Question to Christians about Jesus's family

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

you mean evidence like the evidence that scientifically virgins don't have babies... that you've got to get laid to have kids? i suppose what you mean is you're not aware of any bible stories contradicting that. as far as revisionist history, the new testament is the greatest example of revisionist history ever written. and the great part is its devotees are willfully ignorant about it.

I knew someone would bring both of those up, and they are fair points. Which is why I said IF he wasn't born of a virgin he wouldn't be the messiah. And I'm not getting into another NT discussion about why certain things were included and were not excluded.

markymark550

MrBrian wrote:

well if that were all true then it would prove christianity to be false. I mean since it's based on a virgin birth and such.

Christianity is not based on a virgin birth.

Restless Soul

miller8966 wrote:

Mohammed was a pedophile.

What's that got to do with this subject?

Restless Soul

cornnifer wrote:

Let me guess. You just got the "DaVinci Code" DVD for Christmas. Right?

No, there was a programme on tv about it.

(I've already seen that film when it came out!)

MrBrian

markymark550 wrote:

Christianity is not based on a virgin birth.

It's a very imporatant part is what I should've said, my bad.

Restless Soul

chopitdown wrote:

Jesus did have a brother (at least shared the same mother), who was younger. It doesn't matter to me if he has brothers and sisters; as long as they were younger than he. The bible says that he was born to a virgin, not that Mary remained one for the rest of her life. I take much more of a stance against him having a wife. Granted the Bible isn't to tell us everything about Jesus...there's some 30 years where nothing is mentioned, but I work under the assumption that if he was married something would have been written about it. The question then becomes could he have been messianic and married and produced offspring, again, those are all fairly big life occurrences that I assume the Bible would address HAD they occurred.

If he wasn't born of a virgin he would not have been the fullfillment of the prophecy that the messiah would have been born of a virgin; rendering him only human. So yes, that would have a drastic change on my faith. However, I am not aware of any evidence that points to that, aside from some revisionist history.

What prophecy? Sorry, I'm not a christian so please excuse my ignorance.

But what if the brothers and sisters (sounded like they were a lot of them) weren't all younger than he? It didn't say that he was the eldest. Also, at the moment when he die the turn water into wine trick, it was actually done at a family wedding with his siblings there which showed that there were more of them.

Also, if he was married, then that was also largely covered up but there was evidence here and there to the relationship he had with magdalene. I think the bible or other documents did refer to it but that was destroyed or hidden by the church. Apparently St Peter didn't like Mary Magdalene and she was denounced as a whore by the church, so who knows what's true.

But what I don't understand is, why should it make a difference if he had siblings or if he got married or his birth wasn't of a virgin? (If that is the case). Should it make a difference to the overall christian messages to the followers? Did the church really believe that the only way people would want to believe in Christ was if he was this amazing otherworldly guy who wasn't born like other men, or had sex, or had children?

chopitdown

Restless Soul wrote:

What prophecy? Sorry, I'm not a christian so please excuse my ignorance.

But what if the brothers and sisters (sounded like they were a lot of them) weren't all younger than he? It didn't say that he was the eldest. Also, at the moment when he die the turn water into wine trick, it was actually done at a family wedding with his siblings there which showed that there were more of them.

Also, if he was married, then that was also largely covered up but there was evidence here and there to the relationship he had with magdalene. I think the bible or other documents did refer to it but that was destroyed or hidden by the church. Apparently St Peter didn't like Mary Magdalene and she was denounced as a whore by the church, so who knows what's true.

But what I don't understand is, why should it make a difference if he had siblings or if he got married or his birth wasn't of a virgin? (If that is the case). Should it make a difference to the overall christian messages to the followers? Did the church really believe that the only way people would want to believe in Christ was if he was this amazing otherworldly guy who wasn't born like other men, or had sex, or had children?

Prophecy (7th and 8th century BC)
"Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
Fruition
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.... And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus." (Luke 1:26-27, 30-31)

The reason he would have to be the oldest is b/c of the prophecy above. If there were older siblings mary would not have been a virgin; therefore, he wouldn't be the fullfillment of prophecy.

Re: the marriage hypothesis. I'm not as sure intellectually, on the source of that idea. There are also Gnostic texts that were written after his life that were not included in the NT, prob b/c they did not agree with the rest of the Bible. There are lots of books out there that address how the Bible was "assembled".

But to answer your last point, yes it matters immensley if he wasnt born to a virgin. It wouldn't affect some Christian philosophy, love your neighbor etc.. (the goodwill stuff) but it would have a HUGE implication on salvation and redemption. I agree with markymark from above if Jesus was married and had offspring he did not commit sin; which would mean he was still perfect and didn't sin so he could still be the messiah. I just have a hard time accepting that as a valid theory b/c the Bible doesn't mention it...What does the church gain by intentionally leaving that part out, if it's true? I can't come up with anything...granted I'm shooting off the cuff for some of this.

On a side note. I would encourage you to not only read the secular take on Christ and Christianity but if you really want to learn about it there are many good Christian-scholarly authors who deal with a lot of this subject matter and I would encourage you to read from both sides of the issue.

soulsinging

catefrances wrote:

scientifically these days virgins CAN become pregnant.

i dont think they had artificial insemination perfected in jesus' time. perhaps im wrong though.

soulsinging

chopitdown wrote:

I just have a hard time accepting that as a valid theory b/c the Bible doesn't mention it...What does the church gain by intentionally leaving that part out, if it's true? I can't come up with anything...granted I'm shooting off the cuff for some of this.

it sets precedent for a church where priests cannot marry and power within the church is restricted to men and men alone. it ensures that sex is carefully controlled and less pure than not having sex like jesus (apparently) didnt. it subtly preserves the idea that women are impure and that resisting their seductive and sinful charms is admirable (adam's apple and jesus refusing to stick it in one).

dkst0426

Ahnimus wrote:

Sounds like a serious case of denial

It's not denial when one responds to what basically amounts to heresy disguised as a response to some serious questions being raised. Once again, you are demonstrating an utter contempt and lack of respect for what Christians believe, and when that is evident, there's really nothing to be said in terms of actual discourse.

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

it sets precedent for a church where priests cannot marry and power within the church is restricted to men and men alone. it ensures that sex is carefully controlled and less pure than not having sex like jesus (apparently) didnt. it subtly preserves the idea that women are impure and that resisting their seductive and sinful charms is admirable (adam's apple and jesus refusing to stick it in one).

I guess I approach it from a non-catholic view whereas, if memory serves you have a catholic background where that is much more prevalent.

I think priests should marry and power shouldn't be soley in the hands of males, but I'm not catholic so my opinion doesn't really mean a whole lot.

catefrances

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think they had artificial insemination perfected in jesus' time. perhaps im wrong though.

i never said they did. just pointing out that it is possible to become pregnant without sexual intercourse.

soulsinging

chopitdown wrote:

I guess I approach it from a non-catholic view whereas, if memory serves you have a catholic background where that is much more prevalent.

I think priests should marry and power shouldn't be soley in the hands of males, but I'm not catholic so my opinion doesn't really mean a whole lot.

what denomination are you? do you have female priests?

fanch75

surferdude wrote:

You have asked many different questions and some very confusing ones.

My understanding is that Jesus is the son of God. Mary was his earth mom but in a DNA type way Jesus was not related to Mary at all. Mary was the vessel chosen to carry God's child, a surrogate mother in a way.

Given this, I don't think Jesus had any blood brothers. He may have had step brothers, birthed by Mary and fathered by Joseph. This would not alter my faith in any way. If this indeed happened and was covered up it would not alter my faith. However it would be another instance where I think the people involved in the cover up made poor choices.

Any cover up that may have (or may not have) occured is immaterial to Jesus and God.

Perfect. Well said.

Kann

On the brother thing, I disagree with Jesus having brothers, step or blood. Catholic prayers are dedicated to virgin Mary :
1 - That doesn't make sense if she had children "the normal way" later on.
2 - If I'm not mistaken christian faith stipulates giving birth is a reminder of the original sin. So if a woman gives birth (again "the normal way") she taints herself with a sin and this is incoherent with the "pure" nature of Mary.
(then again this is true for catholics, I have no idea for other confessions).
I think James was a metaphorical brother, perhaps a cousin?

Solat13

soulsinging wrote:

it sets precedent for a church where priests cannot marry and power within the church is restricted to men and men alone. it ensures that sex is carefully controlled and less pure than not having sex like jesus (apparently) didnt. it subtly preserves the idea that women are impure and that resisting their seductive and sinful charms is admirable (adam's apple and jesus refusing to stick it in one).

Uh, St. Peter the first Pope and the "Rock upon which I will build my church on Earth" was married. So why would the Church leave out the part about Jesus being married, but leave in the part about Peter being married. Many of the apostles were married and the whole priests being forced to be celibate didn't come around until the Middle Ages.

THC

this thread kinda reminds me of what i don't like about organized religion.

Honestly..i'm a Christian...and I don't care where or how Christ came about...but i do know he changed history more then any man ever, and the only person who could raise people from the dead, heal the sick, make the blind see, etc. (if he did not do these things i can not imagine a man w/ a 3 year public life of no social rank, in an age of no tv or internet...how that man could become so famous...so fast.)
He preached a message...a set of rules to live your life by...a way to think. That is the importance of the man. The dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's has been what has distracted the masses from his message for far too long, and caused the churches to splinter.

Restless Soul

Solat13 wrote:

Uh, St. Peter the first Pope and the "Rock upon which I will build my church on Earth" was married. So why would the Church leave out the part about Jesus being married, but leave in the part about Peter being married. Many of the apostles were married and the whole priests being forced to be celibate didn't come around until the Middle Ages.

Because they didn't want to believe that Jesus could possibly have been a human being. It would spoil the whole story otherwise!

Collin

THC wrote:

this thread kinda reminds me of what i don't like about organized religion.

Honestly..i'm a Christian...and I don't care where or how Christ came about...but i do know he changed history more then any man ever, and the only person who could raise people from the dead, heal the sick, make the blind see, etc. (if he did not do these things i can not imagine a man w/ a 3 year public life of no social rank, in an age of no tv or internet...how that man could become so famous...so fast.)

It has happened before.

Solat13

Restless Soul wrote:

Because they didn't want to believe that Jesus could possibly have been a human being. It would spoil the whole story otherwise!

Catholics teach that Jesus is both human and God so if they didn't want to believe that he is human - they probably need to go back to the drawing board and rethink almost 2000 years of teaching that fundamental fact ... lol

Jesus suffers through such human desires as being tempted by the devil in the desert and questioning his Father if he really has to go through with the plan as it is intended (the crucifixion). Being portrayed as someone who is tempted and wants to avoid pain and suffering seems pretty human in my opinion.