I know that the Da Vinci Code is only a novel. But lets say, HYPOTHETICALLY, that Jesus did marry and had a child and had a direct descendant walking among us today. What do you think Christians would see this person as? How do you think Christianity would be different if it was know all along that Jesus had a child and wife?
NOTE: AGAIN, THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL. PLEASE DON'T RESPOND WITH "IT'S ALL FAKE", SIMPLY GIVE YOUR OPINION OF THE SITUATION IF IT WERE COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
2006-07-22 19:22:51 · 15 answers · asked by whosyodaddy3030 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nobody has answered one half of my question yet: What would this direct descendant of Jesus be viewed as?
2006-07-22 19:29:18 · update #1
I think that there would be no need to elect a Pope.I honestly think if there was a direct descendant from J.C, that person would be cast into the role of 'Christian Grand High Poo-bah" or some such nonsense like that and Christianity would be akin to a monarchy, and fall into obscurity the way most monarchies do..Of course it would have changed the course of history, and prevented tons of arguments and bloodshed over Jesus' deification, but hey,nobody's perfect, right?
2006-07-22 19:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't care. If Jesus had a kid good for him. Poor kid though. Dad was killed and all. Some African churches do think Jesus had a kid. I don't care. Jesus isn't God. Right? I was always confused about that. Well to me he isn't god, so I don't care.
Christianity might make the child a Mary like figure. The blessed child of Jesus. There might be the Hail the Child. Maybe if the child was supposed to be a boy, he would be the firlst pope instead of St. Peter.
And if Jesus and Mary did have a kid there's be more than one descendant you know. In 2000 years all those children add up. No last Scion here.
And Jesus is supposed to have had a brother James. But Christianity never did anything with his chlidren if he had some.
2006-07-23 02:30:45 · answer #2 · answered by millancad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If It were hypothetically true, then this descendant would be Jewish and carry Jesus's blood. and actually, Mary had other children that are considered Jesus's brothers only they have Joseph's blood. Jesus has no blood relation to Joseph. It's not mentioned in the Bible anything about a Jesus Descendant, so I would assume he'd have nothing epical to do although he or she would be extremely blessed. But just think about it, there are descendants of Mary and Joseph walking among us they are related to Mary and Joseph but not Jesus. Christianity wouldn't change I think because He and His wife would be the perfect example of a marriage, and it would serve marriages the better in Christianity. But of course IT'S ALL HYPOTHETICAL. I'm really sure the Bible would have mentioned it.
2006-07-23 02:33:02 · answer #3 · answered by reinafire 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In all honesty, if Jesus does have a scion (yeah, I've seen the movie Dogma), I don't think this person would be regarded any differently than anyone else in Christendom. It is doubtful that she or he (whoa, I'm gonna get in trouble with that one) would inherently possess any of the powers attributed to Jesus in the Bible because of 2000 years of dilution of the blood.
Christianity is in an uproar because the book The DaVinci Code has brought to light the possibility that Jesus took a wife and had children. Strange that Jesus never said "Dont' get married" or "Don't have children". So the possibility that Jesus may have theoretically done either of these things is of little consequence (except to those who completely deny any possibility of Jesus's humanity).
Have we forgotten that a BIG part of the reason Jesus was here in the first place was to experience the human condition??? The gospels record that Jesus understands what it is to be hungry and thirsty... he understands what it is to be tempted to do something he knew he shouldn't do... he understands what it is to be lied on... he understands what it's like to lose a loved one... he understands what it's like to be betrayed by someone close to you... (for those of you tracking me, yes, I keep pasting this last paragraph because I got tired of trying to remember exactly what I said last time... lol... yeah, I'm lazy... sue me).
A Direct descendant of Christ would probably receive no more accolades for his lineage than I do for mine... but it would still be cool to know him.
TLC
2006-07-23 02:42:28 · answer #4 · answered by Rev T L Clark 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just to solve your curiosty. This question does not even warrant a answer. ok?
Now. Let me explain why it could NOT happen.
IF. Jesus had a wife and a child. The child would be the 4th in a trinity. The child would be a 1/2 a God. Being subject to 1/2 failure.
There is NO Failure with God and the Trinity.
There is no 1/2 a God.
.
2006-07-23 02:31:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you read the book or just watch the movie?
It would turn Christianity inside out. They base their entire philosophy on the idea that Jesus was not a mortal man, but rather god incarnate and therefor resistant to every trait that makes man "evil". Were he to have a wife that would mean he didn't love unconditionally but rather preferred one woman (Magdeline) over other women or even over all people in general. And were he to have kids that means he was also subject to the "sin" of lust. It's pretty hard to get a guy to precreat if that urge doesn't exist.
If Jsus was in fact a mortal human being the Christian beliefs would be much more tollerant to human nature.
2006-07-23 02:34:03 · answer #6 · answered by Luce's Darkness 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
my opinion---i heard or read somewhere that the jews said jesus could not be the messiah because of a few things, including that the jews "theory" of what makes the messiah states that the messiah would be married and bear a child (i could be wrong on this as i can't remember where i found this info) based on that, if jesus was in fact married to mary of magdalene, and had a child, then that would mean that the jews persecuted thier own messiah as to what that would mean for religion today--well, i would imagine it would cause a lot of problems for the jewish religion and the jewish people, but also would cause problems for the catholic religion as well for covering up this information and thereby "forcing" people to believe other than the jewish religion
2006-07-23 03:19:43 · answer #7 · answered by silvermaiden4u 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it would mean the Bible was wrong, Jesus was worldy, given to lusts, hence not sinless. Everything the Bible says about Jesus would be wrong. It would stand the whole religion on its head.
2006-07-23 02:26:17 · answer #8 · answered by sweetie_baby 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most people would see that person as a threat to all they believe in.Too many things would have to change to acknowledge that person,so there would be a nice price on their head.It would be interesting to see that,wouldn't it?And to know that "Son of Man" was accurate.
2006-07-23 02:31:59 · answer #9 · answered by kimberli 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would only mean that a lot is still missing from the bible that the religious leaders and Vatican don't want anyone else to know about.
2006-07-23 02:32:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋