Jesus & Sons - A family business since AD36

As has been previously stated there are many biblical references to Jesus being of the House of David

Could you show me in the Bible....either Jewish or Christian where G-d has a tribal heritage? Thanks. Because Jesus had no sperm donor, remember? Therefore he would have no fatherly tribe.

The lack of records of the Jews during the period of the life of Christ is entirely consistent with what we should expect from this period, as Eusebius records wave after wave of death destruction and martyrdom of the early Christians.

It's a HUGE conspiracy. They recorded other messiahs but not Jesus.

Originally posted by Shonet1430

As has been previously stated there are many biblical references to Jesus being of the House of David

Could you show me in the Bible....either Jewish or Christian where G-d has a tribal heritage? Thanks. Because Jesus had no sperm donor, remember? Therefore he would have no fatherly tribe.

The lack of records of the Jews during the period of the life of Christ is entirely consistent with what we should expect from this period, as Eusebius records wave after wave of death destruction and martyrdom of the early Christians.

It's a HUGE conspiracy. They recorded other messiahs but not Jesus.

I keep in mind that the bible has the lineage of Jesus parents recorded and preserved within it for 2000 years. If Joseph is not his father, then what is the point of showing that Joseph is of the house of David? So far, no answer I have been told has made sense. The only thing I can see as the reason is that it is to prove that Jesus was of the proper line to vie for the monarchy. How else can the inclusion of Joseph's lineage be explained? It was not just thrown in as filler. Yehoshua Bar Joseph was the son of a wealthy Master of the Craft, a legitimate contender for the throne, a great teacher, healer, and leader, and imho, a husband and father. His life story was dramatized and embellished and used by others to found a new church, and over time, the details of his life were slowly changed to support the goals of these same early church leaders.

History fully supports a married priesthood. For the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married. Celibacy existed in the first century among hermits and monks, but it was considered an optional, alternative lifestyle. Medieval politics brought about the discipline of mandatory celibacy for priests.

Let’s remember the words of Jesus: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." St. Peter, the pope who was closest to Jesus, was married. There are three references in the Gospel about St. Peter’s wife, his mother-in-law and his family. Based on Jewish law and custom, we can safely assume that all of the Apostles, except for young John, were married with families.

Pope John Paul II recognized this in 1993 when he said publicly that celibacy is not essential to the priesthood.

The early Church was a network of small family-based communities throughout the Mediterranean region. Life was marked by a sense of joyful expectation. Jesus said that he would return and the first Christians believed that it would be soon. Led by married priests, they met at each other’s homes to celebrate the Mass. Strangers were invited to share the bread and wine. No one was excluded from receiving Communion. The strangers soon became friends, joined the young Church, and brought others to hear the good news of Jesus.

Sacred Scripture documents that priests and bishops of the early Church were married. In the New Testament, in his first letter to Timothy, chapter 3, verses 1 through 7, St. Paul discusses the qualities necessary for a bishop. He describes a "kind and peaceable" father, a man with a family. As part of his description, St. Paul even asks the question, "...how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own family have responsibility for the church of God?" St. Paul established many small communities and left them in the hands of married priests and bishops.

Church leadership was based in service and was accountable to the people. Each member of the church had a voice in the community. As we read in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15, verse 22, group decisions were made in agreement with the whole assembly. The early Church is portrayed as democratic, where leadership listened to the community and responded to its needs.

In 494 women’s participation in the leadership of small communities came to an end when Pope Gelasius decreed that women could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. This legislation is perhaps the strongest proof we have of women serving as spiritual leaders in the early Church. Women’s roles in the church diminished as popes and bishops marched in lockstep with the Roman authorities.

Kelly, J. N. D. Oxford Dictionary of Popes. New York, Oxford Press. 1986.
Padovano, A. Joseph’s Son. National Catholic Reporter. April 12, 1996.
Time Magazine. July 1993.
Grant, M. Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times. New York, Charles Scribner and Sons. 1993.
Straus, B. R. The Catholic Church. David and Charles, England. P. 37.
Torjesen, K. J. When Women Were Priests. Harper San Francisco. 1993. P. 34.
______

Odd how something such as that has changed. Imagine if Mary was shown as the wife of Jesus they could have never have done that to the Church or women. It's easy enough for them to cut bits out of the Bible, Edit bits here especially when they won't give "us" access to the texts that are locked up in the Vatican.

What have they to hide?

Going back to the fact that Jesus was unmarried, it was not as strange or unusual for a man of religion, a Rabbi for instance, to be un married. Take the Essenes for instance, a Jewish sect active at the time of Jesus, most of the Essenes rejected marriage and it was not frowned upon or thought un usual for a member of this sect to remain un married all of their lives. The Essenes washed frequently to purify themselves and a lot of their religeous practices revolved around the purifying effects of water.
John the baptist is thought to have been at one time a member of the Essenes and Jesus may have learned much from John, speculation i admit but not impossible. Some people have even gone as far as to suggest that Jesus may have been a disciple of Johns and that John shaped a lot of Jesus thinking during the early years before Jesus started his own Ministry, again speculation but an interesting one.
As for the Cathars they did not worship Jesus and the Holy Mother as the Catholic Church did. The Cathars believed that the world around us, the world of matter was created by an Evil God and should be rejected, the Cathars for the most part were celibate and did not drink or eat meat. And like the Essenes used water as a means of purifying themselves from the effects of the Evil God, the king of the World, Rex Mundi.
The Cathars believed that the true God was a being of pure spirituality and that the only way of gaining the favor and grace of God was to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church, as corrupt and hypocritical institution of the time as ever existed, and those of the material world around them. They rejected the Holy Sacrament and the trappings of the Christian Church.
Why? Well it seems that the Cathars believed Jesus to have been a being of pure spirituality, acorrding to Catar thought if Jesus was the son of God then he could not have been a being of matter because according to their teachings that would have made him a thing of evil. So the Cathars did not accept that Jesus had died on the Cross because as a being of pure spirituality he could not die, there for as far as they were concerned the crucifixion was a fraud concocted by the Church.
They also believed that one did not need a Church to be able to Worship God and that God was not to be found in the pages of the Bible but was all around us. For a Cathar to drop down to his or her knees in the middle of a field was just as good as if they were Worshipping him in a Cathederal in Rome.
The Cathar religion, if it can be truly called that, became very popular in France and eventually became viewed as a serious threat by Rome resulting in the calling of a Crusade against the Cathars by Pope Innocent III resulting in the violent suppression of the Cathars in France that lasted some 20 odd years.
As for the Templars, well it has been said the Templars had close connections with the Cathars in France but there is no proof of any of it just speculation, rumor and myth.

Oh and i agree with the train of thought that says the Priory of Sion is a fraud, an entertaining one but a fraud none the less. To be honest i wish Dan Brown has never written that bloody book.

Do i personally think that Jesus married and had children? I dont think he did, i think Jesus was a spiritual man who abstained from the worldly pleasures of normal men and concentrated upon delivering the message he was put here to give, forgivness, love and peace.
But i am open to the possibility that he may have married, as has been said already to marry is not a sin against God as laid down in the 10 commandments its just my own personal view he did not marry.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Janus]

If he did not marry, then there are a number of other odd biblical verses which beg for an explanation, imho. Too many of these exist for me to feel that he was not married, and yet I also must admit that I am not totally convinced he ever actually lived, though I think he did.
The references to Nazareth, I have read, are erroneous, and that that city did not exist in his day. The earliest maps to show it are apparently 500 years more recent, so he may have been a Nazorean, not 'of Nazareth'.

If the bible says that God said we are all his sons and all are brothers and sisters , why all this thing about if jesus have children or not? If he did? Why they will be diferent from all of us? Jesus was like us and we should be like him. Thats what the bible says. They where jews , and what do you expect him to be? a pope? the catholics and the time when jesus was, things where diferent.

If God make him a man, why he can't have a family? If he maried and have children that would'nt be bad at all! Those child would be like the rest of us. Sons of God and our brothers and sisters, But he didn't have any...

I think is an evil thing that this storys are trying to say that jesus was bad and make people think all the things he say wasn't true. With all the problems we have this days , the devil last quest its to brake the only thing thats brings the hope that things will get better and to belive in God by saying he wasnt good . The devil has always try to take people away from God! This is one of them.

I keep in mind that the bible has the lineage of Jesus parents recorded and preserved within it for 2000 years. If Joseph is not his father, then what is the point of showing that Joseph is of the house of David? So far, no answer I have been told has made sense. The only thing I can see as the reason is that it is to prove that Jesus was of the proper line to vie for the monarchy. How else can the inclusion of Joseph's lineage be explained? It was not just thrown in as filler. Yehoshua Bar Joseph was the son of a wealthy Master of the Craft, a legitimate contender for the throne, a great teacher, healer, and leader, and imho, a husband and father. His life story was dramatized and embellished and used by others to found a new church, and over time, the details of his life were slowly changed to support the goals of these same early church leaders.

Actually, the curse of Jeconiah was never lifted so even if Joseph supplied the genetic makeup, he would not be a contender for squat. Also, according to Christianity, he has not sperm donor so again, G-d has no tribal heritage and cannot provide a way for him to be a contender via David.

Odd how something such as that has changed. Imagine if Mary was shown as the wife of Jesus they could have never have done that to the Church or women. It's easy enough for them to cut bits out of the Bible, Edit bits here especially when they won't give "us" access to the texts that are locked up in the Vatican.

What have they to hide?

Plenty. Just like they keep the names of the Jewish children taken during the war and adopted out among other items that belonged to the Jews. The souls are the most important to us though. Yet the Vatican doesn't budge.

But i am open to the possibility that he may have married, as has been said already to marry is not a sin against God as laid down in the 10 commandments its just my own personal view he did not marry.

Him being a Jew, we are commanded to marry and have kids. We have more than the Ten Commandments to live by.

Was Jesus not the saviour of the Jews and all Human Race? Because last I checked the "celeibacy" part was added in the 9th Century and the Jewish texts tell them to "Go fourth and multiply" as their saviour would be born of two Jewish people. (sources are the same as the books above) In the early Church it was common practice to have a wife, children, etc, so the word could be spread.

Odd how this all has changed and the Roman Catholic Church refuses to admit any of it.

Simple way to get this fixed: Roman Catholic Church releases the texts they have locked away and we'll see what it says about Mary and Jesus and not what they wish it to say.

Jesus was like us and we should be like him. Thats what the bible says. They where jews , and what do you expect him to be? a pope? the catholics and the time when jesus was, things where diferent.

Well if you should be like him, shouldn't you also follow the law that he didn't come to abolish? But just for clarification, he couldn't be a pope as there was no Christianity. Unless you mean because he was Jewish that he couldn't be the pope in that case you would be wrong. There have been Jewish popes.

But he didn't have any...

That you know of.

I think is an evil thing that this storys are trying to say that jesus was bad and make people think all the things he say wasn't true.

Why would him having kids make him be bad? It would do nothing more than show more of the fully divine man right? How is that bad? Does it make him less of a god in your eyes?

With all the problems we have this days , the devil last quest its to brake the only thing thats brings the hope that things will get better and to belive in God by saying he wasnt good . The devil has always try to take people away from God! This is one of them.

The notion of the devil never ceases to amuse me.

Was Jesus not the saviour of the Jews and all Human Race?

IMO, not for me or any of the Jews I know.

Because last I checked the "celeibacy" part was added in the 9th Century and the Jewish texts tell them to "Go fourth and multiply" as their saviour would be born of two Jewish people. (sources are the same as the books above)

I'm not sure it's exactly written that our moshaich would be of two Jewish people or if it's just a given. The tribal part is told and in order for him to be Jewish, he would have to come from a Jewish woman.

In the early Church it was common practice to have a wife, children, etc, so the word could be spread.

I find it funny how many popes had illegitimate children and then one day the rule changes because heirs wanted Vatican items.

Simple way to get this fixed: Roman Catholic Church releases the texts they have locked away and we'll see what it says about Mary and Jesus and not what they wish it to say.

That would be an interesting feat.

Has the truth about the "REAL" jesus, the desendant of the house of David & heir to the throne of Jerusalem & not the son of god(of which jesus was elected in the consillio of Nicea in 325AD by the first archbishops of the christian church & the emperor Constantine) been a well maintained secret within the church & select groups for milleniums

Get a life dude. There is only one Jesus, he is who he said he is.

[align=center]If he did not marry, then there are a number of other odd biblical verses which beg for an explanation, imho. Too many of these exist for me to feel that he was not married, and yet I also must admit that I am not totally convinced he ever actually lived, though I think he did.

Seems like someone has Jesus issues.
Noone ever said you had to believe in Jesus. But is sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that he is not who he says he is. Are you living a lifestyle contrary to the Bible? Are you practicing homosexuality?, fornication, adultery? Most all people who do not believe the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God are living sinful lifestyles and if they can debunk anything in the Bible then what they are doing probably isn't wrong after all.

I must admit that I have engaged in premarital sex with my fiance, and that I have gay friends, so maybe you're right. I fully support gay marriage as deserving of every right and benefit that is granted hetero marriages. I also do not see homosexuality as a sin, but as normal, for homosexuals. Just becuz I am not gay doesn't mean that I think there should be any discrimination against gays. What they do, as long as it does not harm others, is not any of my business, imho. I see discrimination against gays as being based on fear and hate, so I accept them as they are and feel that they are no less righteous than hetero people.
I don't think I have any Jesus issues at all, in fact I have tremendous admiration and respect for him, if he really existed. I feel he did, though I have yet to be convinced unequivocally that he did.
And as far as my views being due to my want to sin, that is a load of bovine fecal matter. Is it your view that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not a Christian cuz he wants to sin? Or how about Mahatma Gandhi? Or Buddha? Or the Aga Khan? These men are as pious as anyone, imho.
If heaven is only reserved for the likes of you, I will be happy to go to hell and be with these saints.

Originally posted by deeswGet a life dude. There is only one Jesus, he is who he said he is.

Really? Can you provide a witnessed affidavit to this effect, or do you just hope that your statement is obnoxious enough to reduce others into submission?

Biblical references to Jesus being of the House of David...

John 7:42,Romans 1:3-4,Mark 10:47,Matt 22:42,Acts 2:30,Acts 13:22-23

The House of David being the royalty of the jews, a select group indeed, to suggest there were thousands of them is pure supposition.

Lets also deal with the criticism of Eusebius, for a start he didn't use the gospels as his source of his geneologies, he used and quoted the now lost works of Julius Africanus as stated in his histories, he also quotes Flavius Josephus extensively on numerous occasions,whom he obviously held in high regard, so why attempt to create some dispute between them.

The contention that no private records were kept at the time is also quite wrong. Ecclsiastical history Book 1 Chapter 7 section 14.

Though the Gospels of Luke and Matthew disagree with each other simple arithmatic suggests that the geneology of Luke (40 generations at 25 years) is more likely to be correct than Matthew (25 generations at 40 years). Either way, all and every account confirms his lineage as of Jewish Royalty.

The persecution of Vespasian and as was mentioned the Herodean destruction of public records simply indicate that the only accounts still extant from this period tell a story of Jesus as a noble, and no evidence whatsoever exists to prove that he wasn't.


[edit on 6-6-2005 by Flange Gasket]

Biblical references to Jesus being of the House of David...

You missed what I said. Could you show me in the Bible where G-d has a tribal heritage? Not Jesus. We're talking about G-d making Mary pregnant therefore he is the Jesus' father, right? So tell me where G-d has a tribal heritage because he doesn't and yet Jesus somehow was linked to David which can only be done through the father. Since there was no Jewish sperm donor, I'm thinking something is wrong here.

John 7:42,Romans 1:3-4,Mark 10:47,Matt 22:42,Acts 2:30,Acts 13:22-23

Those don't say G-d has a tribal heritage.

The House of David being the royalty of the jews, a select group indeed, to suggest there were thousands of them is pure supposition.

Ah yes, but you're also missing the point here. There is no tribal link. If there were through Joseph, Jeconiah is his link and Jeconiah was cursed...never lifted. G-d said no one would rule through Jeconiah's line.

Lets also with the criticism of Eusebius, for a start he didn't use the gospels as his source of his geneologies, he used and quoted the now lost works of Julius Africanus as stated in his histories, he also quotes Flavius Josephus extensively on numerous occasions, so why attempt to create some dispute between them.

Josephus has been tampered with therefore his credibility went down the tubes.

Though the Gospels of Luke and Matthew disagree with each other simple arithmatic suggests that the geneology of Luke (40 generations at 25 years) is more likely to be correct than Matthew (25 generations at 40 years).

Which is where you find just why Jesus is also ruled out. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Read it for yourself. Jeremiah.

We're talking about a virgin birth? right?

Wrong...

Your talking about a virgin birth, I don't beleive it for a moment. You obviously don't believe in the bible either or you wouldn't have a problem with Jesus being of the House of David, you asked for references, I gave you plenty.

Lets be clear, for the relationship of God to be that of the Father to Jesus the son, God had to come first. There is nothing whatsoever in the bible about Cosubstanciation. Jesus himself refered to God in the third person....

You may choose to think of Jesus as God, but Jesus himself didn't...

We're talking about a virgin birth? right?
Wrong...
Your talking about a virgin birth, I don't beleive it for a moment. You obviously don't believe in the bible either or you wouldn't have a problem with Jesus being of the House of David, you asked for references, I gave you plenty.

The virgin birth is what is taught. Believe it or not. I don't believe it because Jesus and the stories surrounding him have no bearing on me. Furthermore, I have no problem with Jesus being through David. I mentioned that he is of the cursed line. Also, your quotes were not in reference to G-d.

Lets be clear, for the relationship of God to be that of the Father to Jesus the son, God had to come first. There is nothing whatsoever in the bible about Cosubstanciation. Jesus himself refered to God in the third person....

You may choose to think of Jesus as God, but Jesus himself didn't...

I'm a Jew. That should explain it all.