Does jesus have a blood line?

Answer 1

OPINIONSYes. And so does Jesus. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve and as one big family there are marvelous promises in Isaiah with regard to our being brought to a state of peace and rest. They have been and are and will be fulfilled.

Answer:

The three oldest, and largest, Christian churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) reject the view that Jesus had any siblings for 3 main reasons:

(1) In Aramaic there was no word for biological brother and the word used for brother could also mean cousin (just as many African Americans refer to friends as "brothers").

(2) Also, these churches believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, even though she was to be married to Joseph. Further, they believe that it would not have been seemly for any human to be born from the same womb as Christ.

(3) If Mary had had other children, then why did Jesus, whilst hanging on the cross, place her in the care of His disciple, John? This would not have made sense if she had other children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• There is no way of knowing. Ignoring the fiction of "The Da Vinci Code", from everything we know, Jesus did have siblings. The Bible says Jesus had at least four brothers, which it names, and at least two sisters, which are not named. "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him." (Mark 6:3 There may or may not be any living descendants because we have no way of knowing. Family lines die out every day. Given what the Jews went through during the 20 centuries of the diaspora (the dispersal), the odds are very good Mary and Joseph's line died out. However, we cannot be certain it did because we have no way of knowing.

• The Catholic Church denies that Jesus had any siblings, not because there would be anything theologically troublesome about that, but because it is a primary belief that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity, even though she was to be married to Joseph. They believe Mary is a divine vessel of redeeming grace only because she is a perpetual virgin.

• It is not known as some people say he had and some say he didn't.

__________

Actually, there are many ways of knowing. Much research has been done, and it can be documented that the "brethren" of the Lord in the above passage are actually His first cousins by marriage, the sons and two unnamed (in that passage) daughters of Cleophas and Mary, the brother and sister-in-law of Joseph. This comes not only from references throughout the New Testament, which can be tracked back, but from other historical documents of the times, and of tradition.

Unless someone identifies other actual brothers, which is harder (you cannot prove that someone who never existed, never existed), then historically those in the passages can be tied back to be the cousins of Jesus.

One has to question the agenda of those fundamentalists who try to translate the meaning of "brothers" literally, in light of the language issues of the times; which usage can also mean followers of Christ, as well as brothers and sisters in the Heavenly family sense, in the much larger scope. The language is fraught with similar problems, such as Mary of Cleophas being identified as Mary's "sister", when they had no language at the time for "sister-in-law", which was the actual relationship, as she was married to Joseph's brother, Cleophas.

Once you study the relationships of all of those characters, you see that the partial descriptions in the phrase are actually being questioned by the person asking the question. The nosy neighbors did not know then that the relationship of Jesus to Joseph was actually "adopted", that Heaven had "adopted" Joseph to be Jesus's earthly father, as Joseph and Mary had agreed to raise the Savior of the World. This is pretty hard to explain to the neighbors, without The Holy Family being murdered for heresy and blasphemy. Nor was the Divine Nature of Our Lord discussed among the adults with the cousins, until Jesus Himself revealed it to them at the start of His Ministry, for the same obvious reasons, the safety of the families growing up.

Hope that helps!

By P.Butt - a reply to suggestion that Jesus had children

Firstly - from the Bible Jesus is "God in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16) and (Col 2:9 )

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" - that settles it for me.

From things you have said about Jesus "losing arguments" or " being wrong" in our house group it causes me to wonder how you view Jesus. For me he is fully God and fully man (i.e. human and male) and therefore in his flesh he is physically as frail as I am, and as God he is all knowing etc. Secondly, I am persuaded that the Bible is primarily a spiritual book that tells us what God, not some long dead man, wants us to know. From over thirty years of reading the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit I am persuaded that we need no external reference/s as to its authority. Some modern versions of the Bible are very corrupted when it comes to the person and titles of Jesus.

I have spent many hours on this subject so I can prove this if you like.

Was Jesus married and/or had children?

If Jesus was married it seems highly unlikely it would be so secret that none of the gospel writers or Paul ever mention it, there is no argument that the Bible does not mention this subject.

In all my life I've never heard anybody even suggest this,

certainly the Catholic Church would if it were true.

If Jesus were married and/or fathered children the implications for us could be very serious. In that case surely it would be in the Bible? So what are the implications?

It seems obvious to me that when Jesus said "and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matt 19:12) he was partly referring to himself. Since he had to be a perfectly formed male to be our sacrificial "lamb" and also as our high priest he had to be a normal male with his sexual parts complete (without blemish) and working (Lev 21). Therefore that meant that it was by choice that he did not marry or have children and not that he had been emasculated.

From Lev 21 he must have had normal male urges, Hebrews 4:15 confirms this -

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;

but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Notice that it also excludes the possibility of Jesus fathering children outside marriage.

For those who don't want to believe that Jesus was sinless there is more below.

Was Jesus married?

From the above it would be natural to his human side that he would want to get married.

But the last part of Matt 19:12 means that it would benefit the kingdom of heaven by some men never being married or having children, i.e. it would benefit us, the Church.

In 1 Cor 7 Paul tells us that he had made the same choice "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (by implication) so how much more would this apply to Jesus?

In what way would it be detrimental to us that Jesus was married?

If Jesus were married the expression "The bride of Christ" would then take on a whole new meaning instead of the accepted term for the church as a whole. Actually the phrase does not occur in the Bible, it is implied from Rev 21:2 & 9.

However, for the sake of argument let us suppose that Jesus was married.

Jesus was a normal male and being "God in the flesh" its unthinkable he would have chosen a barren woman to be his wife since God said, "Be fruitful and multiply...". But the theological and legal (i.e. inheritance) implications for Jesus having children could be disastrous for us.

Our place in Heaven is by inheritance (Heb 9:14-17) since we are spiritual "sons of God" by (second) birth, and in the legal sense all believers must be sons to be heirs. The confusion and argument, which would arise from the phrases "children of God" and "sons of God" don't bear thinking about.

As regards our physical side we are the adopted children of God, how then would we stand as regards inheritance?

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:15-17

So if Jesus did have children, we would be in a far inferior position than Ishmael was with Isaac, since Jesus' children would have been born before us, and our bodies are only adopted. This could infer that v17, above, does not apply to us.

Also consider the prophecy about Christ in Psa 89

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

What price eternal life for the rest of us? Surely if Jesus had physical children this would disinherit the spiritual children. Preaching the gospel would be a real minefield.

As it is the word "seed" (Strong's - zera from the word zara) which is very specific but due to the corruption of human nature is already translated variously as - line, dynasty, posterity etc none of which are as specific as "seed".

In older versions of the Bible Jesus is called the "only begotten" son of God which comes from one word in the Greek "monogenes" which is even in the Westcott & Hort Greek NT (aka Nestle-Alland). Jesus' children would by nature have his genes so that verse would no longer be true, i.e. he would no longer be the only person who had God's genes (not that God the Father has genes like us of course) Is this why modern versions have half translated this word? The corruption here is even worse than it may seem especially the NIV, which has "His one and only son" which has sinister meanings in any "Dictionary of the Occult".

I didn't believe that because somebody told me, I checked it for myself in the Library.

God once threatened to disinherit Israel and make a new nation out of Moses (Num 14:12). By removing the "begotten" half it could be argued that God was doing just that through Jesus' physical children. After all, when the (fallen?) angels mated with women their children were "mighty men of renown" Gen 6:2-4. Now Jesus is above the angels in every way so surely Jesus' children would be no less "mighty…" which could fulfil the "greater and mightier nation" part of Num 14:12.

If Jesus had children why would he need disciples?

Psa 82:6f - John 10:34f yet another cause for confusion

On the topic of Christ's blood, which was the price for the redemption of the whole church (Acts 20:28), it had to be effectively the blood of God the father NOT the blood of some fallible man. From Acts 20:28 it is not possible to say differently -

"the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood". Our sins are an offence against

God so that only His blood can provide a substitute that satisfies God's true justice.

Now if Jesus was a father his blood would be in his children's veins, since the blood line is father to child, hence our custom of married women changing their surname - see also 1 Chron 1 etc "son of…", (this phrase occurs 1164 times in the KJV). This would give rise to an elite "tribe" all of whom may, like Jesus, qualify to be our sacrificial "lamb", i.e. be sinless by having a sinless father. This could make Rom 3:23 & 5:12 (..all have sinned ..) a lie. Or at least there would be very serious arguments on the subject egg 1 John 3:8. And if they were sinless then they would never die - unless they were killed by accident or murder.

As to Jesus "being wrong" in what he said or "losing arguments" this cannot be supported from the Bible. For a start he was doing exactly the opposite when he was only 11/12 years old (Luke 2:46f). Then in John 12 says to me that his words are infallible -

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. (KJV) John 12:47-50

And Deu 18:18f

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (KJV)

Besides if Jesus words were not infallible they could just as easy be lies - how would we know. But as God in the flesh he must be the same as Num 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie;.. Also the Bible says - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matt 12:37) obviously the second half of this cannot apply to Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at Da Vincis Last supper. See the girl? See the shape they make? (f*** ya ill use some dan brown to kick ur answers a**, i researched all of this, books AND internet!) The shape they make is the symbol for woman. Sangreal. Means holy grail... know what sang means french to English? no. blood. Look at the last supper, look. hmmm, no cup? well, that's odd, now if im correct, that's the grand 'moment' or what ever you want to call it for the holy grail, now, youre obviously christian, and, although im being raised with christians, im obviously not. So its POSSIBLE, but we may never know.