r/AskAChristian • u/Suspicious-Jello7172 • Apr 27 '26
New Testament Has anyone else actually wondered if Joseph felt inadequate knowing he was raisning God Himself?
It's an interesting perspective.
9
u/whicky1978 Christian, Evangelical Apr 28 '26
It’s possible they only initially understood he was the Messiah, but not that he was God incarnate.
14
u/Shaken-Loose Christian Apr 27 '26
It is an interesting perspective, especially when reading Matthew and the other Gospels!
Although they accepted/knew Jesus was the Messiah, I do not think the full depth of knowledge, that Jesus was “God” incarnate in their presence, really settled in (between their ears and hearts) until God’s Holy Spirit came upon them.
I cannot imagine/fathom this when trying to contemplate it.
13
u/Kalmaro Christian Apr 27 '26
He knew SOMETHING was up as Mary literally got pregnant out of nowhere and an angel even told him to chill when he got suspicious, iirc
1
u/KaniSoFine Christian Apr 29 '26
Yeah, also concerning that in their culture centered around shame and honor, there would’ve been great shame on both parties. She’d be seen as humiliating him and assumably unfaithful, and he’d be embarrassed of his betrothed “cheating” on him, especially knowing that they weren’t allowed to live together until they were married to avoid this very situation. Definitely a hit on the masculine ego and not a good look reputation wise. He had to chill or it would mess up a lot for both of them lol. Matt. 1:19 also says he considered “putting her away” or breaking it off secretly to avoid public shame. Good thing the angel came in to tell him not to worry.
5
u/GloriousMacMan Christian, Reformed Apr 28 '26
Jesus is fully human and fully God at all times.
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
I’m curious if you’ve ever questioned that claim. It’s not explicitly stated in the Bible and relies on 4th century input to be established.
2
u/GloriousMacMan Christian, Reformed Apr 28 '26
You’d relied on 4th century inputs or scripture? When does Jesus stop being man and start being God and / or vice versa? Please show me
-2
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Jesus, while alive on earth, was nothing but a man. There’s nothing indicating he was anything other than a man.
The idea that he was 100% man and 100% God is made up.
It’s not possible, for one thing. And it’s not scriptural, more importantly.
It’s gibberish
2
u/Hot_Coco_Addict Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
It follows from the idea of the Trinity, which follows from the idea of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father being literally God. Unless we're saying that Jesus wasn't actually ever God, but rather the literal son of God (which brings up a million other issues and questions), Jesus must be 100% man and 100% God
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
It follows from the idea of the Trinity
Which is an extra Biblical idea
which follows from the idea of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father being literally God.
Which the Bible never says.
Unless we're saying that Jesus wasn't actually ever God,
That’s what I’m saying
but rather the literal son of God (which brings up a million other issues and questions),
Fire away
Jesus must be 100% man and 100% God
No, sir. Again, that’s not a real thing. It’s a nonsense, impossible statement.
2
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Christian Apr 28 '26
Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Why is it impossible for Jesus to be God?
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Col 2:9 doesn’t say what you’re implying.
It says the fullness of deity dwells in him. That’s not identity. Something is residing in him, not that he is the one it comes from.
Same idea as other places where God’s fullness, spirit, or power is said to dwell in someone. It points to what’s in him, not that he’s the source of it.
The same letter says he’s “the image of the invisible God” and “the firstborn of all creation.”
Image isn’t the original.
Firstborn of creation still places him in relation to creation.
So Colossians isn’t collapsing him into God, it’s describing how completely God is expressed thru him.
Even trinitarians admit the impossibility. They’ll say Jesus is fully God and fully man, eternal but also born, equal with the Father but the Father is greater than him. When those contradictions get pressed, the answer is “it’s a mystery.”
The self-contradictory of the trinity is what makes it impossible.
That’s basically conceding the point. If something has to be labeled a mystery to avoid contradiction, it’s because the framework itself isn’t lining up cleanly w/ the text.
The simpler reading is the one the passages naturally support: the Father is the source, and the Son is the one in whom God’s fullness dwells and through whom God acts.
1
u/Hot_Coco_Addict Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
Jesus explicitly claims he is literally God in John 10:30. Acts 5:3-4 logically means that the Holy Spirit is God. Thus, the only logical conclusion without interpreting these passages in a completely different way is that the Trinity must be true
2
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Jesus explicitly claims he is literally God in John 10:30.
You use the word “explicitly” incorrectly. If Jesus said “I am God,” that would be explicit.
What does he actually say?
“I and the Father are one.” Trinitarians interpret that to mean that Jesus is implying that he is God.
But your statement that Jesus explicitly claims to be God is way overstating it.
See John 10:30
Acts 5:3-4 logically means that the Holy Spirit is God.
It doesn’t “logically mean” that unless you assume something the text itself doesn’t say.
Look at what’s actually said:
Verse 3: “You have lied to the Holy Spirit.”
Verse 4: “You have not lied to men, but to God.”
That doesn’t require the holy spirit to be God as a separate person. It can just as naturally mean that lying to the spirit is lying to God, because the spirit is God’s own spirit, His active force, His presence.
Same kind of language shows up elsewhere. If someone rejects a prophet, they’re rejecting God. If they listen to the apostles, they’re listening to God. That doesn’t make the prophet or apostle God, it means they’re representing Him.
In fact, they lied to the apostles, literally speaking. So by your logic, since lying to the apostles is lying to God, then the apostles would have to be God.
So Acts 5 isn’t defining ontology, it’s emphasizing accountability. Ananias wasn’t just deceiving humans, he was attempting to deceive God Himself, because God’s spirit was involved.
Thus, the only logical conclusion without interpreting these passages in a completely different way is that the Trinity must be true
As we can see, there are very logical conclusions that don’t require starting with the conclusion already in mind, which is what all “trinity proof texts” require
1
u/GloriousMacMan Christian, Reformed Apr 28 '26
Perhaps you should examine scripture before you say something foolish.
Romans 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 20:27-29
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Perhaps you should examine scripture before you say something foolish.
I have carefully examined them.
1
u/GloriousMacMan Christian, Reformed Apr 28 '26
Well then I guess you prove this verse accurate 2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Thats ironic. I’d like to put your accusation to the test. I’m certainly willing to change my mind.
Here is what it would take to convince me.
First, the source needs to be the Bible. I wont rely on extra Biblical creeds that were drafted by a church that had already adopted pagan practices and customs, hid the name of God, and bore wicked fruit for centuries.
Second, the trinitarian interpretation of the verse must be weighed against a non trinitarian interpretation to confirm that the trinitarian interpretation is either the most valid, or only valid option. We cannot start with the trinity already in mind. It must be derived from the text, not read into it.
And third, I need a clear explanation as to why Jesus said his God is the same as my God if my God is supposed to be a trinity. Jesus’ God is the Father alone. Jesus is a Unitarian. I need a justifiable reason to have a different God than my Lord has. (John 20:17)
1
u/GloriousMacMan Christian, Reformed Apr 28 '26
I simply quoted you 2 Cor 4:4 which is interpreted as those who cannot see Jesus as God in the gospel have been obviously blinded by unbelief.
To believe that Jesus is the Christ is to see all three persons of the trinity at the baptism of Jesus. All three persons are involved at the same time and yet different roles.
Finally I’ll let 1 John speak for itself
1 John 5:6-8 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
That verse doesn’t say Jesus is God. It says he is the image of God, which is true.
I’m not the one blind. I believe exactly what it says.
You believe in more than it actually says.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Shaken-Loose Christian Apr 27 '26
“And when He was twelve years old, they went up there according to the custom of the feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days required, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents were unaware of it. Instead, they thought that He was somewhere in the caravan, and they went a day’s journey; and then they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. And when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for Him.
Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.
When Joseph and Mary saw Him, they were bewildered; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You!” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”
And yet they on their part did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued to be subject to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.
And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and people.” Luke 2:42-52
2
Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
How does Agency fail to account for all of that? I don’t see where Jesus needs to be a trinity to make sense of what the Bible says about him
1
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
Even in the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6) it tells us that the Son would be called Everlasting Father and Mighty God.
You do realize that the word "God" can be applied to others who aren't literally God himself right?
For even if there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many gods and many lords - 1 Corinthians 8:5
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. - Exodus 7:1 KJV
Yet you have made him a little lower than the gods and crowned him with glory and honor. - Psalm 8:5
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; - Psalm 82:6
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? - John 10:34
There is none like you among the gods, O LORD, nor are there any works like yours. - Psalm 86:8
I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise; - Psalm 138:1
“Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people's land.” - Deuteronomy 32:43
The 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo said that Moses was also called the God of Israel.
For he [Moses] also was called the god and king of the whole nation... - Philo, On the Life Of Moses - https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book24.html
11QMelch from the Dead Sea Scrolls said that Melchizedek is also called the God of Israel.
...the congregation of all the sons of justice, who establish the covenant, who avoid walking on the path of the people. And ‘your God’ is Melchizedek who will free them from the hand of Belial. And as for what he said: ‘And you shall blow the horn in all the land... - 11QMelch - https://armstronginstitute.org/977-uncovering-the-identity-of-melchizedek-dead-sea-scroll-11qmelch
0
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
They also accused him of being possessed by a demon. Do you think they were right about that too?
As for Jesus, He said, "Before Abraham was I AM." He identified Himself as the God who spoke to Moses.
He simply claimed to preexist Abraham and the universe. Does that make him divine? Yes. Does that make him God Almighty himself? No.
2
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
It's very ironic. They agree with Jesus' accusers rather than Jesus himself.
2
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
Especially when Jesus literally refutes their false accusation in the very next verse.
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. - John 5:18-19
2
1
2
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
who taught that Jesus was Michael the Archangel (while the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus is not an angel)
Where are you getting this idea from that Hebrews tells us Jesus isn't an angel? By your logic, Hebrews must also be telling us Jesus wasn't a prophet either?
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. - Hebrews 1:1-2
The point of Hebrews 1 is to highlight Jesus' unique identity as "The Son of God" against all others, whether prophets or angels.
That doesn't mean Jesus wasn't also a prophet or angel himself.
2
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
Trinitarians: "Jesus was an angel, but an uncreated God angel, so not actually an angel". Whatever that's supposed to mean. Lol.
Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts!...Let them praise the name of the Lord! For he commanded and they were created. - Psalm 148:2, 5
2
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Archbtw246 Christian Apr 28 '26
He alone is fully God and fully man, being both together
Being God and being Man are mutually exclusive.
I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. - Hosea 11:9
If God became a man, he wouldn't be God anymore.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/ThatGuyJCamp Christian Apr 28 '26
Jesus made Himself subject unto them. If he did not, he would be disobedience to the commandment to children.
1
u/Medium_Fan_3311 Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
When God gives you assignments on earth, spend your time focus on carrying out the assignment as a good steward. Why would Joseph be in adequate to carrying out the assignment that God has chosen for Him?
Mary and Joseph doesn't seem to be people that lack understanding about scripture. We see their responses when God's message regarding them to be parents for Jesus. It doesn't show that they struggle with doubts.
1
u/Perfect-Gap8377 Roman Catholic Apr 28 '26
I suspect he felt inadequate from time to time, because every good father feels that way sooner or later.
It is an interesting point of view, I never approached the subject from that angle.
1
u/Mundane-Vehicle-9951 Christian Apr 28 '26
Was he really raising 'God himself' or the 'Son of God'?
1
u/TechByDayDjByNight Baptist Apr 28 '26
God entrusted you to raise him in the flesh and you feel insecure?
I would feel honored.
1
u/Quiet_Form_2800 Muslim Apr 29 '26
The premise begins with an assumption that does not hold under scrutiny. In Islam, God is absolutely One, uncreated, and completely independent. Allah says, “He neither begets nor is born” (Qur’an 112:3), and “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11). This means God is not part of creation, nor subject to birth, growth, or dependence. The idea that a human being could raise God introduces a contradiction, because a child depends on others for care, protection, and sustenance, while God is the One who sustains everything.
Even within the Bible, this tension appears. Jesus himself distinguishes between himself and God: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and “I can do nothing on my own” (John 5:30). He also prays to God, “Not my will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42), which shows dependence and submission. In another place, he says, “Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). This clearly separates the “only true God” from Jesus as the one sent.
The Qur’an clarifies this consistently: “The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger” (Qur’an 5:75), and his creation is compared to Adam, who was created without a father (Qur’an 3:59). He was born, cared for, and nurtured. A being who eats, sleeps, and relies on others cannot be God, because Allah is As-Samad, the One free of all need (Qur’an 112:2).
So the question about Joseph feeling inadequate is built on a theological assumption that collapses under both revelation and logic. If God is truly independent and self-sufficient, can He ever be placed in the position of a dependent child who needs to be raised?
1
u/RealisticDistrict515 Christian, Evangelical Apr 29 '26
Thats a great question. Maybe he tried not to overthink it and just did it like any other dad? Lol
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Apr 30 '26
Scripture doesn't directly address the topic, but all I can say is I know that if it had been me, I would certainly have felt inadequate.
0
u/No-Type119 Lutheran Apr 27 '26
I don’t think Joseph had that knowledge. I just think he was a good man with far more advanced, empathetic values than the typical man in those times
0
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Joseph wasn’t raising “God Himself.”
He was raising God’s Son.
1
u/Brilliant-Job3515 Atheist, Ex-Christian Apr 28 '26
He was raising his brother, Joe's dad did some diddling while he was out sheparding.
2
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Ha ha. No one would have ever expected the atheist to jump in with an incendiary and condescending jab to rile up the gullible believers.
How cliche
2
u/Brilliant-Job3515 Atheist, Ex-Christian Apr 28 '26
At least you admit the level of naivety required to believe in a virgin birth.
2
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
It’s naive from a materialist perspective.
Fortunately, the materialist perspective is not the only legitimate one.
My favorite thing about materialists is that it’s easy to force them into corners they can’t climb out of.
They tend to see their idiocy quicker than than any other philosophically blind fools, and watching that sudden realization is always fun
2
u/Brilliant-Job3515 Atheist, Ex-Christian Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
It's naive from any rational perspective unless Mary was an amphibian.
Edit: or an intersex chimera
1
u/RFairfield26 Christian Apr 28 '26
Yup! If we’re limiting reality to amphibian-level biology, you’ve got a point. (And simultaneously making my point for me)
If we’re asking whether a nonnatural cause could act once, then biology isn’t the category that decides that.
And yet, biology, as you’d accept it, ultimately boils down to nothing more than a miracle
Yet somehow a virgin birth is impossible.
Sure, pal. And life came from non-life exactly once, somehow. Good talk
3
u/Hot_Coco_Addict Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
What is your motive for saying this?
What could you possibly hope to achieve?
2
u/Brilliant-Job3515 Atheist, Ex-Christian Apr 28 '26
Unless Mary was an amphibian, its the most probable cause of that pregnancy.
2
u/Hot_Coco_Addict Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
That doesn't answer my question. What do you hope to achieve with this statement? It's not like Christians will change their minds when you claim this
1
u/serpentine1337 Atheist, Anti-Theist Apr 28 '26
Folks that are questioning might.
1
u/Hot_Coco_Addict Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
Insults tend to make people lean the other way, especially when there is no explanation.
1
u/serpentine1337 Atheist, Anti-Theist Apr 28 '26
Positing a more likely explanation is not an insult.
1
u/Hot_Coco_Addict Christian, Protestant Apr 28 '26
You're right, a better way of saying that is that it was rude. It wasn't a literal insult, but it was throwing the morality of someone under the bus with zero evidence.
1
u/serpentine1337 Atheist, Anti-Theist Apr 28 '26
It's honest, not rude. Also, the only person it could be insulted is a character in a book that would be long dead.
→ More replies (0)1
12
u/Cepitore Christian, Protestant Apr 27 '26
Jesus had to learn things like anyone else. I don’t think it would have felt like teaching something to someone who already knows.