Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

Edward Healy Thompson, *The Life and Glories of St. Joseph*, ch. 14 "Joseph's Vow of Virginity", p. 89 states that: >Athanasius spoke these short but weighty words of Joseph and Mary: that “both remained intact, as was proved by many testimonies.”11. *De Incarnatione [*On the Incarnation* ].* I am unable to find this quote in the *De Incarnatione*. Is this a real quote or not?

The first chapter of Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did *not* impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary. How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David? Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines? If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David? Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

Roman Catholics believe that the virgin Mary was not only a virgin up until her birth of Christ, but remained a perpetual virgin until her death, but doesn't Matthew 1:25 affirm that Mary and Jospeh did in fact have sexual relations? Matthew 1:25 reads: > And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he > called his name Jesus.

Is the House of Loreto (originally in Nazareth, but later miraculously transported to Loreto, Italy ) Sts. Mary & Joseph's house or Sts. Joachim & Anna's, or was it both of theirs? Did St. Joseph inherit the house from his in-laws?

The [staircase in Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe, New Mexico](https://www.lorettochapel.com/staircase) is said to have been built by St. Joseph, the patron saint of carpenters. According to the story, the Sisters of Loretto prayed to St. Joseph for nine days to help them find a builder for a staircase. On the last day, a man appeared with a donkey and toolbox and offered to build the staircase. He worked alone using only hand tools and disappeared without being paid or identified. The Sisters believed the man was St. Joseph himself. The staircase is a helix-shaped spiral that stands 20 feet tall and has two 360-degree turns. It was built without nails, only wooden pegs, and has no visible means of support. The staircase's design is considered innovative and baffling, and some of its design considerations remain a mystery to experts today. My question: what is the official stand of the Catholic Church on the aforementioned staircase?

The Bible says that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus because Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, I have heard that Augustine may have suggested that the differences between the genealogies in Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel led him to conclude that Joseph was adopted. [This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74530/different-genealogy-in-matthew-and-luke) is helpful in explaining why the two accounts differ, but I am specifically looking for a reference to Augustine that suggests Joseph was adopted.

St. Joseph was a father to Jesus (Luke 2:48 : "… Behold thy father (πατήρ) and I have sought thee sorrowing."), having all the rights a father has over his son, but he was not the natural father of Jesus; all Jesus's flesh came from the blood of His mother, Mary. Nor was he a "foster father", as he didn't adopt his Son from another marriage; Jesus came from within Sts. Mary's and Joseph's true marriage . Thus, what best describes the sort of father St. Joseph was?

We read at Mtt 1:18-19 (NRSVCE): > Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. That implies that St. Joseph had always been a righteous man-- even before he was betrothed to Mary, and his decision to dismiss Mary quietly, would top up his righteousness. My question therefore is: are there stories available in Catholic tradition which throw light on the pre-betrothal life of St. Joseph , and which would substantiate that he was always a righteous man ?

Luke 2:5 gives an account of Joseph who went to Bethlehem for enrolling in the census with Mary who was pledged to him in marriage. Matt 1:18-25 however, states that Joseph took Mary home as his wife on the instructions of the Angel, after 'finding her with child.' . If the journey to Bethlehem did not take months, Mary would have been well into the advanced stage of pregnancy when they commenced the journey. How come that they were still at betrothal stage when they started for Bethlehem? Is it possible that they completed the final ritual of marriage after reaching Joseph's hometown? But then, how does it match with the account of Matthew? My question therefore is : **How are the accounts of completion of the ritual of marriage of Joseph and Mary reconciled in the narrations of Matthew and Luke?** Views of scholars of any denominations are welcome.

If Jesus is **not** the son of Joseph, but the Son of God, why is it said that Joseph is a descendent of David? If Jesus is the Son of God and the son of Mary, then the man who took care of Mary and her baby could be any man (a descendant of David or not). Hypothetically, if Mary would have been engaged with another man than Joseph, that wouldn't change Jesus, so why does it matter that the "adoptive father" (Joseph) was a descendant of David? In Matthew 1, it says that Jesus is the son of David, because Joseph is the son of David, not because Mary was a daughter of David, as it is stated clearly.

They were only engaged when Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit, correct? They would have had to marry before Jesus' birth, correct? In order for him not to be considered a bastard born out of wedlock?

We read how Jesus is rejected in his home-town, in Mtt 13:54-55 (NRSVCE): > He came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Traditional teaching tells us that St. Joseph was already dead when Jesus embarked on his ministry. Joseph would have been a famous carpenter of the town, but not the only one in the profession. So, referring to the Late Joseph as “the carpenter” sounds incongruous. Note that the definitive article “the“ is peculiar to English whereas in some oriental languages, the part of verse reads as “that carpenter”. It is possible that St. Joseph was alive when these things happened? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, was St Joseph alive when Jesus came to preach in his hometown?**

Matthew 1:19 > Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not > want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to **divorce her > quietly**. In these modern days, in my country, something about "secret/quiet" in a marriage - for example like this : - A. A couple already engaged. Because of something, the man ---after considering--- finally decided to cancel the marriage. But in order not to expose the woman to public disgrace, the man still do the marriage ceremony, living together in a same house, but the "husband" don't do sex at all with his "wife". It's just a staged marriage so everyone else think that they are married couple as the normal husband and wife. - B. A married couple. Because of something, the husband ---after considering--- finally decided to divorce his wife. But in order not to expose the wife to public disgrace, they still live together in the same house, but the husband don't do sex anymore with his wife. It's just a staged marriage so everyone else think that they are still a married couple. The "considering" from the man then indirectly is also about to have sex with the woman or not to have sex with the woman. So, in general ... a "secret/quite divorce" in my country is also about there is no sex between the couple besides other things. But still to public, the couple is a husband and wife. Since I don't know the custom in Israel let alone during Joseph & Mary times, that's why I wonder what kind of a situation is a "secret/quite divorce" in those days ?

The current top answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61914/why-did-mary-need-to-remain-a-virgin-during-pregnancy-according-to-those-who-den) (the answer given by SLM) asserts as a matter of fact that 1. Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage 2. Mary never took a vow of chastity 3. Jesus was born in the normal, "human" way (meaning that the birth destroyed Mary's physical virginity) This question is about points 1 and 2. If these statements are true, why is Mary surprised when the angel tells her she will conceive and bear a son? "How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?" Luke 1:34 NIV. Mary was already betrothed when the angel came to her. I imagine that if my wife had been visited by an angel a few weeks before our wedding and told she would conceive and bear a son, she would not be surprised (she may have been surprised by the visit itself, but not by the idea that she would become a mother). Indeed, we both expected pregnancy to result sometime after consummating our marriage and living together as husband and wife. So why did she respond this way? The [question submitted by Geremia](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67496/how-are-the-words-of-mary-in-luke-134-incontrovertible-proof-of-her-perpetual-v) as a possible duplicate is worth reading through, as is its top answer, but this is asking the opposite. The older question is asking Catholics how this phrase could mean that Mary is a perpetual virgin, whereas my question is asking Protestants why Mary would be surprised that she would bear a son, given that, according to them, she was already betrothed and planning on becoming a mother to Joseph's natural children.

A [litany for Joseph](http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/litanies/joseph.htm) , the husband of Mary, was approved by Pope St Pius X in 1909 (*). Most of the invocations are straightforward to understand, referring to his life (eg. "husband of the Mother of God", *Dei Genetrice sponse*), virtues ("most faithful", *fidelissime*), and traditional associations/patronage ("model of artisans", *exemplar opificium*). There is one bit which is surprising to me - > Hope of the sick, pray for us. Patron of the dying, pray for us. **Terror of demons**, pray for us. Protector of the Holy Church, pray for us. > > *Spes aegrotantium, ora pro nobis. Patrone morientium, ora pro nobis. **Terror daemonum**, ora pro nobis. Protector sanctae Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis.* I was not aware that St Joseph had anything in particular to do with demons. I can see the part about the sick and dying as an extension of his general image as a protector, especially in relation to the family. Is the demon reference the same sort of thing? Or is there a specific reason - perhaps a traditional story of some kind - why Joseph is called the terror of demons? * *Urbis et orbis: adprobantur litaniae in honorem S. Joseph sponsi B. Mariae V., eisque adnectitur indulgentia*. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 March 1909. In *Acta Apostolicae Sedis* 1(6):290-292, 1909. [OCR'd version with some errors](http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2001%20%20-%20ocr.pdf) .

How do those that deny the perpetual virginity of Mary explain the failure of Joseph and Mary to consummate their marriage before the birth of Jesus? We read in the Gospel of Matthew: >He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. (Matthew 1:25) Matthew gives us a reasonable explanation for Joseph bringing Mary into his home despite her pregnancy: > ...the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:20-21) However, the angel doesn't say anything about abstaining from the marital act. On the contrary, the direction to "take Mary your wife into your home," heard by a first-century Jew, would seem to imply "take Mary and consummate your marriage." I expect an answer to include the following verse in the same gospel: >"Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us." (Matthew 1:23) Did both Joseph and Mary feel obliged to honor Isaiah's prophecy? Did they both know it applied to them? If so, what is the evidence?

When and where did St. Joseph's title "Guardian of Virgins" originate?

According to Catholic teaching, is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Matthew 1:16 (NASB) > **16** Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. Luke 3:23 (ESV) > **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, The problem here is that Matthew names Jacob Jesus's Grandfather and Luke names Heli. What is going one here? A mistake? A misunderstanding of Jewish genealogies?