To: BipolarBob
That is a good point. I realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if Joseph had other children at the time of Jesus’ birth, why were they not mentioned in Luke? It seems that Joseph’s entire household should have been with him.
To: kosciusko51
It seems that Joseph’s entire household should have been with him. For the census, it was a requirement.
217 posted on
06/13/2017 12:45:50 PM PDT by
BipolarBob
(Operation Covfefe is now in effect.)
To: kosciusko51
That is a good point. I realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if Joseph had other children at the time of Jesus’ birth, why were they not mentioned in Luke? It seems that Joseph’s entire household should have been with him. Exactly.
244 posted on
06/13/2017 7:06:45 PM PDT by
metmom
( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: kosciusko51
but if Joseph had other children at the time of Jesus’ birth
By the same token if Mary had other children why would it not say Mary`s children instead of Jesus`s brethren?
331 posted on
06/14/2017 12:03:40 PM PDT by
ravenwolf
(If the Bible does not say it in plain words, please don`t preach it to me.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson