Why would it matter? Maybe the baby could carry on his or hers fathers wisdom throughout history? Why do Christians deny it so strongly when there's substantial evidence to show that Jesus once did have a child?
Or are they scared that if Jesus did have a baby that maybe he wasn't as holy and special as they once thought? God basically had a child, so why would that make him any less special?
What is the reason for the hate towards people who propose this?
Is it against the Bible?
Who would you rather believe - Jesus, or some follower hundreds of years later that interpreted his words and the teachings of others (possibly to his and their own advantage)?
Or are they just scared that if Jesus Christ's DNA carried through the generations that if one modern and surviving generation from that family was DNA tested and that no special genes might not be found - and that they actually found genes related to the ancestry of Joesph...?
What is the reason?
2007-12-12 09:15:01 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't really get it either...why would it matter if he had a child, was married to Mary M, or any other thing.
Well, one reason would be that most believers believe that Jesus was divine from the beginning, not an ordinary man living an ordinary life who all of a sudden got imbibed with Holy Godliness.
Also, there is no scholastically proven proof or evidence to support the theory that Jesus had a child with Mary M. The professors who I took classes from all rolled their eyes when we talked about this subject.
2007-12-12 09:19:58 · answer #1 · answered by SisterSue 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think the problem most Christians have is that the Bible is rather silent on that fact, and if the Bible doesn't say so, then it must be false. (Twisted kind of logic there). I personally don't believe all truth is contained in the Bible. If the Bible is silent on a subject, it can be either true or false.
It's my belief that Jesus was married, I don't know about kids, though. There are a lot of clues in the Bible to a person who has some knowledge of Jewish culture. Jesus was often called Rabbi, and was allowed to teach and preach in the temple as a rabbi. Only men who were married could be rabbis. At the wedding where Jesus turned water to wine, I've heard it was the duty of the groom to provide the wine. That's why his mom went to him to get it. Also, the Jews felt that marriage was extremely important to fulfill the commadment to multiply and replenish the earth. The Pharisees were so quick to point out how Jesus "broke" other commandments, yet they never pointed out that he was single. I've also heard his actions in the house of Mary and Martha was indicitive of a husband. Also, Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus resurrected.
These are all circumstantial evidences. I'm not too concerned about it. He is still my Savior whether or not he was married.
2007-12-12 17:42:14 · answer #2 · answered by Senator John McClain 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, there is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus was married and had children. You're referring to a work of FICTION.
Second, the New Testament was written within the lifetimes of the original disciples. I'm not going into that right now, but there's sufficient evidence. For instance, the death of Paul is recorded in Roman historical archives, but he was alive while the book of Acts was being written, and the book of Luke was written before the book of Acts, and Matthew ... et cetera.
The reason why Christians don't like this story being treated as truth is because Christians stand for Truth, and lies just don't fit in for the Christian. Jesus said "the TRUTH shall set you free", not "fables will set you free."
2007-12-12 17:23:13 · answer #3 · answered by no1home2day 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, the child would be 1/4 God and his Kids would be 1/8 Gods etc etc.
So even though the divinity was diluted there would be people here who actually deserve to be worshiped as God because even if they are only part God, that (according to the Christians) makes them totally God.
2007-12-12 17:20:54 · answer #4 · answered by Buke 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, if Jesus existed at all, which is still doubtful in my opinion, then it is hard to imagine that he was NOT married and had NOT sired children. It was part of his duty as a Jew. The Jewish authorities got on his case about a lot of other things, but there is no suggestion in the Bible that he got criticized for shirking his duty to increase the tribe.
2007-12-12 17:19:42 · answer #5 · answered by auntb93 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Jesus had a baby, it would mean that he had SEX! And that is just too much for some Christians to swallow.
Besides that, the bible doesn't mention a grandson of God.
2007-12-12 17:18:52 · answer #6 · answered by Dan H 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
if Jesus had a baby then he wouldn't have been the only one born without sin. and then that would make the Bible wrong when it says all have sinned and fall short the glory of God.
2007-12-12 17:22:44 · answer #7 · answered by 777 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The thought of Jesus in the throws of passion is repulsive to those who rely on him for salvation.
Although if he did, that means there are demi-gods walking around, and might explain the existence of Leprechauns.
2007-12-12 17:18:55 · answer #8 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed, much less fathered a child.
2007-12-12 17:22:50 · answer #9 · answered by neil s 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a Christian, but there is scant evidence Jesus even existed let alone had a child.
2007-12-12 17:23:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋