Walking Tall says:

Even if Jesus had been the natural son of Joseph, he couldn't be considered the King of the Jews (in the line of David and Solomon), as some called him, because of the curse placed on Jeconiah by God in Jeremiah 22.

According to this curse, noone from this seed would become king in the future because of Jeconiah's apostasy. However, as an adopted son, Jesus could indeed have overcome the curse, but only if Judah were still a kingdom and not currently under Roman oppression.

Jesus never claimed that his kingdom was of this earth, but some others may have wondered, due to the royal genealogy of Joseph and in doubting that his son's birth was of divine origins. Perhaps Jesus, in being seen as the expected Messiah, would cause them to believe that he would suddenly declare himself to be the rightful king and bring the wrath of Rome on the Jewish people for a final confrontation.

That's what you get for thinking! More likely, as the adopted son of Joseph, he chose to abdicate his sonship rights to become the suffering servant of other prophecies in the Old Testament record, and, as a result, became the Savior of the world who is worshipped today by many millions rather than a few first century A.D. zealots. By losing himself, Jesus of Nazareth gained for us our salvation, which is the true meaning of his name Jeshua (God is our salvation).

Praise God for the humble mind and character of the person of Christ!

Ben Witherington and Talpiot

Ben on his blog (benwitherington) said:

4) The historical problems with all this are too numerous to list here: A) the ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem, and his adult home was Nazareth. The family was still in Nazareth after he was apparently dead and gone. Why in the world would be be buried (alone at this point) in Jerusalem? It’s unlikely. B) One of the ossuaries

What is he referring to here? Did someone say that Joseph was buried at Talpiot in Jerusalem on the Discovery program about the Jesus Family Tomb?
Frankly, I am mystified by this comment. Did anyone else catch it?

Is everybody insane?

The program stated that there were 6 names, and none of them are Joseph. There was a Jose, but that was supposed to be one of Jesus' brothers, not his father.

If this is a family tomb, evidently it is on the Mary side as recorded in Luke. These geneological records were obviously stored in the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. But the New Testament preserves the record for us to read and wonder at.

But what is Ben referring to? I understand his point or the point made by others that the inscription should have read, Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus, son of Joseph, because Jesus was not really the natural son (howbeit, as adopted, he could be called that surely), by the fact that Jesus was not of Judea, and that would need to be acknowledged on the burial box. Apparently, other members of the family would need this kind of identification also, or it would have to be another family, not the holy one, as none of them resided in Jerusalem.

Where is the knowledge that Joseph was moved from Nazareth to Jerusalem, as he seems to be saying? I don't get it!

Look for more nerdism here in the future!!!