God needed a father: Saint Joseph

[Matthias]

Today is acknowledged by many Christians as Saint Joseph’s Day. It’s a day solemnly observed by the majority of persons living in my local area, including family members on my wife’s side of the family.

For those members (and readers) of the forum who believe that God himself entered into the human condition, does the rationale presented by Fr. Joseph Krupp resonate with you?

“God needed a father.

It’s a curious thing to consider, but it’s more or less true.

Humans have a father and so, when God entered into the human condition to transform it, He chose to have a father and a mother.

And so, God looked over every man who had ever lived or ever would live and chose the best one.

He saw a quiet, hard working man who seemed to care about one thing and one thing only: What does God want me to do?

When he learned what God wanted him to do, Joseph did it.

God saw this great man and knew that his calloused hands were the ones to hold Him as a baby, protect Him and guide Him through His first years on earth.

He chose Joseph and Joseph chose Him.

As Joseph took Jesus young hand and led him where He needed to go, so Jesus later took an old Joseph’s hands and led him where he needed to go: to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Because of this, among other things St. Joseph is the patron of those who are dying. …”

x.com

x.com

I presume that it resonates with Roman Catholics. I’m wondering whether or not it does with non-Roman Catholics. I welcome comments from Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics alike.

 

[amadeus]

Today is acknowledged by many Christians as Saint Joseph’s Day. It’s a day solemnly observed by the majority of persons living in my local area, including family members on my wife’s side of the family.

For those members (and readers) of the forum who believe that God himself entered into the human condition, does the rationale presented by Fr. Joseph Krupp resonate with you?

“God needed a father.

It’s a curious thing to consider, but it’s more or less true.

Humans have a father and so, when God entered into the human condition to transform it, He chose to have a father and a mother.

And so, God looked over every man who had ever lived or ever would live and chose the best one.

He saw a quiet, hard working man who seemed to care about one thing and one thing only: What does God want me to do?

When he learned what God wanted him to do, Joseph did it.

God saw this great man and knew that his calloused hands were the ones to hold Him as a baby, protect Him and guide Him through His first years on earth.

He chose Joseph and Joseph chose Him.

As Joseph took Jesus young hand and led him where He needed to go, so Jesus later took an old Joseph’s hands and led him where he needed to go: to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Because of this, among other things St. Joseph is the patron of those who are dying. …”

x.com

x.com

I presume that it resonates with Roman Catholics. I’m wondering whether or not it does with non-Roman Catholics. I welcome comments from Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics alike.

Thank you for posting this. I am not a Catholic.

 

[Mr E]

Today is acknowledged by many Christians as Saint Joseph’s Day. It’s a day solemnly observed by the majority of persons living in my local area, including family members on my wife’s side of the family.

For those members (and readers) of the forum who believe that God himself entered into the human condition, does the rationale presented by Fr. Joseph Krupp resonate with you?

“God needed a father.

It’s a curious thing to consider, but it’s more or less true.

Humans have a father and so, when God entered into the human condition to transform it, He chose to have a father and a mother.

And so, God looked over every man who had ever lived or ever would live and chose the best one.

He saw a quiet, hard working man who seemed to care about one thing and one thing only: What does God want me to do?

When he learned what God wanted him to do, Joseph did it.

God saw this great man and knew that his calloused hands were the ones to hold Him as a baby, protect Him and guide Him through His first years on earth.

He chose Joseph and Joseph chose Him.

As Joseph took Jesus young hand and led him where He needed to go, so Jesus later took an old Joseph’s hands and led him where he needed to go: to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Because of this, among other things St. Joseph is the patron of those who are dying. …”

x.com

x.com

I presume that it resonates with Roman Catholics. I’m wondering whether or not it does with non-Roman Catholics. I welcome comments from Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics alike.

I’m not Roman Catholic and it’s mush to me.

God didn’t need a father. But Jesus did.

 

[amadeus]

I’m not Roman Catholic and it’s mush to me.

God didn’t need a father. But Jesus did.

Yes, indeed! I don't read as carefully with comprehension as I once did. I missed what your 2nd sentence says.

 

[Matthias]

I’m not Roman Catholic and it’s mush to me.

It may be “mush“ to many Protestants who, nevertheless, hold the theological position.

This particular rationale may not resonate with them but the theology does.

Just because one rationale fails to persuade doesn’t mean another rationale can’t or won’t prove persuasive.

God didn’t need a father. But Jesus did.

True.

Jesus is elohim / theos. Also true.

 

[Mr E]

Jesus is elohim / theos.

By association? Because you won't find Jesus called an elohim anywhere in scripture. The Greek 'theos' is more closely associated with Yahweh, who is an elohim.

But this elohim word is Hebrew and not Greek and so then it is never used in the New Testament in relation to Jesus. You'll see him referred to as a man many times, but never is he called an elohim. Not even when the spirit descended on him, like a dove-- elohim is not used.

The same goes for Yahweh-- not in the New Testament-- instead it's this 'theos' that is substituted. Interesting, but translations always say "God" (as in Genesis 1) where the Hebrew implicity states "elohim" the same way that the Greek translators interject "theos" without distinction.

No- I think Jesus is a man, and God is his elohim. He said- God dwells in him.

 

[Matthias]

By association? Because you won't find Jesus called an elohim anywhere in scripture. The Greek 'theos' is more closely associated with Yahweh, who is an elohim.

But this elohim word is Hebrew and not Greek and so then it is never used in the New Testament in relation to Jesus. You'll see him referred to as a man many times, but never is he called an elohim. Not even when the spirit descended on him, like a dove-- elohim is not used.

The same goes for Yahweh-- not in the New Testament-- instead it's this 'theos' that is substituted. Interesting, but translations always say "God" (as in Genesis 1) where the Hebrew implicity states "elohim" the same way that the Greek translators interject "theos" without distinction.

No- I think Jesus is a man, and God is his elohim. He said- God dwells in him.

Heb. elohim = Gk. theos = Eng. God or god

Psalm 45:6-7 is applicable to the Messiah, as demonstrated by Hebrews 1:8-9.

Are you with me so far?

 

[Matthias]

My intention in this thread was to focus on writing style, more so than theology, with a gradual transition into evangelism.

What role, if any, does writing style play in relation to attracting people to a theology.

An interesting (?) but not particularly important comparison observation:

Fr. Joseph Krupp’s writing -> Max Lucado’s writing.

The writing style of both authors - one Roman Catholic, the other Protestant - is a huge turnoff for me and wouldn’t attract me to the theology being written about. (I frequently read the theology being written about in the OP by both Roman Catholic and Protestant authors. The theology is of considerable interest to me.)

The writing of one or both authors may or may not be a huge turnoff to some Roman Catholic and Protestant readers but likely wouldn’t deter those who were turned off by it from embracing the theology. For those in this group who are turned on by the style it likely would deepen their emotional connection with, and affection for, the theology.

As I‘ve already mentioned, I’m heavily biased against the writing style. If I were able to scrub my brain of any knowledge about the theology and approach the theology with a clean slate, that is, without any preconceived thoughts about it - which I readily acknowledge is a difficult exercise to pull off - and someone were to attempt to evangelize me by means of using this style, it would fail miserably.

But what about a general audience comprised of persons who truly had a blank slate in regard to the theology? How successful might the writing style be in attracting those persons to the theology?

***

A practical lesson learned (abbreviated version): I was once a member of an evangelism team which, unbeknownst to me when I joined it, was lead by a (Protestant) woman who loved this style of writing. She and team members employed it in our door-to-door community campaign to invite / bring people to church. One public outing with her and the team was enough for me. After a brief and pleasant conversation with her when the day was done, she granted my request to be released from the team.

The campaign outing was deemed a success. One person out of the dozen or so people we spoke with that day visited the church. The person was already a social friend of the team leader. I think the person visited the church either out of courtesy or social pressure, but I don’t know that for a fact.

While other members and the leader of the evangelism team made their appeals, I watched to see how the style of the appeals was received. The majority were visibly turned off. But was it the style or was it the theology? I didn’t do any follow-up with the people we spoke with but I suspect the theology was already an issue (that is, the people we visited simply weren’t interested in theology in general nor in attending church in particular) and the style employed probably made an already difficult situation worse.

Fr. Krupp’s OP story in hand, let’s go door knocking Lucado style.