Am I the only member who believes Jesus had kids?

I only say this as a brief outline of what my personal conclusions as to the sequence of events from 2000 years ago. I am not at all sure, just hold this as my favourite scenario, as far as what I consider have a strong likelyhood of being close. By no means is this an attempt to convince or enlighten anyone, it is just my own eccentric take on it, and I feel like the only one who thinks this.

 

If Jesus was simply Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, a carpenter, and a mere prophet, then yes, he would have most likely been married with children. However, he is Jesus Christ, God in flesh, appearing on earth.

 

He may have....some scolars think the Grail is Mary [maglene] and when she fled to France [as the story goes] she was carryine a child.

Epiphany, you must also remember that [o think] Jesus said that he was only human as well...

 

In human form, yes. Yet as a man, born of a man, no.

 

So, wouldn't he think as a man does, even thouh He was conceived from the Holy Spirit? Yes I grant He didn't think the same when it came to prayer, religion and all that sort, but He must still have the same human qualities...

 

I don't understand why His being God in human form equals no marriage, no lovemaking, and no kids. It is a big stretch, and I don't see the connection at all. If God was to really experience human life, marriage, sex, and raising a family would be a very important part of that. To say he didn't without a solid and directly related reason is just conjecture to me.

He was called Rabbi three times, and as one was required to marry before becoming a Rabbi, this contradiction would be important to explain to the reader of the good book. Many would know the rule, and query as to the exception. The lack of any mention of marriage, +ve or -ve is also curious to me. His status as an unmarried Rabbi clearly must have been a topic of debate, due to this.
The wedding where He turned water into wine is very intriguing to me too. His mother takes responsibility of serving more wine, which is an odd thing for a guest to do at a wedding, to me. Especially since whose wedding it is is not mentioned, and the tradition at the time was for the groom's family to supply the wine. My current best reason is that it is Jesus' wedding, and likely was 'editted' later in an attempt to remove His wedded status. The editors motives are not known, but the defamation of Mary Magdalene is one possibility, since it is clear to me she was the victim of some pretty vicious character assassination. Especially deplorable considering it states that Jesus confided in her, and the disciples displayed jealousy over it.
Jesus promoted marriage as a good thing to be pursued by people, so why would He not do as He promotes?
He doesn't appear to me as a 'do as I say, not as I do' kind of teacher, and
the many schoolteachers I had who were like that were nothing remotely similar in their ability to earn my admiration.
There are other motives I consider possible, such as the de-feminizing of the Bible. It was to me an extremely male biased text, with a few exceptions.
A more arcane reason for the deletion could be that His bloodline was a threat to the supreme authority of the church, and was being methodically extinguished. Dagobert II's death and subsequent erasure from history is one clue suggesting that.
As to His dad being a carpenter. That, to me is another misnomer. I feel he was a craftsman, and possibly a 'master of the craft', which would make him a much more impressive citizen of his community.
Jesus also was likely not from Nazareth, since the first map reference to it's existence occurs many centuries later.
The Jewish Royal Family of today might conceivably be His descendents.
If some feel this is heresy for me to propose, at least give me some really good reasons it is not possible. Any less is not going to change my opinions.

 

Because of society at the time, I think it very unlikely that jesus wasn't married, it was pretty much expected of a man once he came of age to marry. However, Jesus did live in an all male commune for part of his life so he may have missed out, I'm not sure at what ages he joined and left the commune so I don't know. Either way, it was very unusual for a man to not be married by about 25 years old..

Marriage is irrelevant to any prophesies etc., the problem many have with it is that it is believed mary magdalene did have kids, which means, should jesus really be the son of g-d, we would have little elohim running around!! The logic is that because (unless there is a giant conspiracy) we have never heard of children running around with the ability to heal people and do all kinds of g-dly things, either jesus never had kids, or he did and he wasn't the son of g-d (proven by a lack of g-dliness in the children). Those who put together the bible definitely didn't want people to believe the latter, so they went with the former.

I'm not saying anyone in this thread did, but it reminded me- please no one base their ideas on what's outlined in 'The DaVinci Code' by Dan Brown. Since it came out some seem to be amped on this idea of a massive conspiracy. Mary magdalene may have been jesus' wife, there may be descendants of jesus around... but the rest is simply a chain of coincidences strung together into a quite convincing theory.You can read and reference and find everything checks out BUT if you do it in enough depth, you see the entire conspiracy fall apart.

 

Jesus definitely got some.

 

That would be cool if he did. But can you imagine all of our politicians and religious leaders trying as hard as they could to prove that they descended from Jesus? Hehe.

 

god yes, totally agree. that book.. man it has caused people to think they know a lot about things they know practically nothing about...!

in fact i agree with pretty much everything you said. to me, the prospect of jesus being married never has really mattered to my interpretation of him or christianity. if he was, great for him, if he wasn't, great too. this is another one of those things that is up to great debate in the christian theological community though, for sure!

 

the thing is though - where could the debate possibly go? none of us will ever know the truth. It's like me saying I believe it was originally called a jelly and peanut butter. who can proove me wrong? that kinda thing.

on that note, I think I'd rather debate the originis of the j&pb. Anyone up for it?

 

most definitely! although i think theological debates keep christianity alive and continually evolving, for all scientific purposes of the word, we will never know the truth. undeniable proof is hard to come by in this world. we only ask for "beyond reasonable doubt" in our court systems, but somehow want to demand absolute truth in our religion? seems kind of silly

hell, i can't even prove to someone that i was snuggled in my bed at 4 am last night - how can anyone expect it to be proved whether or not jesus had children?

i wonder if jesus liked peanut butter and jelly sandwiches...

 

I am with you concerning the beyond reasonable doubt comment. I guess where the debate gets boring for me is with people who state that they KNOW the truth the absolutely truth about his life and hence how christianity should be interpreted by all.

actually I heard that jesus liked to cook corn on a hot rock in a fire into something he called 'chips' and place them inside of his sandwiches.

 

yeah definitely. it's like that whole beating-a-dead-horse-mentality i am a strooooooooong believer in there being many, many valid interpretations of religion that fall under the categorical christian symbology. it's about faith and belief, not absolute truth.

and well.. i heard jesus was totally into hot pockets.

 

did he dip them in Ranch dressing?

 

only if it was fat-free.

 

really? is there a south beach in babylon?

 

AND a north beach!

 

praise lord jesus, pray tell, are you The Babylon Sista? I can finally relate to the man thanks to the wisdom thy has imparted on thee.

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!