The connections between Joseph, his son Ephraim and Jesus Christ are beyond mere happenstance. They are too frequent to be coincidental. There was Joseph's dreams, including a third drean concerning the Messiah of Joseph, which is still had in Jewish tradition. Jacob had chosen Joseph over his brethren. In the scriptures this preference for the house of Joseph begins with Jacob's blessing of Ephraim in JST Genesis 48 at his firstborn and to have the name of Jacob, the name of Israel placed upon him and next there is also Jacob's blessing of Joseph in Genesis 49:22-26 that stipulates Joseph to be the source of the of the shepherd and stone or rock of Israel. Joseph was pronouced by Rachel, according to Jewish tradition, to be the ancestor to the promised true Messiah, Messiah ben Joseph. The life of Joseph, son of Israel, is but a personification of a similitude between the life of Jesus and that of Joseph of Egypt. Jesus was pronouced to be the Son of Joseph from the written words of Moses and the ancient prophets by Philip as he proclaimed Jesus to Nathaneal in John 1:45. The multilayered means of the question was always asked of Jeses, if he was not the son of Joseph.

In direct parallel, in the Old Testament, Joseph was the son of Jacob or Israel. Israel means 'He who prevails in God'. And Joseph means 'Jehovah had added or multiplies' or variously translated 'Jehovah's linage'. Thus we have 'Jehovah multiplies Israel' or 'Israel, Jehovah's lineage'. It was this Joseph who's heir would be the 'adoptive', though rightful and legal, ancestor of the true Messiah (See Ruth 4:5,10 & Deuteronomy 25:5-10). That right of parentage of the firstborn in Israel was conferred upon Ephraim by Jacob in Genesis 48 (See also JST Genesis 48). In direct parallel, accoring to the record of the apostle Matthew, Joseph the adoptive parent of Jesus was also son of Jacob. This was the royal line of the house of David, as this was Matthew's purpose in presenting it. Happenstance? The odds are against such to be the case. It was a parallel by design which is an additional thread pointing to the rightful lineage of Jesus being through that parallel linage of the 'firstborn' of Israel and of God, Ephraim as stated in Jeremiah 31:9. the true Messiah being of the House of Joseph of Egypt, even Messiah ben Joseph.

Frequently the sign of a son being raised up to God is that of a 'miracle birth'. Isaac was born of Sarah who was both aged and barren and of Abraham who a hundred. Rebekah was barren before she gave birth to the promised seed. So was Rachel barren. All of Leah's son had been born prior to Rachel giving birth as she was barren. Thus Joseph's birth was that of a miracle birth. Compared to the birth of Judah, who was the fourth son of six, which was of no miracle but normal process, it must be looked to Joseph to be the promised son of the covenant, which he is. Others such as Samuel the prophet was so born of Hannah after Hannah had been barren and her pleadings was heard by God and she gave birth to Samuel, and thus dedicated him to God. Even John the Baptist was of a miracle birth, as Elisabeth the wife of Zacharias was also barren and stricken with age. Thus a trend line for many of the sons of promise is to be of a 'miracle birth'. And so it was with Christ. The 'imacle birth' of Christ took the form of even a more mighty miracle as a virgin was to give birth. But the parallel holds true between Joseph's lineage of the covenant and that of Jesus the promised son of the covenant. There was no miracle birth in Judah, but there was in Joseph and Jesus Christ.

In direct parallel Jesus was the adoptive son of the house of Joseph, being of the bloodline of another. In the case of the surrogate vicarious performance of Boaz, the house of Ephraim or Joseph did 'adopt' Obed to be the rightful seed and heir of the firstborn of the house of Mahlon and Elimelech those Ephrathites of Bethlehem. In this the son of the promise was an adoptive son to the house of Joseph of Egypt. In life Jesus was the adopted son of the house of Joseph the Carpenter though of a bloodline of God the Father. In both cases the adopted seed was adopted in to become the true seed of the firstborn, the promised seed of the house of Joseph. And in another relative parallel to this, all may become the adoptive seed of the house of Israel by accepting the promised seed of the covenant, even Jesus Christ. Adoption according to the Law of God is as effective and more so than bloodline birth, as it is predicated upon worthy acceptance and not mere physical relationship. The spiritual binding of the soul to heaven by becoming the sons and daughters of Christ is real and absolute, just as the adoption of Obed to the house of Elimelech did preserve the promised seed of the covenant to that rightful heirship line of the covenant and just as it did with Jesus and his adoptive father, Joseph the carpenter, connecting Christ to be the rightful promised earthly seed and heir of the house of David. This is a testimony of adoption which is exemplified by that of Obed, of Jesus Christ, and of all mankind to Christ, that it is real and effective unto bring all unto being the sons and daughters of God in the flesh as the spirit so triumphs over the natural man making it possible for all to become one with God.

As stated Jesus was the son of Joseph in life, so it was that Jesus and all of the house of David were the adoptive children of the house of Elimelech, the house of Ephraim and Joseph of Egypt, the seed of the promised house of David. And therefore, though it was the children of the house of David who were sought out and murdered, it was Rachel the mother of Joseph which did weep for all her children, not Leah. The name of Joseph ran in Jesus' family.

"But Jesus said unto him, Judas [Judah], betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" ~

Judah was the only member of the twelve apostles who was not a Galilian, that is of the land of the kingdom of Ephraim. Judah was of a Jew of Judaea. Among the twelve he was the apostle who did represent the tribe of Judah, as the twelve apostles were to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus it was Judah would not only representatively betrayed Jesus in Judas of the twelve, but it was also the false priests and rulers of the Jews who carried out the actual work of the deed. All the other apostles, representatively of Galilee, remained true to Jesus, representing that Israel, the kingdom of Ephraim, the son of Joseph did not betray Jesus, but that is was Judah who did. The irony is that it was a Jew who had given life vicariously to the covenant line of the House of Israel and it would also be Judah, the tribe thereof, which would shed his blood or take its life away in the crucifixion of Jesus.

Now just recently there has come to light what is called the 'Gospel of Judas'. Interestingly it dates to the 3^rd century A.D. This would be first when the concept of 'gospels' was built up in the cannonization of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That a 'Gospel of Judas' did exist is strange, as it would have had to have been written by someone other than Judas. The concept that Judas acted under knowledge and direction of Jesus is not new. It has been discussed. And the fact that this 'new gospel', has come out of that era which also sponed the theological postion of the Holy Trinity of the Nicene Creed, which was also out of Egypt, only illustrates that such was the inovations and contrivances of men to so corrupt the true of the doctrine and history of Christ into what they preferred to make of it.

Certainly all of the standard gospels set forth well that Judas was the betrayer of Christ, that he suffere an ignominious death as a result, and that he was to be consider a Son of Perdition (John 17:12, Jesus the Christ page 601). Judas' enlightenment had been parallel with any of the apostles who had many witnesses as to the divinity of Christ. He participated in the Lord's Supper and the Washing of Feet. Judas knew the Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Ghost had revealed it unto him. Yet he turned from that light into the darkness of some other consideration, motivated by money and the desire or need for it. As the chief representative of Judah, Judas performed the betrayal personifying the true relationship between Judah and Christ. Judah or Leah was not the true mother of Jesus, Rachel was through her son Joseph and her grandson Ephraim. It was she who had wepted for the death of the children of David at the order of King Herod.

And the final kicker is that Jesus was burried in Joseph's tomb. It was the custom in Israel for the faithful son, especially amoung the Kings of Israel to be buried in among the tombs of their fathers and relatives, their ancestors. Tradition holds that Joseph of Arimathaea was just such a relative to Jesus Christ. And the fact that Jesus was buried in the 'family tomb' of not only the royal lineage of the house of David, but also the tomb of his immediate ancestors as well as being those ancestors of the name of Joseph, is of great traditional significane. It would have been out of Character for Christ to have been buried other than in the place of the family tomb. It would have been out of character for Jesus to be buried in the tomb of any other than a tomb of Joseph. Some consider it but a coincidence, but the order of the kingdom seems to put everything in its proper place. It would have been out of order for Jesus to be buried in the tomb of Judas of Hebron for example. It was in place and of proper order for Christ to be buried in his relative's tomb, Joseph of Arimathaea, of Ramah, of Mount Ephraim.

That burial scene was very much a family scene. Jesus' uncle, Joseph of Arimathaea had begged the body of his kinsman Jesus from Pilate for burial. Assited by Nicodemus and others such the apostle John and likely Cleophas/Cleopas, another kinsman, a brother of Mary mother of Jesus who's wife, is 'the third Mary' denoted as the sister of Mary mother of Jesus, who also likely attended the burial with the Mother of Christ and Mary Magdalene as she had at the cross. Interestingly enough, there are three Marys. Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary who is stipulated as being Mary Magdalene, and also a thrid of 'other Mary' but who would reference the Mother of Jesus by the phase 'the other Mary?' Matthew refers to the 'other Mary' returning to the tomb with Mary Madalene Sunday morning as he does concerning the 'other Mary' at the burial preparation (Matthew 27:61) but no mention of Mary mother of Jesus. Mark states there was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses (Jude) there and then presents that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome where of the women who came to the grave Sunday morning. Luke merely states that there were 'women', plural, which came from Galilee that beheld the sepluchre (Luke 23:55) but then records that is was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and 'other women' who came to the tomb Sunday morning. Now Mary the mother of Joses (Jude) and James is likely the same as Mary the mother of Jesus as James and Jude are elsewhere pointed to be the brothers of Jesus. Now John records at the crucifixion there were three Marys standig by, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. But John fails to record any women at the tomb Friday evening and only records Mary Magdalene coming to the tomb Sunday Morning. Perhaps what would seem most logical is that John just did not reiterate in his record of the three Marys though they all three had also been present at the burial of Christ with other women and kinsmen as well. And now certainly if Mary the mother of Jesus was present at the burial, surely then John the Apostle whose care she had been left in was also there. And it is by such reference to the various records of this scene that such details and inferences may be made concerning the burial site and event (See Matthew 27:56-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:25 & 38-42).

From every perspective Jesus was the son of Joseph. Joseph means, 'Jehovah's increase', or variously interpreted, Jehovah's lineage. From his birth to his death he was the son of Joseph, even the promised son of Joseph as fortold by the ancinet prophets. And the parallels through accient times do atest to it as metimorphic images which portay the similitudes of it.