Saint Joseph - Joseph the Carpenter

A bit of skepticism is healthy, but let's not reach too hard for controversy.

""Is not this the carpenter's son?" -- Matthew 13:55

http://biblehub.com/matthew/13-55.htm

Mark says it a bit differently.

"Isn't this the carpenter,the son of Mary ...?" -- Mark 6:3

http://biblehub.com/mark/6-3.htm

It's not a transliteration problem, it's a slight variation in the sources.

a more appropriate name would be Yosef ben Yacob

I have a blog I have written on my page on this subject.
It's on www.voy.com/40560/, post 255 A: Noblis Decurion, the metal miners.

Joseph is known to be mentioned as "Decurio" which was "an official under Roman authority who was in charge of metal mining." It was a very lucrative and coveted position. The Roman writer, statesman and orator Cicero (106 - 43 B.C.) remarked that "it was easier to become a Senator of Rome than a Decurio in Pompeii." It was a title that originated in Spain where Jewish metal workers had lived since the 6th century B.C.

In his book: 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' author Laurence Gardner describes Joseph of Arimathea as Saint James, The Just - the brother of Jesus. he was in Somerset, Glastonbury and Cornwall because of the tin trade between Briton and Rome. Tin was mixed with copper to produce bronze.

As I see you are actually talking about Joseph the father of Jesus. Yes, I said FATHER of Jesus. He and Jesus were listed as "ho tekton" (in Greek) which meant "Master of the Craft." This designation alludes to a Master of the Craft in what some have referred to as a "mystery cult" but was what would later be called "The Masonic Lodge." The term Master of the Craft is still used in the Lodge. It refers to a Third Degree Master Mason. It those days one almost had to be a mason on stonework to join. Ergo, he was NO carpenter, but a stone mason.

Yes, there is a large fantasy literature from medieval England about Joseph the Carpenter, Joseph of Arimathea, and the connections to Glastonbury. However, we're doing serious research here. All of that needs to be set aside in favor of actual sources.

I could swear that she was 12 when she had Jesus, so why have it been added 10 year to her age, is it due to some modern political correctness?

Mary, mother of Jesus

The Protevangelium of James (c 145) says she was 12. Other legends say she was 14, 15, or 20.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html

Now subtract those guesses from the guesses about Jesus' birth -- 7 BCE to 2 BCE -- and see what you get.

It's silly to even guess at a year.

Between -7 to -4, makes only a difference to three year, adding the oldest Mary would make her 20 year 7, 20 year 4, thus born -27 or -24, surely showing a favoring of her being rather older than younger, moral of today is the the clear judge in this subject, not silliness.

Play out the full scenario, not just the parts you like.

If Jesus was born in 7 BCE and Mary was 20, then you get -27 for her birth. Just a year off from the current date on the profile.

If Jesus was born in 2 BCE and Mary was 12, then you get -13 for her birth.

That's a range of 14 year. She could have been old enough to be her own mother.

Inventing data violates the first rule of genealogy.What's the point of making up a date to cover up not knowing? That's why I say it's silliness.

No, the correct solution is to put up her as born between the oldest and the earliest dates, that's not inventing data, less than to nail it as born -26.

I have to agree with Justin. After reading this article, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm, stating that Mary was sent home from the temple at age 14 to marry and with some sights believing that Mary was born around 20 BC and Jesus between 4 and 5 BC, and also with some showing that she was possibly pregnant before marriage, I would have to say that Mary was around 14 or 15 when Jesus was born.

I agree that many people would do it that way, but we still don't really know, do we? I think I would agree if it weren't for the fact that all these dates come from attempts to reconcile contradictory statements in the gospels.

Then too, there are other views. Some scholars -- definitely a minority -- place Jesus' age at his crucifixion at "close to 50" based on John 8:57 ("You are not yet fifty years old") and the statement of Irenaeus (died c202) (Jesus was nearing 50 years old during his life on earth).

Play with that, keeping in mind that the crucifixion was somewhere between 28 and 36 (the most common argument being 30 to 33). Now factor in the guesses about Mary (which are still just myth and legend). The range begins to broaden.

My problem with your argument is primarily that you think your way is "the correct way". The trend among modern historians is to leave these details for specialized debate, assign people like to just "1st century", and acknowledge that there are too many arguments to be sure of a guess.

While we're on the subject, you might want to raise the issue of whether Mary died at Jerusalem or Ephesus, and whether she died 3 years or 15 years after her son ;)

Cross-posted. My reply was meant for Ulf, not Pamela.

Makes sense for the Sanhedrin (Freemasons) to have active priests- "ho tekton" (in Greek) which meant "Master of the Craft."

We could safely assume Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Traditionally, Mary's uncle Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin but her husband Joseph the Carpenter was not.

Even thought not directly stated, It is implied and suggest a common knowledge among the scribes, there is a pesher 'code' in the Gospel texts.

Who was Joseph, who was Miriam (Mary)... who was Yesu (Jesus) really? Whoever Yesus was, while he did have some Semitic heritage, it's doubtful, he was a 'Jew'.

First, based on 'All' the evidence the root of Christianity existed long before the Abraham was even born.

First the Root:

Notsri-

1. A believer in the religion of Yesu.

2. Of the believers in the religion of Yesu, of Christianity (Natsrut)
Christians are called “notsrim” and this has nothing to do with Nazareth.
(Natsrat).

Yesu/Jesus was called a Nazarene (notsri) NOT a Nazarethite (Natsrati). He, or the story about him was the standard to which the adherents of other messianic groups (Notsrim) flocked to.

The term ‘notsri’ came to mean “christian”, but this would mean that “Yesu HaNotsri” meant “Jesus the Christian”, which is absurd, taking into account the fact that Yesu/Jesus was supposedly the founder of the Christian religion (Natsrut).

So, the Notsrim were already existing at the time of Jesus, and he was either one of them or he was taken to be one of them. So, he came to be called “Yesu
Hanotsri”. (Jesus the Nazarene (Not Nazarethite).

[Keep in mind that in English Nazarene may have come to mean “Nazarethite”, but that is because of the Christian religion and the influence of European Christian culture.]

The term “Notsri” eventually came to mean “Christian”, since the various Notsrim either converted to Judaism, or remained among the prevailing Christian movement, or they assimilated into other cultures.

Notsri CANNOT be the adjective form of “nazareth” (Natsrat), because the“tav”, which forms the base of the name, CANNOT be dropped from a propper name.

The biggest lie of Christianity is that it’s a run-away splinter group off the Cult of YHWH (known today as Judaism) started by the revolutionary Yesu (Jesus).

The question, this ‘Yesu’/Jesus ( simply meaning- ‘savior’ a general description of the Messiah), a Persian, Greco-Roman-Trojan, Irish with a tincture of Semitic blood was, at that time, the literal King of Judea, was solely and primarily Semitic? Being labelled and called ‘Yeshua’ by Talmudic Jews, thus erasing his existence by hiding his identity behind a great vail of a lie, hence, the vague term ‘Jew’.

The Second biggest lie of Christianity is that ‘Genealogy’ and bloodline does not matter… Certainly echoed each time some person falsely teaches Yesu/Jesus was the King of the Jews- when literally he was of the royal bloodline of Judea- a branch of the the Persian royal bloodline.

‘If’ Yesu/Jesus was a Rabbinical teacher of any form of Judaism, it was Torah Judaism which was a cross pollination of Egyptian Therapeutae (mix of Eastern and Western medicine), the cult of Ra, the cult of the Aten or Naz-Aryan Faith of the Way and many other non-descript religions at the time. Although, surely- excluding his (Yesu/Jesus) endorsing the practice of that desert law delivered to Amenhotep IV / Moshe by Jethro of Median- Yesu/Jesus hadn’t anything to do with Babylonian Talmudic Jews. He, even condemning them as being, literally, fathered by and of the Devil in the Gospel of John (Ch. 8).

An original Christian- or better described as Nazaryan (meaning ‘people of the branch or vine’) was a member of a non-joining, private family faith, the same family faith practiced by Yesu (Jesus). It existed long before Judaism, the Torah and before ‘Hebraic’ code became a spoken language. It’s origin stem, if a person cares to look, from ancient Sumer (and in my opinion mirror the spiritual ideals of Enki).

‘Rabbi’ simply means teacher, a teacher of what, we might speculate but what kind of teacher was Yesu/Jesus? His mother was Aryan (Aryan people (sometimes called *Troglodytes) whom ruled the Semitic tribes around the geographical area known today as the Middle East ( Irac (URAK), Iran (Aryan), etc…).

A royal branch (whom Ezekial (Ch. 17) describes as a ‘Majestic Vine’) of the old Persian and Achaemenid Empire.

The Prophet Jeremiah notes these parallel bloodlines (Ch. 33:17-26) between Jacob and David vs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

King James Version (KJV)

“17 For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;

18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

19 And the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying,

20 Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

23 Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying,

24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.

25 Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.”

Certainly, Yesu/Jesus is not and was not ‘just’ a Jew… Phooy.

* (The Troglodytae (Greek: Τρωγλοδύται) or Troglodyti (literally “cave goers”)) – Why was Yesu/Jesus born in a cave?

Which, brings to the root of the problem, until we can identify who Melchi-Zedek was (and is) and what faith system he was subscribed was not associated nor did it have anything to do with Judaism- of any kind.

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian, not if we apply all the information available, it can't.

So, when a person spuriously interjects rhetoric concerning the Gospels under some form of white washed Judaism it is false. It would better to address Christianity as something altogether different and certainly entirely different religion.

This is where the derkesthai heritage draw the line.

If 'Jews' can have their false version of the truth we derkesthai are entitled to have the version of truth be observed as well.

Justin there is no proof of Judaism being the truth, nor Buddhism, Hinduism nor any 'ism' for that matter, that could be called Religious.

Interesting stuff but all old news to me. My husband owns a New Age bookstore and I work in the same field as head of the trade association. I enjoy reading about it, but I didn't get the True Believer gene. As soon as someone starts preaching The Truth to me, my eyes glaze over.

The majority of reputable scholars totally reject the idea of pesher and all the rest.

That's as far as we need to go on Geni. The methodology here is essentially academic. Preach all you want, I doubt you'll convince the majority of users to accept a minority view as the final truth.

Ahhh, Thomas. You're making a very fundamental mistake here -- you aren't reading closely enough.

You assume I'm saying one thing when I'm actually saying something much more obvious.

Let's try again.

Geni is a collaborative website. For all practical purposes that means the only reality that matters here is consensual academic opinion.

Like it or not, that's the only thing you'll get most people to agree about.

You can have any personal opinion that pleases you, as I do myself, but it does no good to preach it here. All you end up doing is making yourself look like a crazy man.

I know what your saying Justin.

What I don't understand, considering the root discussion of the word 'ho-tekton', is how you can use the Bible as a source, to justify your argument against and denying the academically known 'Transliteration' issues. And then disclaim it as a source when used justify any other arguments?

Are you BIble Scholar?

And just so you know, Justin, my comments have no relation to the indictment that James has levied against you. Any connection is purely coincidental.

I say this becasue you know that James and I are friends and supporters of HR&IH Prince Nicholas de Vere- the 'Prince' hereditary title of Hungary - not of Britain.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but also not a babe in the woods. I routinely read the academic literature as well as the woo-woo stuff. It's part of my job. I often get advance and review copies of books and articles, because some publishers and authors hope I will take time to write about them.

You still have considerable confusion about the nature of the arguments here.

You still want to think that the arguments from biblical and extra-biblical sources are "my" arguments, when I've told you twice they are not. They are mainstream academic arguments.

You are misusing the word "transliteration" when the context makes it clear you really mean "translation" and your real argument is about whether a particular metaphor is implicit in the original.

You are muddling the academic issues. You are confusing the arguments about age of the surviving texts with an argument about the age of the original material.

Susan's original statement was that there are transliteration issues with the word carpenter. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. She means translation, not transliteration, but even so the translation of tekton as carpenter, craftsman, builder is beyond doubt. The Gospels are the earliest sources. They say tekton, but add nothing more. Anything else you add is speculative at best.

The issue you and she are trying to raise is whether tekton might be the Greek translation of a Hebrew word that was used as a metaphor for "scholar". The idea that tekton might be (maybe, could be, not impossible) a metaphor for a scholar is a respectable (but not majority) academic opinion, but you seem not to be aware that the argument for it actually depends on a passage in the Talmud. The argument is possible only if the Talmud preserves a tradition unknown to the Gospels.

I'm guessing you know there are dozens of theories about Jesus. He was the physical son of Joseph and Mary, he was the illegitimate son of a Roman solider who raped Mary, he was a rabbi, he was a revolutionary and failed Messiah, he is just a solar myth and not a real person, he was the same person as the Pharaoh Ikhnaton, he was the legitimate heir of King Herod, and on and on.

It would be easy to read any of those books and think you've discovered the Truth, as long as you don't know enough to spot the drivel.

I don't want to disrespect your religious beliefs, which are clearly held fervently and sincerely, but I don't think Geni is the right platform for your preaching.

and this is why i don't discuss religon too many race wars..

If the oldest Torah scroll, is carbon dated around 800 years old and the oldest Septuagint is around 1700 years old, there is absolutely 'Zero' proof that it even existed in 'Biblical' times (Whatever that is...). And the oldest Talmud dated is in 1289 A.D much younger than the Torah.

Academically speaking,

The Gospels (appearing after 140 A.D.) predate the Torah and the Septuagint and and that 'thing' called the 'Talmud', which means... Judaism is not only speculative but it's highly spurious at best.

So, Justin, what is your Academic opinion, on 'why' the Gospels or any reference in them, need to answer or be subject to the definitions in that 'thing' called the 'Talmud', when it, 'that' thing called the 'Talmud' and the Torah did not even exist?

We 'Derkesthai' have our customs, our traditions, our beliefs and certainly they're NOT limited or defined by that 'thing' called the 'Talmud.'

You immediately run into the same problem we talked about above. If you choose to reject all academic opinion, then you are just drifting in your own private reality. You can still believe what you want but, like the flat-earthers and their selective "facts", it's hard for most people to take it seriously.

Most modern scholars (Christians, Jews, and atheists alike) put the final redaction of the Torah in its current form to the 6th century BCE, just after the end of the Babylonian Captivity. The arguments are long and complex, but rest on two primary pillars. First, internal evidence shows at least three different older sources, one attributed to the northern kingdom, one to the southern kingdom, and one to the much later redactor. Second, many (but not all) scholars think it is possible to see the influence of Zoroastrianism, which would be very unlikely if it were redacted later.

It's also worth noting that the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century CE) talks about the Torah and tells the same stories. There were also some manuscripts and some fragments from the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures found among the Dead Sea scrolls, dated to between about 200 BCE and 70 CE/AD.

Also worth noting, there are many references in contemporary materials to Gentile Romans who were "God Fearers", people who impressed by the antiquity of the "Jewish scriptures" and followed Jewish customs without taking the final step of conversion.

With these things in mind, it is very hard to think anyone could suggest seriously that there is "zero proof" that the Torah existed in Biblical times. As I said above, I think you are making the elementary mistake of confusing the date of the oldest manuscript copies with the date the books were written.

This chart might help you see the the difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

You also mention the Septuagint, which is nothing more than an early Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. According to the tradition, this translation was made in the 3rd century BCE. If true, that would support the idea that the scriptures themselves were already in existence then. Scholars generally accept that date because the form of Greek used matches that period, and there are references to the the Septuagint as early as the 2nd century BCE. Just as an aside, when St. Paul quotes the scriptures, he always quotes the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. Since St. Paul's Epistles are dated to about 50-60 CE, his use of the Septuagint suggests it was already in existence.

Based on this, I don't see how anyone could argue that the Septuagint is only as old as the oldest surviving manuscript, which you say is 1700 years. Even so, I don't see that the date of the Septuagint adds anything to your argument.

Finally, academics date the earliest parts of the Talmud the 2nd century CE, with the final redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud about 350 and the Babylonian Talmud about 500. That almost has to be correct, just by definition. The Talmud is the Oral Law, written down after the Fall of Jerusalem in 138 CE. The Talmud itself cites (endlessly) the different rabbis whose opinions were the basis. It's possible to date the lives of those authorities, beginning perhaps with HIllell (1st century BCE).

The existence of an Oral Law seems beyond doubt. Jesus himself, according to the Gospels, tells his disciples that the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat, so the disciples should do and observe all they say. Most scholars agree this is a reference to the Oral Law, but disagree about whether Jesus really said it. Along the same lines, Jesus' disputes with the Pharisees are always about the Oral Law. They have one interpretation of the Written Law, but he has another.

The specific dispute on this thread is whether the fact that the Gospels say Jesus or his father was a tekton can be read to mean a scholar. You and Susan think it can. Maybe so, but you'd have to have a 2000 year old oral tradition that was never written down anywhere. And, it's an odd coincidence that your idea matches a theory first put forward in the 1980s by an atheist scholar who based his idea on a passage in the Talmud.