Jesus had a son?

Barrabbis....
Bar Rabbis...son of the Rabbi..
the people were given a choice as to who should be crucified, Jesus, or Barrabbis..(Jesus' son??)....Jesus wasn't quite the Messiah they were hoping for.....they hoped Barrabbis would be more to their liking.

at least that is one theory I have read...

Unfortunately....Barrabbis susposedly died at Masada.

Does anyone know the part of the bible were they talk of when jesus was a child and he supposedly killed his friend and brought him back to life? Does anyone know the name of this part of the hidden books? Is it part of the apocryphia?

Originally posted by Ironside
It is quite possible, seeing that Judism back then demaned that one would have a wife then a child. Is is more unlikely that Jesus was always a bachelor.

Prophets in Israel were almost always bachelors.

Hosea was commanded by God to go and marry a prostitute. Same with Ezekiel. Elijah was a bachelor, as was Amos.

In fact, most of the OT holy men who were married were actually priests instead of prophets: Aaron, Eli, and company.

Jesus was never claimed to be a priest, since he was supposed to be Judah rather than Levi. Same would hold true for his alleged cousin, John the Baptist, since he lived in the wilderness as a Nazarite.

If jesus had been described as a temple priest, he would have needed to be married, but this claim was not made by the early church. Instead he was a wilderness ( cf. Matthew 4) holy man in the tradition of Hosea, Elijah and Ezekiel, and so would have been a bachelor.

.

Still, Imagine for a moment that this child was born. Imagine the introduction as the child got older.

"I'm your father, Jesus. This is your Grandfather......God."



He would instantly become the president of the lucky sperm club.

I came across this site when researching some religious icons for my Aunt. I was quite taken back with this theory. Kashmir India they say is were the tomb of Jesus is. Apparantly there are descendants of Jesus as well. Its a very interesting site for the curious.

Jesus in India

well the idea isnt that new(maby a few years at least)but you didnt say in the thread that their might be a blood line and that some one or a group of ppl are in it

Originally posted by Toromos
you seriously did not use wikipedia as document evidence? You couldn't search any deeper? Wikipedia can easily be edited, so it is unlikely the information there has any truth.

Yes wikipedia can be edited. However, wikipedia info is usually accurate. Proof that anarchy works perhaps. Either way, wiki is usually a great source.

Well to answer your question I need to know what texts are allowed as scriptural evidence for Jesus. Are we just basing this off of the canon of scripture that is currently accepted by the larger Churches?

As time goes on the more iterations and translations of the Bible there are. Personally I think that naturally implies a further deviation from the original Truth. So your best shot is to read and study the 'older' stuff.

So here is the issue. Orthodox religions accept only the Truth that is in their paticular canon of scripture, since they feel those were inspired by God directly(but written by Man). However, they dismiss other texts, under the pretense that they were not inspired by God.

I am a very spiritual person but I don't know which ones were or were not inspired by God. However, I have read a great deal about early Christianity and I can tell you there is much more written about Jesus then you would think. Granted, as has been pointed out already, under slightly different names (more historically accurate names). There are texts that were written during Jesus's life...or at least in his generation, but they don't belong to the accepted canon of modern Church (the big ones anyways). Many of these fall under the broad category of Gnosticism.

I suggest reading all you can about the early formation of both Christianity and the formation of Catholicism. Doing this will give you a dose of just how much has been suppressed from becoming apart of the accepted canon of scripture. Many opinions as to why paticular texts were not included. One side of the fence says they were Not inspired by God, and the other side of the fence says the Church had another more secretive agenda for their exclusion. I myself caught on to a pattern, a theme, between the scripture that wasn't accepted...so to me it becomes obvious the Roman-Catholic Church didn't agree with certain ideas expressed in them... such as Jesus believing all Humans could be just like himself and just as connected to God. I suggest getting your hands on The Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Phillip, Gospel of Truth, and The Gospel of the Egyptians for starters. Maybe get a good Gnosticism book on Amazon. If you want to know anything just ask. Just whatever you do please don't only read the KJV if you want Truth. Read it all.

So, anyways, it all depends on what pool of knowledge we are swimming in. Based on my research his beloved one was mary magdalene (Miriam). I also believe it is not unlikely he was married to Mary. So I also don't think it unlikely he had children.

posted by Cloak and Dagger

Well to answer your question I need to know what texts are allowed as scriptural evidence for Jesus.

So here is the issue. Orthodox religions accept only the Truth that is in their particular canon of scripture, since they feel those were inspired by God directly. However, they dismiss other texts, under the pretense that they were not inspired by God.

I am a very spiritual person but I don't know which ones were or were not inspired by God. However, I have read a great deal about early Christianity a..or at least in his generation, but they don't belong to the accepted canon of modern Church. Many of these fall under the broad category of Gnosticism.

I suggest reading all you can about the early formation of both Christianity and the formation of Catholicism. Doing this will give you a dose of just how much has been suppressed from becoming apart of the accepted canon of scripture. Read it all.

Modern Christianity was founded by Emperor Constantine. 310-320-330 AD. Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicea. Emperor Constantine ordered the preparation of what is now called the cannon. The Holy Bible, in other words. There would be no Christian or Catholic church today without Emperor Constantine. His motives were mostly political but in his era both political power and religious power were unitary. Our point of view and preference for the separation of those two powers began in the Martin Luther era - not by Martin Luther but in his era - and culminated in the United States of America in 1787. First Amendment.

Until you get a grip on the idea that what we call a religion today began with a Roman emperor in Byzantium - Constantinople - Istanbul - you will have contradictions on contradictions. This leap will put it all in place.

[edit on 6/16/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite


Modern Christianity was founded by Emperor Constantine. 310-320-330 AD. Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicea. Emperor Constantine ordered the preparation of what is now called the cannon. The Holy Bible, in other words. . . . Until you get a grip on the idea that what we call a religion today began with a Roman emperor in Byzantium - Constantinople - Istanbul - you will have contradictions on contradictions. This leap will put it all in place.

[edit on 6/16/2007 by donwhite]

Except that We have original copies of all four gospels from before the time of Constantine. Especially that wacky gospel of John, which claimed that Jesus is divine.

Also we have the writings outside the Bible by early church leaders, called the "Ante-nicene Fathers." They are called that, because they wrote before the council of Nicea was convened. If Constantine "created Christianity," then who were these guys???

Wikipedia: Ante-nicene Fathers

posted by dr_strangecraft

Except that We have original copies of all four gospels from before the time of Constantine. Especially that wacky gospel of John, which claimed that Jesus is divine.

I was unaware that we possessed any “original manuscripts” of the 27 books in the New Testament. By “we” I make reference to any extant copies, possessed by anyone, anywhere.

I am unaware of any writing contemporary or even near contemporary (not counting the spurious references found in Josephus) that mention Jesus, other than those created by Christians. In other words, it is only found in “in house” publications.

Elders, bishops, overseers. Special qualifications are required of elders or bishops who oversee local congregations. These are special to the office. These are not required of deacons or preachers 1 Tim. 3:1 and following. Also at Titus. 1:5 to 9. And see Acts 20:17, 28-30. A bishop must be “sober, the husband of one wife, and the father of obedient children.” Thus saith the Lord.

In the First Century every congregation had its own bishops or overseers. Frequently there would be only one congregation in a city, so that the bishop or elder in that case could be referred to as the leader of such and such a city. As in any group, in a city where there were several congregation, one might rise to a more respected reputation, but at the beginning of Christianity, there no or office of bishop as practiced in contemporary Christianity.

Loose usage over 100s of years has reinforced a false view of the early Church. It was not episcopal from the beginning. It was congregational. The episcopacy evolved. And another popular misconception relates to the so-called “Church Fathers.” Unjustified reliance is placed on every message that is claimed to have been advanced by a “Church Father.”

Just as we in the US call those who wrote our own US Con “Founding Fathers,” so also the earliest known leaders of the various congregations are often - too often - called “Church Fathers.” Those people [Church Fathers] like our own “Founding Fathers,” held widely varying views on many important topics or issues. We accord them - "Church Fathers" - authority they neither claimed for themselves nor is there any evidence that would show they were endowed with special gifts.

Today’s canon was not agreed on until the 4th century. I think the find of Gnostic writings in the Egyptian desert in the past century are the oldest extant Christian writings anyone has.

I say again Constantine, Emperor of Rome, was the founder of the variety of Christianity that has morphed into today’s religion. (I am also under the impression the Bishop of Rome was not invited to Nicea?)

So did Jesus have a son? Or children? It is telling that almost nothing is mentioned of the families of any of Jesus’ closest disciples. It would unlikely to the extreme that most if not all of those people did not have families including wives and children. (I think there is a reference to Peter’s mother-in-law). Yet there is no reference made to any children of the disciples in the 27 books we now hold as sacred. (Out of more than 100 considered).

Assuming as I do that the earliest followers of Jesus - were known as The Way - told and retold the stories, that is, it was an oral traditions. When the First Jewish Revolt of 66 AD was quelled, it was a new ball game! Members of The Way were expecting the “end times” to come shortly after Jesus’ death. (What they expected does not necessarily prove the existence of the man we now call Jesus).

After the Revolt was put down, it was obvious the end times were not all that close or definite. Therefore, it became necessary for The Way to begin writing down their experiences and memories of the good old days of 30-33 AD. Whoever it was that wrote the stories, the stories were written in Greek, the franca lingua of the Mediterranean basin but Jesus and the early followers most likely spoke in Aramaic, the local dialect of a Semitic language of the region.

It stands to reason those people would record only those things that were important to them. The reason the New Testament looks as it does to us is that perhaps 100-200 manuscripts were examined before the choice of 27 was made. So from the entire history of Jesus, they selected out a Manual of Arms. Picking those books that supported their POV. And then burned the remaining books.

[edit on 6/17/2007 by donwhite]

I have never heard anything about a son. But there was a great deal of evidence concerning a daughter named Sarah (meaning Princess). Paintings of her always have portrayed her as very black. One reference to her mother while she was in Alexandria, at the time a stronghold of the Jews was that the Son had burnt her as a raisin, another indication of the black bloodline. This “burning” was in text of Him leaving her with Joseph of Amethea (forgive my spelling) while he went first to England then lastly to Scotland. There is also a great deal of DNA found from the tribe of Aaron (the Jewish Priesthood) along Eastern Africa. I will look for a post to inter my take on our Lords time in the clay vessel while here. I can see a great deal of purposeful miss-interpretation by what became the Catholic Church. I am amazed that so few people realize how the early Catholic or Universal Church of Rome hunted down members of the Lords earthly family and killed them. In my opinion it succeeded in neutering and making a house pet of the Lion of Judah (Yeshua/Jesus). Before the torches and guns come out I have had dear friends and loved ones that are and were Catholic, it is not for me or any of us to judge individuals but I can not help but seek the truth.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, Mr Comforter, but here it is!

1) From my perspective “Sarah” is like “Jesus” in Josephus, spurious. As to the “blackness” of the people in that area and obliquely mentioned in the Bible, I think all of those people were like today’s Mediterranean types. Swarthy with heavy black hair and beards. I am of the opinion the Jewish people did not mix often with black Africans. Or blue eyed, blond Nordic types either.

2) Any disciple of Jesus going to England or Scotland is a Dan Brown fiction found in the Da Vinci Code but is not supported by any factual evidence. It does make a good story but we should not believe tall tales.

3) I don’t think there was a “tribe” of Aaron. He, Aaron, was Moses’ brother. The Aaronic priesthood - Samaria? - was competitive with the Levitic priesthood. The Levites won. The twelve tribes are said to be descendants of the 12 sons of Jacob - a/k/a Israel. There is no proof the “10 lost tribes of Israel” ever existed outside the Holy Writ. Another good story.

4) Based on what I just written in 3) above, there cannot be any DNA evidence of any “tribe” of Israel. Anyone claiming to have such DNA evidence is a fraud. Don’t give them any money.

5) Persecution was certainly not invented by the Roman Catholic Church nor were they the sole practitioners thereof, but they were some of the most energetic and long enduirng. The last great persecutions ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. A great document that everyone ought to read and it's available at Yale’s Avalon Project website.

6) I continue to claim Emperor Constantine was the REAL founder of modern Christianity. c. 325 AD.


JESUS REFERENCE

If Jesus ever lived, I am of the opinion he was a revolutionary figure. It is my opinion Jesus is a composite figure. Background: In 164 BC, the Maccabees led a successful Jewish revolt against the Seleucid king Antiochus IV. Judea remained independent until captured by Rome in 63 BC.

The next major historical event of record in early Jewish history was the First Jewish Revolt of 66 AD. Squelched by 70 AD, the great Temple built by King Herod was destroyed by the Romans. The last resisters were killed after a successful assault by the Romans on Masada in 73 AD. Just a few Jewish holdouts were found there and all were killed. There was no mass suicide pact. No 600 dead, no 900, but probably 3 to 10. It is likely Josephus embellished the story to ingratiate himself with the conquering Romans. AND to cover-up the disproportionate effort by the Romans. Bad intel!

Rewind. In 33 AD, Jesus had raised an army of from 3,000 to 5,000. He hid them just outside Jerusalem’s city gates. They awaited his assault on the Temple by a dozen or so commando-like “insiders” or Zealots. The alert Temple police thwarted Jesus’ plan. It is probable the Jewish High Priest had an informant inside Jesus’ group. Maybe it was Judas Iscariot. Maybe it was not him. After failing to capture the Temple, Jesus and his followers fled to a pre-arranged rendevous point, known today as Gethsemane.

The Romans had been alerted to the Temple attack by the High Priest. They sent soldiers to the rendevous site and arrested Jesus and at least 2 others despite strong resistance. Jesus’ failed attempt to take over the Temple broke the Roman peace and would be an act of rebellion. As a treasonous act towards Rome Jesus could be executed. Crucifixion was selected to serve as a warning to other dissidents in Jerusalem.

The Second Jewish Revolt was in 132 AD under Simon bar Kokhba. It was not put down for 4 years during which time the Jewish rebels issued coinage still available to collectors today. Some writers call this the Third Jewish Revolt because of the 115-117 Kitos War of Revolt. Most writers however do not regard Kitos as rising to the level of a revolt but being more like a continuous civil disturbance.

The interesting point to me is that in neither Revolt, the 66 AD and the132 AD - but especially the 66 AD Revolt - none of the people of Judea ever mentioned Jesus. If Jesus had died in 33 AD, about 1 generation would have passed before the 66 AD Revolt. More than half the people alive in 33 AD would have been alive in 66 AD. Yet no one mentioned Jesus. I do not regard the 2 “Jesus” entries found in the writings of Josephus as genuine. Most scholars agree those entries were made later by an over-eager Christian scribe. Possibly in the 3rd century but more probably in the 4th century. Around 325 AD, Emperor Constantine had added Christianity to the list of approved religions. It was not the exclusive religion. That was to come later, around the 5th century or 6th century.

Finally, it was Simon bar Kokhba in 132 AD who was hailed as “The Messiah” by the people of Judea after his initial successes against Rome. I assert this is further proof that the early Jesus was not the same as the Jesus who morphed from first century Jewish reformer to 21st century Christian hero. For those of you who want to read where my story begins, I send you to the book, “Quest for the Historical Jesus” by Albert Schweitzer. It is available on Amazon dot com.

[edit on 7/16/2007 by donwhite]

Don White
A bit over the top and not at all on subject. Take your disputes to the History Channel as it is most of the source, including the DNA testing. I was simply passing on information on the requested subject. You on the other had spout of no evidence when in deed there is abundance. With NONE of it from the “Code” please! If my library was only in order but I have recently moved and am nearly unarmed for reference material.
At some point in the future I shall post what I believe on this subject that you wish to discuss that is the origin of Christianity. I place this with Origin and the founding fathers of Catholicism with the use of Paul’s letters both real and forged. But let us agree that Jesus was never a carpenter and much truth suffers from the heavy hand of removing all that is Jewish from the actual story. I also agree he was in fact a rebel leader.
But this thread is about Jesus having a son. Stay on subject MRWhite.

Comforter. Off topic? Mostly. Excuse please.

As to the question posed, I'd vote YES if in a poll. I base that on what little I really "know" about life in Judea in the First Century Common Era. Was Mary Magdalene the child's mother? I don't know how anyone could prove that this far away in time when no written records were kept. But if in a poll, I'd vote YES to that also.

[edit on 7/17/2007 by donwhite]