!!!” As if that’s okay that Muhammad married a 6 year old.
Sam Shamoun debunked Rebecca's supposed age of 4, wonderful historical deductive reasoning
@@Mars-5103 he married her at 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9
It's good to know that I'm not the only one who has these questions. It's strange that I've read both Genesis 24 and 29 so many times but I've never completely focused on Bethuel's absence. Thanks for shedding light on this!
Wow. You're one of those people who find things in Scripture that we who read it day in and day out miss.
Bethuel - I never noticed it.
Joseph - I noticed it but never really processed it.
Thanx for the share.
Hello and greetings from Florida. Yes, I need to notice things in the scriptures which I tend to miss.
I feel my brain growing
🧠💪
Br aware it might become into a quasar
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge of the Holy One is the beginning of understanding
Proverbs 9:10
These videos are fantastic in Quality and explanation Erik. Thank you greatly. Have a blessed Easter. Your channel has been an important part of my faith journey for the past few years.
I appreciate that! If it's good it's grace
Revelation 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
This is a really cool series. Thanks for sharing these insights!
Those eyes.
I was NOT expecting that
You missed a couple verses,
Joh 6:42 ISV They kept saying, “This is Jesus, the son of Joseph, isn’t it, whose father and mother we know? So how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
And
Luk 4:22 ISV All the people began to speak well of him and to wonder at the gracious words that flowed from his mouth. They said, “This is Joseph’s son, isn’t it?”
And
Mat 13:55 ISV This is the builder’s son, isn’t it? His mother is named Mary, isn’t she? His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, aren’t they?
None of these verses can absolutely confirm that Joseph was alive at that time. They can still use present tense words with past knowledge.
My non-biblical opinion is that somewhere near the time of Jesus ministry that Joseph had a building accident and had died. The importance of Jesus ministry swallowed up the obituary news.
I mentioned that there were a few brief mentions, including in John.
Very good comment.
Note that Jesus is always referred in these verses a being the son of Joseph or the carpenter. Joseph is not referred as the father of Jesus or Jesus's father Joseph.
Also, in other instances where his Mother and Brothers are mentioned, if Joseph was with them it could have caused confusion for them to say "your Father", because he is not his father. Also Jesus says in Matthew 23:9 NASB1995
[9] Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Jesus is God, he has always been God, he is God in the same way as God the Father is God and God the Spirit is God. Jesus is the begotten son of God the Father, making Jesus, God the Son.
if joseph died then why didn't christ raise him from the dead
@@deividhac probably cause it wasn't essential to the salvation story. If Mother Mary was taken into heaven it makes more sense since He came from her body and modern science proves that a child's cells remain in the body of a mother for the rest of her life. God cant stay in the grave cause, well God is the Life of the world and neither could His human cells.
@@deividhac I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30
I think it's likely Joseph died while Jesus was younger, and Jesus, being the oldest child, worked to provide for his family. This would explain the lack of information about Jesus' life prior to his ministry and the absence of Joseph during his ministry.
But Joseph was married before & had other children. Wouldn't the oldest son be the head & not Jesús?
there is no verse that says Jesus was MARY&JOSEPH"s oldest child. maybe that's a modern certain kind of protestant conclusion. it could be that jesus was one of many children from mary and joseph's marriage. joseph could have been married before (as tradition records) and had children already (who would still be jesus' siblings). jesus' brothers and sisters could also be closeR relatives, like half brothers, step brothers, cousins, second cousins, neighbours, citizens (of the same city), uncles, aunts, close friends, compatriots, associates etc (for such is the semantic range of אח).
Jesus was an ONLY child.
Jesus was God’s only child. Not Joseph’s. Joseph was married, had kids with a wife that had died.
@MossEYE- There is no evidence whatsoever for that in the Bible, nor is there evidence that Joseph and Mary had no children together after Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
In all likelihood, Joseph was a man in his mid-to-late twenties who had recently established himself as wealthy enough to provide for a family, and Mary was a girl in her late teens to early twenties who made a good match.
There's also no mention of any children traveling with Jospeh and Mary before or right after Jesus's birth. No mention of them on the travel to Bethlehem, when they stayed in Egypt, etc. Just Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. You don't think Luke, the detail-oriented writer of one of the four Gospel books, would have at least mentioned at all that there were children in the family before Jesus?
Edit: autocorrect decided that "virgin" *had* to have meant "Virginia," which is now fixed.
I always assumed he had died especially because of Jesus telling John to take care of Mary but after seeing the account of Bethuel; I'm not sure.
I think that it is safe to assume that Joseph died. I'm not an expert, though.
Bethuel could be on his deathbed, so he could not partake in his role as a familys head.
That could explain why he exists in the story, but cannot be bigger part of it, explaining his absence in rituals and lack of mariage gift, which was most probably split between others.
It could be because the family saw it as inapropriate in a way to 'require' a mariage gift, for family member who is going to pass away any day now.
It's a popular but yet a bit controversial opinion that Joseph was much older than Mary when he married her, and much older than we usually assume. It's very much possible that Mary had around 15 when pregnant, thus during the Passion of the Christ, somewhere between 45 and 50 years old. Joseph being 40 years old, would have 70 by the time of Jesus ministry.
Well it's very easy to comprehend how a profession of "builder" can wear out a man, even today. Imagine being a builder at that time! That also helps to explain how Jesus gave so much importance to the care for the widows.
There is no evidence to support the notion that Joseph was significantly older than Mary. In fact from the gospel accounts we have it points to the fact that they were of a similar age.
Why do I say that. For one there is no evidence of any kind of power imbalance here. They both seem mature and respectful of one another, I don't think this would be true if Joseph was significantly older. Secondly you have to bear in mind what happened when Joseph found out Mary was pregnant. He was troubled by it and considered divorcing her quietly. You get the sense that he isn't sure how to handle the situation. This isn't somebody with years of experience behind them, this is somebody who is unsure of themselve.
So even though we don't know what age they were from the gospel accounts we can make a rational conclusion that they both of a mature age and were probably of a similar age
@pgpython The gospel accounts show them as being of similar age? You're going to have to back that up, along with which version you're using.
@@ShinAk1raSama again this is something you just pick from the way they interact with each other. From the passage they both act quite young in the accounts. This isn't definitive proof of their being the same way but if they was a large age gap you wouldn't expect them to behave the way they do. If Joseph was significantly older you would expect Joseph to be more assertive in the way he handles Mary and it just isn't there.
Not only that but nobody thinks their relationship is abnormal in any way. It's not addressed by anyone. Again if there was a significant age gap why did nobody think Mary could be Joseph daughter.
All this is to imply common sense logic to the passages and you will be hard pressed to find any evidence that Joseph was significantly older than Mary as no bible account provides any evidence for it
@@pgpython Are you seriously basing it on personalities? You know-- something that isn't proportional to age?
The other problem you have here is that you're implying that a stark age difference during the time of Jesus MUST be uncommon. Do you have evidence to show that it was, or are you applying your personal views into it?
Common sense logic only really works, if you can also appropriately apply context. The Bible never claims that it states everything, so you'd have to go to extra-Biblical sources to understand context. It also doesn't help that it's implied that Joseph died before the start of Jesus' earthly ministry but definitely would have been dead by the time Jesus was crucified; otherwise, Jesus' asking John to take care of Mary would have made no sense.
@@ShinAk1raSama I wish I could remember where I found this, but indeed when I was searching into this I found that culturally, young jewish people were in a similar age bracket when getting betrothed and married. The range seemed to be 14 to 20 with a difference that seemed to be 5 years give or take, which would make a very large age difference an irregularity.
The same was also present in Germanic cultures. It was Roman, Middle Eastern and possibly Eastern cultures in which large age gaps were not so uncommon.
Even then, most regular betrothals between regular people happened in a similar age bracket. In the cultures listed above (barring Middle Eastern as I am not as well versed on that!) large age gap relationships were still uncommon outside of political and financial pairings.
If someone more knowledgeable corrects me in the future, thanks in advance!
I hope you and your family have a meaningful Easter, Erik.
7 months later but my perspective on Joseph was that he must have died at some point between Jesus as a boy at the temple, and starting His ministry at 30. I had assumed that John being told to take care of Mary was because Jesus, as the son of a widow, was by default responsible during His life for taking care of her, and at His death, He ensured that she would be taken care of by commanding John to adopt her as his mother. I assumed that there would be no need for this if Joseph were still alive, so Mary must have been a widow, and the lack of any mention of Joseph during Jesus' ministry lines up with Joseph dying before Jesus began His ministry.
I kind of want to do a dramatization of that Mark 3 passage. After a time of Jesus refusing to see his brothers and mother, James forces his way through the crowd and yells at Jesus. "Ever since dad died you've been trying to cope by this religious preaching, when you should be grieving with the family."
Jesus replies. "You're father, James, not mine. My Father has always been in heaven."
Why would you do this? Is this not adding to the Bible (story) that we are warned about in Revelation?
But Jesus has no siblings though...brothers in the Bible referes to relatives (cousins, uncles, etc)
@@makotofox1987 references please for Jesus having no siblings
@@katrinbarbeyLol Sola Scriptura nonsense 😂
@@katrinbarbey, in terms of text? No, all of this was indirectly stated in the Bible. In terms of mannerism? Yes, Jesus said to mourn with those who mourn and rejoice with those who rejoice. Why would He abandon His family? Whether or not they’re His mother's children.
I think there is a more plausible narrative reason for why Joseph disappears from the Jesus stories in the gospels, and that is simply that having his "father" there all the time with his mother and brothers and sisters would cause confusion with his "real" father.
Hans? I didn’t expect to see you here! How’s it going man?
@@Mike00513 I am doing fine. How are you?
Well, I may have told you before, but I basically just react to videos that appear in my feed. This one popped up, I watched it, and I thought I'd chip in my two cents.
Interesting thought.
Although it should be noted that when Jesus goes missing as a twelve year old, "his parents" are still mentioned. So Joseph is still present at that time, despite not being recorded as saying anything.
My biggest fear is being recognized in a youtube comment section
@@MatthewFearnley You said: _"Interesting thought."_
Thanks.
You said: _"Although it should be noted that when Jesus goes missing as a twelve year old, "his parents" are still mentioned. So Joseph is still present at that time, despite not being recorded as saying anything."_
Yes, and that story serves to pivot of the narrative of Jesus from a human kid to the Son of God, so that from that point on forwards, Joseph would be in the way of the message. I think this supports my view.
Fascinating. Well done, now I want to go learn more!
Thank you for sharing these videos. I pray you get a bunch more subs. Your channel needs to be promoted.
I always wondered what happened to him. I used to confused the the man named joseph who paid for jesus's tomb as his dad but later learned it was a different guy.
Yup, he was more particularly described as Joseph of Arimathea.
Joseph became known as The Terror of Demons. I don't know what he did to earn that title, but it must've been pretty bad-*ss.
What he did is that he is the peak example of Masculinity to strive towards , silent protector of God Incarnate and the perfect Husband to the Mother of God .Demons hate him because God chose him to guard ever the Divine Son .
So based
Be like Joseph. Take care of other people's sperm golems.
He brought Mary and the new born Jesus to Egypt. Legend has it the Demons and the false gods of Egypt fled during this event.
@@jeremysmith7176 Just imagine the heavenly host surrounding Christ in the spiritual realm as they traveled to Egypt. I doubt any demon could get within 50 miles.
It is likely that Joseph died many years earlier and that Jesus and Mary resided with Clopas, brother of Joseph, and his wife "the other Mary" and their children - first cousins so close as to be called siblings. James was indeed the son of Clopas.
I think in this way, Bethuel simply wasn’t held important role for managing his daughter marriage and the only alternative is to go Rebekah mother and her brother to grant the marriage request.
But with Joseph case, some said Joseph died before Jesus in teenage phase which it seems likely to be happened. With Joseph silenced in the Gospel, we can see that importance of Mary being the mother of Jesus and as an eyewitness to Jesus.
I’ve literally never thought of this before seeing this video, good stuff.
bro i notice you’re talking slower i like it cuz i’m slow you’re the man
I was hoping to hear why bethual wasn’t mentioned but I see what you were going for.
My take on the 'absence' of Joseph in the account of Jesus is that he is mentioned along with Jesus' brothers. I believe it would have been confusing for none believers who were being taught the Gospel to mention Jesus' adoptive father when we know that Jesus' Father is Yahweh. They would probably have argued how he could have two fathers. I am curious if earlier texts didn't say family instead of brothers and sisters.
Well, I am glad I watched this channel just to learn that Gn 24:50 mentions Bethuel. I honestly don't recall that. In fact, I distinctly remember it saying that Bethuel had died, lol. After doing a word search, it doesn't say that at all.
What happened to him?
He died.
Next question, please.
Love the stories you investigate. Learning so much. Thanks
Bethuel is interesting case of author 'being one of characters', where he knows many details, but deems them as inapropriate to spell out.
Joseph's death of old age is an important fact on paper, but for people who knew or heard of him writing about his passing could seem inapropriate.
Bethuel could be on his deathbed, so he could not partake in his role as a familys head.
That could explain why he exists in the story, but cannot be bigger part of it, explaining his absence in rituals and lack of mariage gift, which was most probably split between others.
It could be because the family saw it as inapropriate in a way to 'require' a mariage gift, for family member who is going to pass away any day now.
At least thats how I see it.
"death of old age"
There's no reason to believe he died of old age. He presumably died, yes, but to claim he died of old age is to insert something that isn't there. It is common among Catholic beliefs to assume he was ridiculously old when he married Mary, but there's no Biblical backing for it and in fact is very unlikely. (Especially since the Apostle John lived to be until his 90's.)
Very possible he died of a sudden illness or even an accident. This isn't our modern day where we can easily shrug off a plague or disease with our more advanced medical technology. Leprosy was a very common disease back then that was quite deadly as well, but we don't see any problems with it in today's day and age.
Erik be grindin ❤
So great! Thanks for these videos
This video is great, I love your content and devotion to the Bible. I just have one little addition which you probably already know about. Joseph is not completely absent in the Gospels after the mention in Luke 2, when 12 year old Jesus goes to the temple. He is mentioned when the Jews that knew him growing up saw him teach publicly, for example in John 6:42 and Matthew 13:55
Mary wasn’t exactly talked about much either approx 19 mentions and mostly all within the same story. Joseph was mention 14 times. So it’s not really worth the worry
The difference is that Mary was talked about after Jesus' ministry began, but the last chronological event was when Jesus was around 14-16.
@@jrconway3 So were lots of people do you pray to them also? But she isnt mentioned do you have a scripture?Just seems like a far stretch to justify idolatry. Jesus is the word. He isn’t me up ed all through old test and new. He’s even spoken of in Revelation
What I'm absolutely certain is, to us it does not matter what happened to Joseph. It will not change our faith or salvation in any way. It's one of those things we'll find out later if it still matters to us then.
I still dont get it. What is going on with Bethuel and how dose is it linked to Joseph??
The lack of explanation about Bethuel exemplifies that although the people who wrote scripture may have known why he was overlooked when decisions were made about Rebecca, they did not include the explanation in the scriptures.
Just like the New Testament scriptures do not mention why Joseph was not mentioned in the later parts of Jesus's ministry including important times like the cross.
In the case of Bethuel, he is most likely incapacitated and near death. Later when looking for "Laban son of Nahor" Nahor probably outlived his son Bethuel and was possibly still alive. In the case of Joseph, he is likely dead by time Jesus starts his ministry. However in both cases the eldest son would assume the responsibilities as the head of the family. Laban would have been the eldest and therefore would have had to deal with the wedding, Jesus as the firstborn son handed this responsibility to his younger brother who was next in line while hanging on the cross before his death. The Author of the Bible is God, If he needed us to know something else, it would be included, God did not omit important details or hide something.
Except He didn't have any younger brothers to pass this responsibility to, so He gave the responsibility to His disciple, John. The brothers mentioned are either sons of Joseph by a previous wife, or they are more distant relations; they are not sons of Mary, and therefore, Mary is not their responsibility.
@@andrewpatton5114 This is a false Catholic belief. Jesus designated the role to John because John was far more of a brother to him that his "actual" brothers were. Jesus makes this VERY clear throughout the entire New Testament.
"Who are my brothers? I tell you, these are my brothers and sisters"
It makes no sense for Mary to be running around with "Jesus' brothers and sisters" all the time if they're not HER children, and are older than Jesus.
Jesus passing over Mary's other children and giving that to his brother John was showing how much closer he was to John than to his "actual" half siblings, the children of Mary, because Mary was not a perpetual virgin and there's no Biblical evidence to back this claim up.
That said, @p739-n2i claimed that Jesus passed it onto his next youngest brother. That is not accurate. He passes over his brothers and gives it to his spiritual brother, John, instead.
Jesus' "actual" brothers (Mary's real biological children she had with Joseph) did not follow Jesus until after his resurrection. At that point they hesitated to call themselves his brothers because they did not wish to elevate their position. Other Apostles like Paul, however, continuously still refer to them as "the brothers of the Lord".
Do we have a Mishnah or something about Bethuel? I gotta know more!
@4:41 Bethuel probably wasn't mentioned because in a clan/tribal system it was more important to be called by the head of the clan than the actual father. In this case, Nahor, Abraham, and Haran were the chief heads of their clan/tribe so you would ask is Laban son of Nahor here. Similarly, God always said "I am God of your FATHERS ..." they are the chief fathers in the past
Yeah, I never really thought much about Joseph until I was watching the Chosen and I’m like, “Oh right, I guess he wasn’t really around or mentioned much.” This was a cool video, thanks.
Very interesting. Thanks for all the information presented. God bless.
Erik - you say, at 6:40, "notice Jesus' hometown crowd refers to Jesus not as the son of Joseph but only as the son of Mary."
Matthew13, verse 55: Is not this *the carpenter's son?* is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat13
Interesting content as always, but is there a reason you omitted Matthew 13 in your analysis?
You're reading between some lines there, Joseph's name isn't even mentioned and no I didn't purposefully omit it
@@TestifyApologetics I was just asking if there is a reason this vid didn't include Matthew's account of Jesus being called, in the present indicative, "the carpenter's son"?
This video raised Mark's parallel passage at 6:15 and then at 6:40 stated that in the narrative account of Jesus' visit to his hometown, "none of the people said anything at all" about Joseph. It seems to me that an account where people refer to Jesus as the quote, "Carpenter's son" in the present tense would be highly relevant to the discussion at hand.
I wasn't charging you with purposely omitting it. Or with accidentally omitting it. I wasn't charging you with anything! I was just genuinely asking a question :]
Only one of us has perfect knowledge (his name is JESUS.) The rest of us are brothers & sisters learning together.
Thanks for the cool content, as always. Cheers
@@AnHebrewChild But why do you think the crowd said "carpenter's son" rather than the "son of Joseph" ?
Was Joseph possibly more widely known as the "carpenter" instead of his own name ? Intriguing.
Respectfully from Florida USA
@@TestifyApologetics Matthew 13's "is not this the carpenter's son?" represents the vlast reference, directly or indirectly, made of Joseph in all the gospels (chronologically).
It seems like this is important. I didn't know if maybe you'd already discussed this reference in another recent/related vid or if it's a disputed reading or.. 🤷♂️ I was just asking.
It seems like in a video discussing the bible's last references to Joseph, that the very last reference to Joseph would be relevant. Even if he's not named by name.
@@AnHebrewChildI agree with all that you say.
When I first read the Gospels as a nonbeliever, I noticed this. My guess at the time was that Joseph may have run out on his family, and that this was why Jesus felt so strongly about divorce.
The focus of the writers was one the line of David which came through Mary so that’s why they didn’t focus on Joseph and designate him as “son of Joseph”. As for the people there during His ministry on earth, there are other cultural indicators that Jesus was the man of his household which would mean his earthly father had passed.
Yeahhhh, no that's not enough.
I asked Jesus about this and he led me to a few passages that may not seem relevant at first. So...
In Matthew's genealogy, we see how the title of Prince of Judah was passed down once God chose Nashon, son of Amminadab to lead the tribe in Numbers 2:3. Did you notice in Matthew 1, that title went from Josiah to Jeconiah but didn't follow Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? Here's where it gets interesting...
In Jeremiah 22:28-30 the Lord declares that Jeconiah is to be counted as childless, "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah"? Yet it is written that the title of Prince of Judah (and rightful heir to David's throne) was passed to Shealtiel. How could this be? This is where Luke's genealogy of Joseph comes in. At the same time that Jeconiah had his son Shealtiel, Neri, the son of David's son Nathan, also had a son named Shealtiel. This Shealtiel had a son named Zerubabbel, the Prince of Judah who was made Sheshbazzar, Governor over Judah, by Cyrus.
Thus we see that the royal line and title of Prince of Judah transferred from the sons of Solomon to the sons of Nathan. Now we go back to the genealogy in Matthew and see how a carpenter in Nazareth was the Prince of Judah. The reason we don't see Jospeh after Jordan is simple. While we see Jesus subject to both Joseph and Mary for 18 years after he tried to take up his mantle at age 12, Jospeh couldn't see his wife's firstborn baptized at Jordan...
Because Jesus had to go see his cousin and be baptized as the Prince of Judah. Joseph had to go to his fathers for Jesus to begin his ministry. That's why Jesus was, by birth, the King of the Jews. He inherited the title from Joseph when the man he called "dad" died.
You see, Matthew's genealogy follows God's blessing all the way from Abraham to Judah, and then from Judah's son Pharez to Nashon, the first Pince of Judah chosen by God, leading all the way to the last son of Adam to be Prince of Judah, a carpenter in Nazareth named Joseph...
Luke's genealogy isn't for Mary as is commonly taught, it's Joe's actual bloodline, all the way back to Adam.
Hey there! Catholic here. Yes, it is understood that Joseph had died at some point after finding Jesus in the Temple. In fact, there is a large devotion to Joseph as being the patron of a happy death, as he would have had both Mary, the Blessed Mother, and Jesus, Son of Joseph and Son of God, at his bedside. Catholics likewise pray for the grace to be accompanied by them in our final hour.
As for his death, there is some speculation that he may have had an 'assumption' moment, similar to Mary. Either at his earthly death, or he was among those spirits who wandered about at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt 27:53) and was assumed into heaven as Mary would be at the end of her earthly life. Although, I must declare this aspect of Joseph is a very niche and not widely attested to in Catholic circles, being more speculative rather than dogmatic as is the case with Mary (whose assumption is also speculative as to whether she was alive during it).
Thank you! I was wondering what various traditions would say.
It makes sense that Mother Mary was assumed and I as a Catholic always struggled with this teaching. Modern science attests that a mother will forever carry the cells of her offspring in her body and that hey will actually fight for her health and immunity against many diseases. That helped complete the story for me, that God could not allow His celss or any part of Himself to stay in the grave. Never considered that she might have been dead but now that I recall the old stories did say that she was laid to rest in a flowery bed and that her body was missing thereafter. I think the Orthodox say something similar and instead of Assumption tyey say her Dormition or falling asleep.
@@RedRiverMan That thing you said about the Blessed Mother carrying the cells of her offspring as all mothers do... bro... I'm not crying... you're crying!
As a non Catholic I could agree with Mary being sinless (based on other scripture), and her being assumed to heaven. But I struggled with the idea that J and M remained chaste and didn't have other children considering the other verses that suggest otherwise. But considering that Joseph was older and may not have lived much longer after Jesus' birth makes it a lot more reasonable imo.
This is one of my favourites, well explained.
I think that the most straightforward explanation in regard to Joseph is that by the time Jesus began his ministry Joseph had already died. Saying that Jesus was the son of Mary simply reflected the fact that Mary was still around. It doesn't contradict the fact that they considered him to be the son of Joseph.
In regard to Jesus' instructions from the cross in regard to taking care of Mary, I think it is much more significant that Jesus entrusted her care to John, rather than to his own brother and Mary's son James (presumably the next eldest).
Donʼt forget that James didnʼt believe in Jesus back then.
@@deutschermichel5807 That is a very good point!
James was the son of Mary of Clopas, "adelphoi" refers to close cousins in those pages. Read the whole of the Gospels for context. In Matthew alone:
Mary of Clopas and Mary, mother of Jesus are described as "adelphe" (sisters)... Mary and Mary? Really? Mary of Clopas had kids named "James and Joses," too. Really?
Moreover, in the Gospel of Mark, Mary of Clopas is identified as the mother of "James the younger (son of Alphaeus) and Joses"
More likely that both Joseph and his brother Clopas/Alphaeus married women named Mary (popular name). Mary of Clopas gave birth to the "brothers" (close cousins) of Jesus. The virgin Mary gave birth to Christ. They probably lived in relatively close quarters, which would make sense.
"Adelphoi" is used numerous times throughout the Bible to refer to brothers in a figurative sense or close kin. This is not an isolated event.
@@ignatiusjackson235 so was Joseph firstly married to Mary, the sister of the Theotokos? And after Maryʼs death, Joseph married the Theotokos?
Jesus and James had the same mother. The only reason to cast James and the others as cousins, or as older step-brothers by a previous wife of Joseph, is in support of the notion that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.
Mary was MARRIED to Joseph. There is nothing unclean or lacking in virtue for Joseph and Mary to have made love after the time that Jesus was born. In fact, it would have been inappropriate for them NOT to have done so.
Hey Erik, Why don't you do a live stream or a good ppt presentation for the maximal case for the resurrection, because I wanted to explore the maximal case but I see no youtube videos really addressing it perfectly, I just see some pieces here and there
I always kind of assumed he died in Jesus' youth, or there was some unspoken beef between Jesus and his "stepdad". Fascinating dive into it tho.
When I read the Old Testament I end up sort of glazing over the names and not really reading them. This video showed me that that is a mistake and I should struggle to understand and remember the names and relations of the people presented
The reason Joseph doesn't appear is probably because he was doing what fathers do -- WORKING to earn a living for his family. If he had been dead, Matthew would not have had a source for the Nativity story in his Gospel. Furthermore, Mary and her sons would not have had the money to travel all over Israel as they did. Nor would they have been invited to any fancy weddings. You don't invite impoverished people to fancy weddings. Joseph wasn't at the Crucifixion because he was at home taking care of business. That is the only scenario that makes sense. And the Gospel writers didn't talk much about Joseph because they wanted to stress that Joseph was NOT Jesus's father.
I'm not saying I disagree that Joseph was still alive, but I'm sure Jesus and Mary's other children had been working in some capacity for years by that time, since you were considered an adult in your early teens.
@@ingloriousMachina Sure. But they didn't have a retirement system. And Joseph was just in his late forties or early fifties when Jesus was crucified. So he was likely doing what men do -- work.
@@CCoburn3 Its not impossible he was still alive and working, but this argument falls apart once it gets to the crucifixion. The fact that Joseph still isn't present and Jesus gives Mary to John doesn't make logical sense if Joseph was still alive and just busy working.
@@jrconway3 Actually, the point you bring up is another reason to believe that Joseph was alive. If Joseph was dead, it would have been Jesus's duty, as the firstborn, to take care of Mary. But Jesus was NOT doing so. She was living at home -- or at any rate, away from Jesus.
So if Joseph was dead, Jesus was not performing his duties as a son. In essence, he was NOT honoring his mother. Thus, your theory is that Jesus broke the 5th Commandment. I reject that theory.
It makes more sense to say that Jesus was looking to the future. He was saying, "When Joseph dies, I want John to fulfill my duties toward Mary."
@@CCoburn3 not likely since in scripture jesus says that the apostles will take care of mary. if joseph was alive then jesus wouldnt have needed to say tht and if jesus did have brothers he wouldnt have needed to say tht. The term brother in the bible meant how we use it today "cousin, friend, family friend" it wasnt limited to siblings.
Laban's is not nahor's son but bethuel (Genesis 29:5)
Rebecca was daughter of bethuel (Genesis 24:22-28), and laban is Rebecca's brother (Genesis 24:29)
In Genesis 24:22-28 we can see bethuel is nahor and milcah' son.
Yeah, he needs to review his material and "double" check it 3 times.
This is exactly what he says though. Except that Genesis 29:5 doesn't mention Bethuel. If says Laban is the son of Nahor (as the video states), but the Hebrew can mean a less direct relationship - so it can easily mean grandson. And so some translations go with that for clarity. It is still odd to mention Nahor instead of Bethuel, which is what he's saying here.
Thank you for this info!😊
While I hear what you are saying, how does this work with Joseph? What is odd about not calling Joseph Jesus's father? Joseph being called the father of Jesus is almost unheard of. He's almost never called anything at all in reference to Jesus except the husband of his mother. So why would he be mentioned as a father or as anything when talking about Jesus's family? Seems to me it would be more odd for the gospels to refer to him as a relative at all. The absence of calling Joseph the father of Jesus when god is supposed to be his father seems pretty normal to me. Don't you think it would be out of place, to say the least, to constantly refer to Joseph as Jesus's father?
That's not the point. First of all, while Jesus himself knows Joseph is not his father, the people of Nazareth see him as Jesus' father. Some passages even flat out say he is.
"Is this not the carpenter's son?"
The point is that Joseph is never mentioned being present--not once--after Jesus' ministry begins. The last chronological mention is when Jesus teaches at the temple when he's 15. Not in ANY of the four books is Joseph mentioned being physically present, while his mother and brothers and sisters are mentioned.
Joseph could be off doing things some times, but you'd think he would show up every once and a while, and he'd DEFINITELY be present at the cross. He'd be there and Jesus would not have to "give" Mary to anyone, because Joseph would be there.
The obvious explanation is that Joseph is dead by this point. However, its never out right stated Joseph is dead. All four books are consistent on this, though, despite being written by different authors.
You didn’t actually say what happened to Joseph, only that he was less and less mentioned.
This is one of those things that I never thought about, but now that its mentioned Im not going to forget it 😂.
So what did happen with Joseph?
As far as I can gather, he most likely passed away before Jesus’s ministry began. It’s not mentioned in explicit detail because it wasn’t necessary to mention as they always pointed out that Mary and his siblings were around during his ministry. So it’s safe to assume he passed or was simply no longer around.
It’s not really that big of deal to say that Joseph died before Jesus was in his 30’s. He was a carpenter in 1st century, could’ve easily fell off a house or killed
Bethuel must be super bummed out after the Book of Genesis dropped.
Saint Joseph , Terror of Demons , speaks from Silence of his attitude as silent protector .
Some comments are saying Joseph was married prior to his marriage to Mary and had older children but LUKE 2:4&5 said he went to Bethlehem for the census with Mary who was great with child. It doesn’t say he took any other relatives with him because as a man he would have to account for all his wives and children. That is his taxes worked then and if he didn’t pay the right amount he could be crucified or flogged by Roman soldiers. This scripture allows me to assume with confidence that Joseph only had kids with Mary
And he only had 1 kid, and that was Jesus.
And he only had 1 kid, Jesus.
Yes! The most straightforward account is that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, and that subsequently she and Joseph went on to have four more sons, who are named, and at LEAST two daughters, who are not.
@@nycsguy Wrong. All those named sons are of other women and men. And the word used merely denotes brethren.
The idea Mary had other kids comes from atheists in the 1800s trying to disprove Jesus.
@thehitomiboy7379
Matthew 1 explicitly states that Joseph WAITED until Jesus was born. Then, Mary and Joseph.... did their thing after Jesus was born.
I was told that people in Jesus community didn't recognize Miriam's husband as his dad because the nature of where they were when recently married and the holy nature of Jesus birth.
hahahaha that notice for the dawah-potato-boys xD
What if Joseph as a devoted Jew, eventually did not believe his son to be the Messiah and hence he is omitted from the later events?
Nope, it is written that God sent his angel himself to explain to Joseph that the child that Mary conceived was spiritually conceived and that he shouldn't be afraid to marry her.
There is a tradition that Joseph died when Jesus was about 19 years old. Whether or not this is true, it does seem that Joseph was dead before Our Lord began His public ministry.
Interesting observation! Also, check out the story of Adam and his wife, who was with him, in the Garden of Eden. She did not have a name until after they ate of the forbidden fruit, and God pronounced curses upon them and the serpent. And only then did she receive her name: Genesis 3:20 - "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." What significance might this have? 🤨🧐
Because of the seed of the woman, the messiah would come to the world to fight against the seed of the serpent.
@@shulkash8799 yes, but why did Adam have a name before they sinned and not her?
@@macmaccourt The thing is that Adam was the name for both the man and the woman, read Genesis 1:27, if you read the word for man in Hebrew, it Adam, which is the name for both male and female.
In Genesis 2, The first human is named Adam, but if we remember Genesis 1 both are Adam, if anything the one with no proper name is Adam. Because Adam was never named as Adam by no one. Adam is what he is, not his name, until he need to be denoted as the first human to differentiate from all the other humans/Adams that would be born later. The one with proper name was Eve, because of her seed the messiah would come, but originally her name was just Adam as well until the fall.
That is not correct, Adam names Eve before they aye of the forbidden fruit.
@@shulkash8799 I had never heard that "Adam was the name for both the man and the woman". Interesting. I wish I knew the Biblical Hebrew language.
I appreciate your comments. Thanks
We should always respect the silence of God…not sure speculation serves any divine purpose??
You never answered the question posed by your video. Did he die?
I love your content testify but I would love to get this across to the new viewers
Actually Jacob calling Laban son of Nahor makes incredible sense and speaks volumes of how accurate Genesis as scripture because Abraham's direct brother was Nahor and he heard about his family span after the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah and since he directly didn't delegate the marriage of Rebecca to Isaac since Eliezer did, so Jacob would refer to him as such since he was his grandson and what he'll know about his family would've been passed down to his from Isaac who was taught by Abraham
@5 The reason Joseph was "strangely" missing is obvious. He was working 4 10 hour shifts, and just wanted to go home and read the paper. He trusts his son, who was a grown man, to play well with his friends. He wasn't going to hound him. Also, Joseph just wanted to watch tv. On his days off, work in his shop, go fishing. I mean, if you were in your late 20's would you want your dad around? Duh. Seriously, dude. And, this is true, cause I saw it on tiktok and that's where all the experts on Christianity go. (wink)
Wait so what happened to joseph?
According to some traditions, Joseph was much older than Mary and already had children from a previous marriage. This would explain why Joseph might be dead by the time Jesus was 30 but left a large family behind.
the bible doesnt say that
Yes, the Catholic church makes that claim so they can keep Mary a perpetual virgin. It is not backed by the Bible at all, though.
Joseph most likely died due to an illness or an accident. He was a carpenter (some translations suggest he might have actually been referred to as an "artisan" instead, so he might have actually been more of a stonemason). This kind of hard labor can easily result in an accidental death.
Missing information is the best form of evidence.
Zippori or Sepphoris is the ruins of an important ancient Jewish-Roman city, located in the lower Galilee on the Jezreel Valley, midway between Haifa and the Sea of Galilee ..When Jesus is about 15, Joseph is injured due to a work accident in this town. A heavy load of tiles is going up on the roof of a house, but falls down and injures Joseph so that he dies. Jesus, who is the eldest son, now becomes the one in the house who must provide bread and money for the family's survival.
Interesting story. It'd be nice if there was truth backing up to this, however, this is a good example of what could have happened to Joseph. We cannot simply assume Joseph "died of old age", there are many ways Joseph could have died. Hard labor is very intensive and can cause serious injuries, even death. Joseph could have died via an accident (like this story suggests) or of a sudden disease. Living to die of old age was very rare back then.
There's no necessity of Joseph to be significantly older than Mary for him to still be dead by the time Jesus' ministry begins.
He was at work. Bills aint gonna pay themselves.
Mary and Joseph are figures (important) in history, but they are not the story.
True but heres the rub, you cant have the story as we understand it without them. Every character holds the whole story in a different aspect in him or herself. We don't get to isolate Jesus and consider all other characters only incidental, God doesn't do human relations that way in the bible.
@@RedRiverMan Roman Catholics will be insulted, but Joseph and Mary are beneath him. But yes, God is relational, he created us in his image to be with him.
In a way, he is isolated from them.
Speaking of silence, he might not be Mary's egg either. Paul (our apostle) said he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come in sinful flesh. Words are chosen carefully in the Bible. Mary rightly said she need a savior, as she was born under the curse of Adam.
@@nickma71 I think the Catholic view that Christ's sacrifice allowed Him to be Mary's Saviour before her own birth so that she was born cleaned of original sin, thus making her cells non-sinful flesh makes more sense than a bizarre claim that Mary isn't even Jesus' real mother. Don't let your Protestant attachment to insulting Our Lord's beloved mother lead you into denying Jesus' own humanity.
@@telephonebear21 That is all made up BS. I don't care what people make up, including Muslims, Mormons, JW, or the church of Rome. I don't want them in hell, so the gospel shall be preached. Mary is a sinner the same as everyone else. Romans 3. She will be resurrected with the others after Jacob's trouble (great tribulation-70th week) and placed in the land promised to the Fathers.
There wasn't a term in Hebrew for grandfather. Just father/son. But yeah, maybe Bethuel was out of order.
I always wonder what happened to Jesus’ sisters.
Both histories mach up, it was (and still is) common for the older son and mother to be the oneas headind the family after the father's death
My opinion, I always take it as Joseph missing as the Father of the messiah symbolizes God, who appears a lot in the beginning of Old Testament as he speak to everyone clearly In Genesis. But speak everyone differently afterwards. Which I say tell us it’s the actions of not the Father that create the work of the Father, but all his women and children who lay the foundation for his kingdom. As work of God no longer just off great man miracles but of the communication and love the rest the family can produce.
The answer is simple. Joseph died when Jesus was young. So no mystery at all.
Except there isn't a single account of that from any source. He could have traveled to China for all we know.
@@infernoslayer5393 indeed. But unlikely. Travel in those days was super expensive and dangerous.
My spiritual director told it to me like this. Joseph completed the mission of a parent and like all good parents he truly completed ot by going away. He let Jesus go bwcause Parents MUST let their child go at a certain point
Awesome video! Explained a lot for such a short statement that Joseph has "died" 🤣
The bible says fill your lamps with oil ,..
Thank you for this input,. Blessings
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Luke 2:48-50 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” Yet his parents did not understand the statement he spoke to them.
Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.
John 6:42 And they said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
The Bethel part was so funny 🤣
Good stuff.
Just want to comment that Essau sold his blessing to Jacob for... A bowl of soup I think, well before Jacob 'stole' the blessing by tricking his father. Essau is admonished in the New Testament for this. Feel like this detail is too often skipped over when discussing Jacob.
Isnt Joseph Jesuses step dad? He was married to Mary.
Not exactly. To be Jesus's stepfather, Mary would have had to be married previously to Jesus's biological father. But Jesus didn't have a biological father, and Mary didn't have a prior marriage, because you can't be married to God. It's more correct to say that Joseph was Jesus's adoptive and legal (earthly) father. When Jesus was presented in the Temple as a baby, that's when Joseph formally claimed his as his son, so that Jesus was recorded in the Temple genealogy records as the son of Joseph.
Maybe Joseph went out for a pack of cigarettes. And thats why the authors left it out, they decided a absent father wasn't needed but didn't understand that actually makes Jesus more like us. This of course is just a shot in the dark.
Thank you
In the Talmud, Bethuel is described as a wicked man. So there definitely seems to have been something fishy going on with him.
6:35 One explanation I once heard for why Jesus is referred to as the "Son of Mary" was that it was an insult- a roundabout way of stating that Joseph wasn't His father. Technically true, but they didn't mean that in the "Born of a virgin as proof of His divinity and in the fulfillment of prophecy" sort of way. People in a small town like Nazareth would have known that Mary became pregnant with her oldest boy before she'd tied the knot with Joseph, and some people likely never let her forget it.
Your thoughts?
That’s what I have thought. Never in history have illegitimate children been treated well, so I am sure that Joseph not being the father of Jesus would have been thrown at them the entire time they lived in Nazareth. So the mistreatment of Jesus by the Jews began at his birth, and not just at the end of his early life.
Is this an argument from silence?
Good question. No, an argument from silence is more like this: "If the virgin birth happened, then Paul would've mentioned it. Paul didn't mention it. Therefore, it didn't happen." The argument occurs when there's some kind of misconception about what an author would or would not mention.
The difference here is that in the Gospels, nowhere are we told what happened to Joseph. There is a consistent and silent presumption of his death without any positive affirmation of that fact. This suggests that the Gospel authors knew more about the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ father, Joseph, than they explicitly tell us in their accounts. This is a hallmark of truthful reporting rather than fictionalization. If anything, Joseph, being a descendant of David, would have provided a marvelous opportunity for a fiction writer to craft an interesting story and embellish details. Instead, the Gospel writers show a lot of restraint.
@@TestifyApologeticsThank you.
This makes it not a story?
not by itself, no. but it's a cumulative case, death by a thousand paper cuts.
If either of these men had multiple wives they may have not been totally involved in the managment of multiple families and may have deligated much of the running of their lives to themselves.
📚📖🧐...all the early "orthodox" (Coptic; Greek; Syriac and Latin) apocryphal Gospels describe Joseph was very old man in his 80s (beyond sexual desire) when he married Mary...all of Jesus brothers and sisters are much older from a previous marriage...which is why Mary was entrusted to John- none of them were not her children...Joseph dies at the ripe olde age of over 100yo...when Jesus was about 18yo.....[ references available upon request ]
They're blatantly wrong, but yes, that is a tradition passed around so they can keep their false belief of Mary's perpetual virginity.
The logic falls apart when you remember that these brothers and sisters of Jesus, who were supposedly Jesus' older siblings, are still following around Mary who isn't even their mother. If they are younger siblings, however, and Mary's ACTUAL children, this does make sense.
(Nevermind the fact that the Bible makes it very clear that Joseph did not officially lie with Mary until after Jesus' birth; making it clear he DID have sex with his wife, which is fully expected of a wife.)
The reason why Jesus skips assigning the role to his younger siblings is because he wasn't close to them. He was far closer to John. Its a very spiritual matter. Ordinarily that role would go to the next sibling in line, but Jesus bucked the trend to give it to his spiritual brother, which is a point he keeps making throughout the entire New Testament.