If Jesus had a child, then that would imply that he had sex. In order to have sex, one must be a sexual being with sexual desires. If one has sexual desires, then surely they lust after other people.
jesus specifically said that lust is mental adultery (better source than job, for this issue, i think).
but the question is, do you think he meant uncontrollable physical attraction, or the controllable concious thought that entertains it?
i think that requiring christ to NOT be human is a bit, well, silly. part of the whole idea was that he WAS human (even if he was something else as well) and subject to all the concerns of fleshly existence that we are. and he was perfect anyways. he's an example, if anything, of what we are capable of -- not an unattainable standard held against us.
a single x would produce a female. female is the default, not male. thus also an xxy produces a female (see jamie lee curtis). now. if jesus was a woman...
it's representative of the greek ideals of purity. now, the greeks were some serious pervs, but they wished and they hoped for purity. and purity meant celibacy. sex within marriage allegedly isn't a sin. all jewish rabbis were (and are as far as i know) REQUIRED to be married and have children so that they would be ABLE to lead their people properly. see, the idea is that bachelors don't understand how real life works. met any very wise bachelors before? i didn't think so. but then why aren't priests allowed? certainly it's not property rights. it has to be theologically defendable. the only reason is that sex is wrong but defendable in marriage to continue making little christians.
of course, if jesus was called 'rabbi' in truth by his disciples, then he would HAVE to be married. maybe not to magdalene, but to some woman. otherwise, someone is telling a lie. rabbi isn't just a word. it's an earned title.
the only other option is that perhaps sex isn't wrong, but being tied to a woman is wrong. this is also a defensible position in the light of greek culture (and in paul's writings). there is no purpose in being near or with a woman outside of squiting out babies. the religion has no place for god's grandchildren, therefore, jesus wasn't married. does this change the potential history? no. but it does change how it is received.
now, you may be asking, what does this have to do with our culture? where do you think we got our love of purity? the sixteenth (or fifteenth if you're hispanic) birthday party type stuff, white clothing (white wedding dresses were victorian, but white itself being the color of purity is greek), virginity. it all came from the greeks. hestia (the goddess of the hearth and ironically family) spurned the love aphrodite created and swore her virginity. her roman counterpart vesta even required her priestesses to be virgins under pain of death. all of our knowledge is based on the greeks: our philosophy, political science, math, science, and also the structure in our religious organizations. the greeks invented it, the romans took it over, and the christians just changed all the innards. the roman church is now exactly what it was before jesus but with a different gospel.
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that jesus himself was married. but remember, there's only one piece of evidence (outside the bible) that jesus ever existed. and that is only a passing comment by josephus and is questionable.
ABE i think it would be better if we thought of jesus as married. because then we can ask 'how did jesus treat his wife?' sure they say it now, but they don't mean it. they appropriate jesus' wife being the church. that's not a very good simile for a woman. i know my body doesn't hold many people. (yes i know it's the church polulace. i'm being funny.) if jesus were actually married and say to magdalene, it would be very obvious that his wife would be a good, outspoken jewish lady not a mousey christian wife. do you ever see those women on tbn? they sit there silent at their husband's beckon call. it's gross. he would have respected her personality and her body. he would not have forced himself on her nor would he have neglected her. he would have sought to bring her joy and not just to fill her with babies. a few months ago i made a post about how jesus treated women. he gave them undying respect and consideration. he would have been the same way with his wife. he would have asked her what she thought and he would have led her by helping her lead herself. you know how counselors work? they ask leading questions and wait for you to figure it out. that's what jesus did. and that is how jesus would have treated his wife. he would have respected her mind, her body, her personality, and her individuality. if magdalene was his wife, he clearly didn't lord over her. she was a successful business woman... possibly the funding for his endevours. she was his companion and perhaps his lover. but she was certainly not his servant. i think that might be the real reason they don't like it. it doesn't support the 'submit to your husbands' bit.
Yes, so does that mean Jesus was a woman? Or do Christians believe that God supernaturally inserted a y chromosome
probably the latter. the idea being that adam (presumably) had a y chromosome but was created ex dirt and thus anyone could be created with a y chromosome that wasn't donated by a man and his johnson.
during what I've heard Catholics call the immaculate conception?
no. the virgin birth was jesus. the immaculate conception refers to the fact that mary was also born without the influence of a man. i think. anyways. the idea is that she was also specially formed. and that is uniquely catholic.
If he had kids, would they also be perfect? If so, they could also could also die for our sins. O yeah, he is perfect cause he never sinned. If he came from a virgin, he never got Adam's seed and was perfect from the beginning. Lets say that you were born of a virgin. You would have to spend your whole life without lying, stealing, committing adultery, murdering (which says the Bible is the same as hating someone), and having no other gods. If you can do all that then let me know.
the idea of chastity as it relates to holiness is utterly foriegn to judaism.
Last time I checked he shot down Judaism when he claimed to be the Messiah.
Jesus was human, just human, while among us here on earth. He enjoyed a drink, enjoyed a party, loved a fish fry, joked with the girls. At that time it would have been very strange had he not been married.
From a theological perspective I'd say it is a non-issue, not more than a footnote.
a single x would produce a female. female is the default, not male. thus also an xxy produces a female (see jamie lee curtis).
Actually that's not true.
Having the XXY chromosone arrangement is Klinefelter's Syndrome and everyone who has it is male (see here if you don't believe me).
I believe - but am open to correction by any our resident experts - that if you have a Y chromosome you will be male. Certainly the Merck Manual I linked to confirms XXY and XYY are conditions in males.
Googling for Jamie Lee Curtis and XXY produces various claims that she is XXY, it's all an urban myth and that she is XY (genetically a normal male) with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - which makes you physically appear to be female.
I'd never heard about the Ms. Curtis story before or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - you learn the wierdest stuff here :)
Edited by MangyTiger, : Change subtitle
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after
i'll buy the jamie lee curtis as bullshit, but i always remembered from class that any kind of abnormality resulted in a female. ah well. but just an X would most likely be a female. i can't imagine it not being such.
I'm reasonably sure that it is the presence of the Y that makes you male (genetically at least) so I'd agree that just an X would be female - although I have no idea if it would be viable at all.Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after
quote:Curtis has repeatedly declined deigning to provide a response to this rumor, and her physicians â€” even if they had something to say and wanted to say it â€” are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality strictures.
This rumor is often lent credibility by people who have heard it repeated as fact by their university professors (especially those with specialties relating to intersexuality). Neither the hearer nor the teller ever seems to be able to provide a credible explanation of how he knows this piece of information to be true, the chain of transmission always tracing back to the notoriously unreliable "Someone else told me about it." As happens over and over, even the most trusted of sources can sometimes take a widespread rumor at face value, then parrot it as fact.
i'll buy the jamie lee curtis as bullshit, but i always remembered from class that any kind of abnormality resulted in a female.
Nah, IIRC it is that all females are abnormal. :P
But trying to head back towards the topic, I still don't see what the big deal is or why anyone is concerned about the possibility that Jesus was married or even had kids. While alive on earth Jesus was human, he loved, he laughed, likely stubbed his toe and cursed when he did it. He drank, he danced, he partied, played practical jokes on his friends, went fishing, to the beach, camping and to school. He died, and was buried. Human.
Any children he had would be human. Just human. Like you, like me, like any other human.