Question to Christians about Jesus's family

Restless Soul · December 2006

Does it make any difference to you if Jesus had a family? As in brothers and sisters? Or children and a wife (such as mary magdalene)? What about if the church was found to be involved in a big cover-up of any evidence that these people existed?

I'm just curious how christians and catholics would feel about this because they showed a programme here on Christmas day about the fact that the church had covered up information on Jesus's family. According to the programme, which kind of followed along the da vinci code line, there is apparently evidence in bible which indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters with their names, which contradicted with the image of the Virgin mary so was covered up. I can't remember the passages now but the church has said these names were actually joseph's kids or they were jesus's friends or cousins or whatever. Apparently whatever the truth is, the cover-up continues.

So my point is if the church is so interested in covering-up any so-called evidence, what difference will it make to you, as a follower of Christianity, if Jesus did have a family, or the virgin mary hadn't been a virgin, or that Jesus had had a wife and kids?

Will it really make a difference to your faith, or your understanding of your faith? Just curious really!

chopitdown · December 2006

Restless Soul wrote:

Does it make any difference to you if Jesus had a family? As in brothers and sisters? Or children and a wife (such as mary magdalene)? What about if the church was found to be involved in a big cover-up of any evidence that these people existed?

I'm just curious how christians and catholics would feel about this because they showed a programme here on Christmas day about the fact that the church had covered up information on Jesus's family. According to the programme, which kind of followed along the da vinci code line, there is apparently evidence in bible which indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters with their names, which contradicted with the image of the Virgin mary so was covered up. I can't remember the passages now but the church has said these names were actually joseph's kids or they were jesus's friends or cousins or whatever. Apparently whatever the truth is, the cover-up continues.

So my point is if the church is so interested in covering-up any so-called evidence, what difference will it make to you, as a follower of Christianity, if Jesus did have a family, or the virgin mary hadn't been a virgin, or that Jesus had had a wife and kids?

Will it really make a difference to your faith, or your understanding of your faith? Just curious really!

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.

markymark550 · December 2006

It doesn't make any difference to me. Jesus' brothers/sisters or wife/family make should not be relevant to the reason of being a Christian. At least its not relevant to me. The only thing that matters is his ministry and sacrifice...that's what being a Christian is all about.

If the story is correct, Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. To marry Joseph and stay a virgin for the rest of her life is hard for me to believe. After giving birth to Jesus, she could have had other children by Joseph and that doesn't change the fact that she conceived Jesus because of a miracle. And yes, in the Bible, I believe one of his brothers was named James and the evidence points to him being Joseph and Mary's child, not brother in the sense of "brother in the church."

I don't have a problem if Jesus had a wife. His marriage to a woman should not be an issue. Most people bring up the sinless aspect of his life, but being married and faithful to a spouse is not a sin. Having children, implying he had sex, is not a sin if you are married either. All in all, I see both of those things as non-issues for my faith.

surferdude · December 2006

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.

markymark550 · December 2006

chopitdown wrote:

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't messianic mean the belief in a messiah, being Jesus for the Judeo-Christian religions? Not to split hairs, but I think you're thinking of something else when you use that word.

chopitdown · December 2006

markymark550 wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't messianic mean the belief in a messiah, being Jesus for the Judeo-Christian religions? Not to split hairs, but I think you're thinking of something else when you use that word.

messianic can also mean of or related to the messiah. I used it meaning having the characteristics of the messiah. I'm sure there's a better phrase to use, but that's the one that came out.

markymark550 · December 2006

ok, thanks for clearing that up, chopitdown

I wasn't sure what you were trying to say with that, because the definition that I gave is the only way I've ever heard messianic used.

MrBrian · December 2006

Restless Soul wrote:

Does it make any difference to you if Jesus had a family? As in brothers and sisters? Or children and a wife (such as mary magdalene)? What about if the church was found to be involved in a big cover-up of any evidence that these people existed?

I'm just curious how christians and catholics would feel about this because they showed a programme here on Christmas day about the fact that the church had covered up information on Jesus's family. According to the programme, which kind of followed along the da vinci code line, there is apparently evidence in bible which indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters with their names, which contradicted with the image of the Virgin mary so was covered up. I can't remember the passages now but the church has said these names were actually joseph's kids or they were jesus's friends or cousins or whatever. Apparently whatever the truth is, the cover-up continues.

So my point is if the church is so interested in covering-up any so-called evidence, what difference will it make to you, as a follower of Christianity, if Jesus did have a family, or the virgin mary hadn't been a virgin, or that Jesus had had a wife and kids?

Will it really make a difference to your faith, or your understanding of your faith? Just curious really!

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.

Solat13 · December 2006

Restless Soul wrote:

Does it make any difference to you if Jesus had a family? As in brothers and sisters? Or children and a wife (such as mary magdalene)? What about if the church was found to be involved in a big cover-up of any evidence that these people existed?

I'm just curious how christians and catholics would feel about this because they showed a programme here on Christmas day about the fact that the church had covered up information on Jesus's family. According to the programme, which kind of followed along the da vinci code line, there is apparently evidence in bible which indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters with their names, which contradicted with the image of the Virgin mary so was covered up. I can't remember the passages now but the church has said these names were actually joseph's kids or they were jesus's friends or cousins or whatever. Apparently whatever the truth is, the cover-up continues.

So my point is if the church is so interested in covering-up any so-called evidence, what difference will it make to you, as a follower of Christianity, if Jesus did have a family, or the virgin mary hadn't been a virgin, or that Jesus had had a wife and kids?

Will it really make a difference to your faith, or your understanding of your faith? Just curious really!

Shouldn't this question be applied to non-Christians as well? I mean the Koran also states that Jesus was born of a Virgin - the difference is that he is a high prophet and not the son of God, but devout Muslims also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

And the passage you are looking for in the Bible mentioning Jesus' brothers and sisters is the Gospel of Mark Chapter 6 Verse 3.

cornnifer · December 2006

Restless Soul wrote:

Does it make any difference to you if Jesus had a family? As in brothers and sisters? Or children and a wife (such as mary magdalene)? What about if the church was found to be involved in a big cover-up of any evidence that these people existed?

I'm just curious how christians and catholics would feel about this because they showed a programme here on Christmas day about the fact that the church had covered up information on Jesus's family. According to the programme, which kind of followed along the da vinci code line, there is apparently evidence in bible which indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters with their names, which contradicted with the image of the Virgin mary so was covered up. I can't remember the passages now but the church has said these names were actually joseph's kids or they were jesus's friends or cousins or whatever. Apparently whatever the truth is, the cover-up continues.

So my point is if the church is so interested in covering-up any so-called evidence, what difference will it make to you, as a follower of Christianity, if Jesus did have a family, or the virgin mary hadn't been a virgin, or that Jesus had had a wife and kids?

Will it really make a difference to your faith, or your understanding of your faith? Just curious really!

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

thatirwinfella · December 2006

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.

the original post didn't deny a virgin birth, it asked what if mary had kids after jesus, [it still would have been a virgin birth for jesus] or if jesus had kids.

to me it would make no difference, he still is who he is and did what he did.

i thought thomas was his brother...

Collin · December 2006

Actually, I was reading in the bible yesterday and it said something about James (I believe this is the English translation of Iacobus) being Christ's brother, not sure if that's figurative language or not.

miller8966 · December 2006

I believe in what the scriptures tell me.

Ahnimus · December 2006

Maybe the virgin Mary wasn't a virgin. Maybe she banged some dude while she was dating Joseph, and if Joseph had known he would have killed her. So she made up a lie about being virgin and how miraculous it was that she was pregnant.

Too bad that shit don't work today, huh ladies?

miller8966 · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Maybe the virgin Mary wasn't a virgin. Maybe she banged some dude while she was dating Joseph, and if Joseph had known he would have killed her. So she made up a lie about being virgin and how miraculous it was that she was pregnant.

Too bad that shit don't work today, huh ladies?

Mohammed was a pedophile.

Ahnimus · December 2006

miller8966 wrote:

Mohammed was a pedophile.

Hey, while we are making off-the-wall speculative remarks. You are a pedophile.

Collin · December 2006

miller8966 wrote:

Mohammed was a pedophile.

I bet you have a special place in Jesus' heart.

catefrances · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Maybe the virgin Mary wasn't a virgin. Maybe she banged some dude while she was dating Joseph, and if Joseph had known he would have killed her. So she made up a lie about being virgin and how miraculous it was that she was pregnant.

Too bad that shit don't work today, huh ladies?

an angel appeared to joseph and told him that mary conceived through the holy ghost. he was also told that this child would save his people from their sins. so it's not as if mary had to make up some wild story to cover her arse, so to speak.

Ahnimus · December 2006

catefrances wrote:

an angel appeared to joseph and told him that mary conceived through the holy ghost. he was also told that this child would save his people from their sins. so it's not as if mary had to make up some wild story to cover her arse, so to speak.

Sounds like a serious case of denial

soulsinging · December 2006

chopitdown wrote:

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.

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.

catefrances · December 2006

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.

scientifically these days virgins CAN become pregnant.

Question to Christians about Jesus's family

Comments

Categories