2007-10-29 04:04:12 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I am atheist and I think he did exist (or someone very much like him did), but from a historical point of view.
Sorry, yes I meant his siblings' descendents, not his (unless he did have kids himself - my mind is open to possibilities).
2007-10-29 04:14:49 · update #1
I'm surprised more people don't ask about this . . . this is the first question like this that I've seen on here.
It's POSSIBLE that two of Jesus' brothers were older step brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph's . . . it has to do with how people were named at that time.
But then he still has at least one younger brother (perhaps two) and sisters.
Understand the Catholics don't believe Jesus had siblings -- They think that Mary remained a virgin, and to support this error, they intentionally mistranslated siblings for cousins.
But, nearly all Protestant translations use the word siblings -- meaning he had brothers and sisters.
So there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of descendants of his siblings, on his mother's side, and many of them are alive today.
Godspeed.
2007-10-29 04:13:22 · answer #1 · answered by jimmeisnerjr 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If Jesus had siblings or children, it would logically follow that some of their descendants could be alive today.
2007-10-29 11:15:26 · answer #2 · answered by Chantal G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a not-so-secret secret society that seems to believe that. They claim that the descendants of Jesus successively became King of Kings over all Europe, having a hand in the affairs of kingdoms. (Except maybe the Vatican.)
2007-10-29 11:16:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus had no siblings. back in those days it was common to say brothers and sisters meaning cousins and aunts and uncles , they had no usuage of the words cousin or aunts etc. it was brothers and sisters. His descendents are those who are baptised in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit, making us children of God. Also another point of reference is when that Jesus died on the cross, he gave the care of his mother, Mary, to his disciple John, this would have been a terrible insult to blood brothers of Jesus and would have been unheard of.
2007-10-29 11:40:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It means the descendents of Jesus' siblings might be, but Jesus Himself had no children.
2007-10-29 11:06:57 · answer #5 · answered by Faye 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
A sibling would not be a descendant. We could have many people alive today that could trace their ancestry back to Mary or one of her children, but they would not be descendants of Christ and they would not have the blood of God the Father flowing within them, only the blood of Mary.
2007-10-29 11:08:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Since Jesus had half-siblings, there most likely were decendants of them. Most likely they would have been subverted in history, hidden, to prevent others from worshipping them.
The Bible does teach us that when we become Christians, we also become a part of Jesus' lineage. By that, we are all part of His family.
AZ
2007-10-29 11:26:18 · answer #7 · answered by stargate_fruitloops 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It never really mentions in the Bible that Jesus had siblings.
It does mention his brothers, but the Hebrews had very few words describing male relatives.
Also, in that time the children of two brothers were considered brothers and sisters. So, your dad's brother's children and you would be brothers and sisters, instead of cousins as we call it today.
2007-10-29 11:15:09 · answer #8 · answered by musicgirl31♫ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There could be some of his relative's descendants alive today... then again they may have all died out
2007-10-29 11:14:31 · answer #9 · answered by Ceejay 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last records of the Desposyni put them no later than the early 5th century, after which time it is presumed they died out.
2007-10-29 11:21:15 · answer #10 · answered by Hoosier Daddy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋