It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What does it matter, anyway?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:10 AM

I was doing some scriptural scrutinizing on the subject of resurrection (Jesus both body and spirit, for us just spirit) since it is the solitary absolute qualification for being born the Son of God as well as for all us children-of-God-in-the-making. I had already come to understand this by the grace of God, but in the interest of a post I wrote this morning on the subject of that *gasp* movie on this thread, I looked more closely at the way Paul and Luke wrote about the circumstance of Christ’s death and resurrection, contrasted with the various popular Christian credos addressing that all-time favorite debate of God? Man? God-man? Man-God? On and on…

From what I can tell, the DaVinci Code seems to offend Christianity the most by suggesting there is a possibility Jesus got married and had some kids, in the standard human fashion. I personally see it as a non-threatening issue, largely because there isn’t really any support in our biblical texts and not even in the extant and non-canonical early Christian writings. But my overall lack of concern about this subject mostly stems from the fact that I don’t think it matters one way or the other. Truth matters. Life matters. I believe Christ is the Son of God because He was given life directly from God the Father and that is the essence of the Gospel. Resurrection of spirit, demonstrated through one bodily resurrection, for the purpose of making it known that death has been overcome for us all, just as was promised from the beginning.

Now, the scriptures say:
Jesus was born to a woman, in the flesh, suffered as a human among us, died a mortal death at the hands of other mortals, and that this was all because He was a man appointed by God for this purpose. In the time between the human birth and death, He became the complete and full manifestation of God’s character and nature in order to bring us light and testimony that God is real and true.

Now, this is what my heart tells me, as instructed by the Spirit:
He was not God the Father, but yet He is ordained our LORD and King and now serves as the Father’s Right Hand Magistrate over all things. He was with us from the beginning, leading us out of Egypt. His administration laid the groundwork for the time of His visitation. His visitation opened the path that leads to God the Father, whom without the Son we would have no inkling of whatsoever. He became the mediator between the carnal and spiritual realities which had been estranged for long centuries. His willingness to both take on human form as well as relinquish that same form, with no aggression or resistance - for the good of mankind, whom He loves – is what made Him conqueror of death and the Savior of the world. He did it for all of us, not for Himself and not for any other reason than He desired us, His family, to be complete and healthy.

The undisputable fact seems to be that Jesus had to be human so He could die. He had to die so that He could be born from above—He is the first born of the ‘dead.’
He had to be a mortal human being in order to become the Son of God.

Let’s say, just for the sake of this thread, that Jesus was married. Forget the Sam Kinison take on that possibility, though...

Maybe He had kids, maybe not. But let’s say that for certain the marriage was consummated. You know what I mean: sex happened.

Is it the idea of sex somehow being sin that makes this idea so abhorrent to Christianity? If that is so - and I suspect that indeed is at the heart of the matter – then one can conclude that a married Jesus doesn’t seem to jibe with the fundamental perception of being ‘without sin.’ Yet God made man and woman with interlocking parts and instructed them to be fruitful by making use of said parts. Marriage is a holy institution, pure and sanctified in the eyes of God. To then conclude that somehow Jesus would be no longer ‘without sin’ if He followed that particular instruction given by God creates a problem: either Jesus is disobedient or He is stained with sin. It is more reasonable and realistic to believe that, just like the rest of us, it was His choice. And if He made the choice in favor of marriage, certainly He would have done it completely according to the law. And so then the problem disappears and Jesus remains without sin.

So what would it matter in regard to the ultimate purpose of His life? Which was, of course, to die and then to live again so that we all might live.

How could being married, and especially becoming a father, make Him any less fit for resurrection and Divine Kingship?

What is the threat in all this to those who say they have faith in God and in Christ?

Why does the suggestion cause fear to the point of backsliding into hypocritical unrighteous judging of others - whom we should instead be regarding as brothers and sisters in God’s family?

What does it truly matter, outside of whether or not the bible is supportive of such an idea? :shk: And frankly, the question of scriptural support is a moot point these days, since the majority of Christian theology is built as a free-standing structure in opposition to what the scriptures have to say.

What I am seeing is this: that which is enthusiastically proclaimed a *needless* defense of the ‘faith’ or ‘truth’ is actually yet another instance of a block sitting square in the middle of our path upon which we will surely stumble. And the only thing more tragic than that is how it will lead so many more to stumble, as well, while they attempt to walk that same littered path at our bidding.

That deserves more thought than whether or not Jesus got married...
or the question of Dan Brown's intentions regarding his work as fiction or not...
or even whether DaVinci was painting breasts on John or declaring Mary's discipleship...


log in