Shouldn't the Occupation on Jesus' profile be "Carpenter"? While I understand He is named as a "High Priest in the Order of Melchizidek" by St. Paul and a Sacrifice by multiple writings and epistles, shouldn't His actual earthly profession be listed as His occupation?
Just throwing that one out there.
No because you are referring to a title given because of his foster father Joseph,it should be "Son of God" which is his eternal occupation as a person because in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God" Jesus not only accepts the titles, but calls Peter "blessed" and declares the profession a divine revelation by stating: "flesh and blood did not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in Heaven." By emphatically endorsing both titles as divine revelation, Jesus unequivocally declares himself to be both Christ and the Son of God in Matthew 16:15-16. The reference to his Father in Heaven is itself a separate assertion of son-ship within the same statement.
Thomas, it seems to me that you are confusing Occupation* with something else entirely.
My Occupation field does not read "Son of Daniel." It reads "Analyst." My Grandfather's reads "Welder" and Queen Elizabeth II's occupation should be "Monarch" or some equivalent.
It is popularly held and widely recognized that Jesus, fully God and fully man, spent at least _some_ portion of his life working before He began His ministry. As such, why not place a descriptor of His occupation in the field intended for such? Claiming his pre-ministry profession does not deny His Divinity.
His profile is already named Jesus The CHRIST of Nazareth. The Family Tree declares Him son of God.
I don't understand how duplicating this in the Occupation field would increase the value of the data in his profile.
I'd more understand listing "Great Physician" or "Rabbi/Teacher" under His occupation than the designation of his heritage.
*Occupation (noun; a person's usual or principal work or business, especially as a means of earning a living; vocation)
The difference of opinion here seems to revolve around what Geni.com is at it's core. My impression is, and has always been, that Geni deals in the realm of history as opposed to religion and therefore I would agree with Mr. Eggert that Jesus' occupation should be shown as carpenter . If we prefer to instead focus on the divine and the biblical "Jesus" there are obviously a multitude of other sources available to us for study. Please do not misinterpret my comments, in my opinion Jesus is certainly more than worthy of study in both contexts, it's simply a matter of whether or not this is the appropriate forum for understanding and describing the biblical "Jesus".
One of the things I like the most about Geni is that it brings together people from all walks of life, including religious and spiritual paths, and shows the connections, rather than the divisions, between us.
While I know some people feel passionately about the Biblical tree, I think some compromise is necessary with it. If we're going to treat the Bible as a credible historical source, then we need to try to remain religiously unbiased about it. Even among different Christian sects, there is debate over the Trinity, the nature of Jesus on earth, etc., so let's just avoid all of that and go with the most neutral, "factual" positions possible. According to that line of thought, Jesus would be a carpenter, and it's the one "occupation" -- I agree with Daniel about the definition -- no one will debate.