Is it ture that jesus had a son?

Answer 1

Cameron is pandering to the public and his "discovery" will be proven to be just bad science:

- The statistical analysis is flawed and the person conducting the analysis has backed off their conclusions in an open letter to statisticians, stating "I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family." See http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt

- The name "Jesus" was a popular name at that time, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries

- There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child

- The earliest followers of Jesus never called him, "Jesus, son of Joseph"

- It's unlikely Joseph, who had died earlier in Galilee, would have been buried in Jerusalem

- The Talipot tomb and ossuaries probably would have belonged to a rich family, which is not a historical match for Jesus

- Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear the body of James, brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount.

- The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from Migdal, but just Mary, a common name

- By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty, making it unlikely that any body was moved, allowed to decay for a year, then be put into an ossuary.

- If Jesus had remained in the tomb, first-century opponents of Christianity would most certainly have found His body and put it on public display.

- Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the conclusions cannot be supported by the evidence but it's a way to make money on television. He would have nothing to do with supporting the movie's assertions. "It's nonsense," he said.

- James, the half-brother of Jesus and author of the book of James, the early leader of the church in Jerusalem, was martyred for his faith. Why does James make no mention in his letter that Jesus was not bodily resurrected? When he was about to die why didn't he just recant his beliefs and say, 'Okay, okay! My brother didn't rise from the dead. Here's where we took him. Here's where his bones are. Here's our family tomb. We made the whole thing up?' People will generally not die for a lie when they know it's a lie. Why would James die perpetuating a lie when it would have been so easy to disprove? In fact why would any of the apostles go to their deaths for something they knew to be false?

As I have expected, there has been **no scientific or historical find** that has ever been shown to disprove the authenticity of the bible's history or theology.

Kind of disappointing to see that all it takes is a press conference and a slick TV show for some folks to form life-altering opinions versus taking the time to rationally examine all the issues and dig a little deeper. It is the Macdonald's generation: fast, superficial, and never satisfying.

Answer 2

The evidence does not point to a marriage or a son for Jesus. There is historical (non-Biblical historian such as Josephus) evidence of Jesus and the crucifixion. There is also historical (non-Biblical) documentation that people believed He had risen from death.

The alternative gospels from which stories of different Jesus histories arise mostly came from Greek philosophy trying to reconcile their beliefs with the new ideas that they were hearing. For example, the gnostics believed that the human body was evil, and Jesus could not have had a real human body. That would have made him evil. So they made up this dualism thing to explain how God's spirit was temporarily in Jesus, but God couldn't really have a body, etc. etc. etc. so they created several additional gospels each to jibe better with a particular pre-existing philosophical idea. They liked the Christian thing, but where it didn't fit their beliefs, they tried to change it. These heretical gospels were well known already in the days when the NT was written and they were quickly denounced as heretical by the early believers and eye witnesses

Answer 3

I cant say with certainty but long before the De Vinci code there was a book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail you might find interesting. and look just because things may not be mentioned in the bible doesnt necessarly mean they arent true or didnt happen. It wont change my faith in Jesus if it turns out he had a child. the book i mentioned does provide compelling evidence that Jesus did marry. Note that I used the word compelling and not conclusive. check the book out. Its not blasphemy to read something simply because it isnt in the bible.
by the way, much of the compelling evidence comes from the scriptures themselves and not word of mouth or hearsay.

Answer 4

No. If Jesus did have a son why did he keep it secret. Wouldn't it have been a most glorious thing. Jesus had no son.

Plus nowhere in the bible is it mentioned of Jesus' being married, much less having a son. Don't you think that, that is very important information?

Answer 5

Yep! Jesus De La Cruz who lives in Mexico City and his brother Jesus Velasquez. but the one that had the highest number of sons is Jesus Christ, for all Christians are sons of God.People pull down and mock what they do not understand. The way people believed in Europe in the Dark Ages that it was unhealthy to take a bath.

Answer 6

Jesus turely did not have a son.

Answer 7

I don't think it matters if Jesus had a son or daughter. It does not change my feelings, thoughts or love for him and what he did for all mankind. It doesn't even matter if he was married or not. Maybe he was but the writers of the Bible just didn't include it in the Bible. Maybe they didn't include such details because it didn't matter. Don't let what people might say about Jesus affect your love for him or diminish his great gift.

God loves you!

It isn't the things that we don't know that are the problem, it's the things we know for sure.

Answer 8

There is nothing in any historical record or any Biblical account to indicate that Jesus was ever married or had a son. No reputable historian would say that he had a son or was married. You watched that wierd TV show a couple weeks ago, didn't you! It was very agenda oriented.

Answer 9

No, definitely not! The Bible would have said if he had a son. Jesus is refered to as the Bridegroom it simply would not make sense if God was married to a human even though he took human form. He is God's son !

Answer 10

Plain and Simple, NO, thats the antiChrist trying to make you doubt, Jesus came with only one mission and thats to die for all of our sins, and with that we can have a new relation with God.

Jesus had no Offspring check this out

Isaiah Chapter 53:7

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

God Bless U

Who sall declare his generation???? No one... His Mother, Brothers, sons, daughters are the ones who do the will of the Lord who is in heaven...

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."