what's the big deal if jesus and mary magdalene has childrens?

Answer 1

there is none. Bloodline has never been a saving grace. Jesus said god could make "children of Israel from these rocks", which shows ethnicity isn't important.

If it is the whole marrying thing, then wouldn't there be some biblical rule against marriage. Rather, the commandment to "go forth, and multiply" was so important that Adam transgressed gods command not to eat the fruit, just so he could fulfill all righteousness.

The promise Abraham was given, was that his "seed shall be as the sands of the sea", a reference to the need to establish and grow a family, being the blessing in itself.

Why would being married, and being a father, be anything sin full?
The lords prayer starts "our Father, who art in heaven". God asks us to address him, as first, a father. It is one of the most fulfilling roles in life.

Jesus could have been married. He could have had kids. But only he was the Christ, and no one else has such a duty.

Answer 2

first of all, the writer himself declared that his ideas are entirely fictious. So why are Christians worried about a fictious story? They are worried at the fact that people sometimes mistake it for the truth especially those who don't know about the whole Jesus thing.

Second, it supposedly goes against the word of the church and some of their doctrines. It doesn't become a deal for humanizing their God like some poeple say because if that was the case you would hear the church declare that Jesus was not only 100% God but 100% human.

In the end, nothing really matters except for the fact that Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary and sacrificed to give the believing man salvation.

Answer 3

Theologically, it creates major problems for the Christian Churches. For example:

1) It means that the perfect person who is described as being without sin (Jesus) engaged in Original Sin (sex). OOPS. The paradox alone scares people in the churches.

2) If Jesus is both wholly god and wholly human, what does that make his children? 50% god? That sort of blows monotheism all to pieces, doesn't it? And if there are any remaining descendants, what percentage of god are they? Furthermore, why listen to popes or archbishops or protestant synods if there are actual little godlets walking around?

3)In the West, it would also threaten the validity of the Petrine doctrine, which states that The Faith is the result of Jesus's charge to Peter ("On this rock I will build my church"). Without that, the validity of the Church itself becomes suspect.

4) It would challenge the patriarchal supremacy of the churches: who could be closer to Jesus than His wife? Who would be in a better position to know his meaning and intent than Mary M.? Wouldn't those who followed her be the "true" faith?

Of course, none of it really matters at all IF one is willing to consider that Jesus was a divinely inspired human being, a messiah in the original sense of the word. Then, his message becomes the central issue of his life. It's still a magnificent message worth listening to and considering. Even events such as the Resurrection are not really compromised; God could raise a simple human being from the dead as well as a divine offspring, couldn"t he (or she; if you prefer)?

The problem really lies with the notion that Jesus= Christ= God. Jettisoning that notion in favor of one of an inspired human being resolves all these problems by making them irrelevant. The down side of that, however, is that the churches and their theologies also become irrelevant.

Finally, does all this really make a difference today? Personally, I don't think so. Jesus's importance today is WHAT HE SAYS TO US, AND WHAT ME MAKE OF HIM AND HIS WORDS.

Answer 4

Well, i haven't gone much through the Bible, so, i would just like to say this that even Lord Jesus came to this Earth as a human so he probably had the same emotions as we have but he had the power of self control much than we have but on the contrary he too was a human on this earth but bestowed with the Father's love and Blessings.......so i don't find any wrong in this of Him being married and having children....what matters is what you have done and not what you shouldn't have done........and He gave His Life for us that's quite big for me .........coz In Todays'World I think we Need Someone Like HIM.....to bring back the lost simplicity in this EARTH

Answer 5

Absolutely none to me - that was what was to be expected in those times - by the age of 20 you were expected to be married and have children. If you didn't there was something wrong with you. Of course, to the Catholic Church anything like that - including the so-called first Pope, Peter - would be heresy since it would shoot down the concept of celibacy. What they neglect to mention is that a lot of the early Popes were married and had legitimate and illegitimate children all over Europe - so much for celibacy. But if Jesus was married, it would just prove to me he was normal.

Answer 6

As a Christian, I have no problem with the "humanity" of Jesus. The whole point is that he was "fully god and fully man."
The problem is that the Jesus/Mary M./children thing flies in the face of official (i.e. Catholic or Fundamentalist) church doctrine, which sets Jesus up as pure, holy and celibate, and ignores or denies his humanity.
Faith is what is important. Everything else is just details

Answer 7

Jesus and Mary Magdalene haven't got childrens !!! This is a false thing sayd by a stupid and a lot of people belived it , BUT IS NOT TRUE!!! Im Orthodox and in my religion {and in a lot of other religions} tells that Jesus and Mary Magdalene haven't got children!!!!!!

Answer 8

It would destroy the Roman Cathlics Church grasp on Christianity. In the eyes of the church Jesus is pure/ holy. The true Son of God. If he was married and had children it would mean Jesus was nothing more than a man and a believer in God and a follower of the Laws.

Answer 9

It wouldn't be a big deal to me. However, it is unlikely to be true.

This is presumably based on the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
Critics accuse Brown of distorting and fabricating history. For example, Marcia Ford wrote:

Regardless of whether you agree with Brown's conclusions, it's clear that his history is largely fanciful, which means he and his publisher have violated a long-held if unspoken agreement with the reader: Fiction that purports to present historical facts should be researched as carefully as a nonfiction book would be.

Richard Abanes wrote:

"The most flagrant aspect … is not that Dan Brown disagrees with Christianity but that he utterly warps it in order to disagree with it --- to the point of completely rewriting a vast number of historical events. And making the matter worse has been Brown's willingness to pass off his distortions as ‘facts' with which innumerable scholars and historians agree."

The book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"; but this claim is disputed by many academic scholars in the fields the book discusses.

In 2005, UK TV personality Tony Robinson edited and narrated a detailed rebuttal of the main arguments of Dan Brown and those of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, "The Real Da Vinci Code", shown on British TV Channel 4. The program featured lengthy interviews with many of the main protagonists cited by Brown as "absolute fact" in The Da Vinci Code. Arnaud de Sede, son of Gérard de Sede, stated categorically that his father and Plantard had made up the existence of the Prieuré de Sion, the cornerstone of the Jesus bloodline theory - to quote Arnaud de Sede in the program, "frankly, it was piffle". The program also cast severe doubt on the Roslyn association with the Grail and on other related stories like the alleged landing of Mary Magdalene in France. Detailed analysis of many other claims by Brown in The Da Vinci Code in the program showed them to be unverifiable or unhistorical.

Answer 10

Just think of all the books that need to be rewritten and movies re-shot. This would be worse than the Y2k fiasco. Jesus and Mary didn't have kids and OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone, keep it that way.