Exactly why is it ridiculous that Jesus may have had a child? He was a man. Men have children--that's not ridiculous. This is the main thing people seem to be upset about on here (having to do with the tombs). Just because there isn't a child mentioned in the Bible does that mean for sure that there wasn't one or more? I haven't reached any conclusions of my own on this, I just don't understand why this 'son' thing is such a big deal. It wouldn't take anything away from who Jesus was and the miracles and teachings would it? Aren't there lots of things left out of the Bible about Jesus that we just don't know?
2007-02-27 00:10:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It was a requirement and long-held custom that rabbis were to be married by their 30th year so they could perform their religious callings and to preach.
Jesus came to fulfill the law and ordinances. For Him to set the example, he had to comply with the rabbinical laws before beginning His ministry.
He fulfilled all righteousness and ordinances--marriage was one of them and it is strongly believed among many that the water-to-wine miracle at the wedding in Cana was His own with His mother being there in attendance, asking that He supply the wine.
Marriage for time and all eternity was, and is a sacred covenant and ordinance to attain the highest glories of heaven where God the Father reside. Jesus had to fulfill all the ordinances and He did.
2007-02-27 00:42:35 · answer #1 · answered by Guitarpicker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many more miracles he performed that were intentionally left out, because there would not be enough room to insert them.
For years, men (non believers) have tried to make Jesus more manly than Godly. They hate the fact that he was able to overcome the idea persona of a typically man. So they tried to find flaw in him. When I say flaw, I mean things that would make it so Jesus could be seen on the same level as an average day male. This issue with them trying to prove he fathered others, would lead to the topic of him being married (which they tried to prove years ago - but failed). It also opens the possibility that others walking the earth today maybe decendants of him. That will eventually open the gates for even more false teachers rising, saying that they are the decendants of Jesus and those cults ("Heaven's gate" and "Waco, TX") may be found as justified (in man's eye).
Jesus had no biological offspring and these folks better be cautious of what they are doing. In the book of Acts (in the bible) Paul encountered a false teacher called Ben-Jesus. This could possibly be HIS tomb.
Be careful and research what you see on tv. Take care.
2007-02-27 00:29:08 · answer #2 · answered by se-ke 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to say that I agree with you on this.
It seems that anything that challenges the bible is going to upset a lot of christians. I don't see why it should, though. Perhaps it was just written by men.. does it change Jesus' message if he had a son? Does it change anything if he was married?
No, just people's pre-conceived notions about him.
Personally, I would think they'd be jumping for joy to show that such a man actually existed, considering there is no other historical evidence to that effect.
Good question, btw.
2007-02-27 00:24:26 · answer #3 · answered by Kallan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
to comprehend that, you want to first comprehend how early Pagan mythologies were advised. In virtually all Pagan mythologies, a god or goddess is sacrificed so as that people can stay prosperously. it really is because it really is symbolic of the harvest growing to be and then being decrease, or slain, so as that people can eat and stay satisfied and healthful lives. Christianity isn't some more thing suitable than a step interior the evolutionary technique of those Pagan religions. a lot of it stocks features of maximum historic mythologies. and prefer those mythologies, Christianity has protected a sacrificed discern, Christ. it really is all there is to it. The forgiveness and eternal life stuff has replaced the harvest, and some different issues were substituted, notwithstanding it really is all an similar element truly.
2016-12-05 00:37:31 · answer #4 · answered by england 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, people don't seem to want to think that the son of god had a son himself. I think you do make a good point. I guess people don't want to think he had children because for some reason that would make more human and less Divine.
I'm not saying he had children, but you're right, the bible doesn't say he didn't have any.
2007-02-27 00:34:36 · answer #5 · answered by Skippy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because sex is an earth pleasure and someone who is Divine should be able to resit it.....
im not saying i agree with this... but this is why some people are bothered by it.
and yes i am sure there are TONS of things we dont know about jesus.... i mean all of his teen a childhood years are not in the bible.... and when the pen holders of the bible were writing it they could put whatever they wanted.
JESUS DID NOT WRITE ONE, NOT ONE, THING IN THE BIBLE.
2007-02-27 00:13:37 · answer #6 · answered by Loathing 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible gives a picture of an idealized, sanitized Jesus, not the historical Jesus (unless you want to do some real detective work and separate fact from fiction).
2007-02-27 00:16:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like what the producer or director (or whoever) said: that it would have made perfect since to hide any children of his from the Romans. Lets face it, when you get rid of a "king", you get his family too-that way your authority and reign cannot be challenged from his bloodline.
2007-02-27 00:24:57 · answer #8 · answered by tombollocks 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simply because, THEY claimed that JESUS was borned a GOD, according to the BIBLE...
So all comes down to, whether everything in the bible is a fact...
2007-02-27 00:18:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that it is funny that everyone wants to insist that he wasn't married. It is a simple fact that everyone would have though him very immoral if he had not married. They really would have thought that he was gay.
2007-02-27 00:15:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋