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.


Round 1. galm1 v. discomfit: The Father, The Son, and Holy Grandchildren

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:23 AM
The topic for this debate is "There is credible evidence that Jesus had descendents and that the secret of their existence has affected the course of history".

galm1 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
discomfit will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.

Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

When this thread becomes unlocked, you may proceed.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:58 AM
I used to debate all the time at school for classroom debates... I ruled at them... I feel like I'm back at school in another debate... Anyway, time to debate this topic...

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent here is trying to prove that Jesus did not have children. My job here is to prove the fact that Jesus did in fact, have children. Not just that, I'm going to prove that he was married.

If you think about it, we're all Jesus's children.

Here's some info from

And so it was that Mary Magdalene and Jesus’ children were literally the uniting of Judah and Israel, once again. In this way, their children, if known, would have been used to rally the Jewish people into a rebellion for freedom from Rome...
...Jesus was aware that Rome would be looking for Mary and their children, thus together, they agreed that Mary should take Tamar to Gaul for safety in 44 A. D. It was the last time they would see each other in physical bodies.

P.S. I'm not sure if the quote code will work


sense Jesus was man, it's man's natural instinct to reproduce.

Looks like it your turn now...

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:24 PM
Thank you to the ATS staff for putting on these formal debates and allowing me to participate.

galm1, I appreciate your use of external material to further your position but the site in question does not provide substantial evidence for what you claim. Furthermore it fails to source its material to other supporting documents. In short, it appears as if the site simply claims things and expects both you and I to believe they are true. Unfortunately this does not pass the "burden of proof" test .

sense Jesus was man, it's man's natural instinct to reproduce.

It is true that mans natural instinct is to reproduce but this does not prove that Jesus reproduced. Many men who have reached Jesus's age haven't reproduced for a variety of reasons.

The most widely accepted and recognized documentation of Jesus's life is recorded in the "holy bible" used by the Christian religion. Although there are many versions with slight differences this is the book most biblical scholars agree upon as being "accurate". No where in this book is the idea put forth that Jesus had children.

Even if we were to assume that Jesus had children the fact remains that most Christian adherents don't believe this to be true. That alone negates any great impact his offspring would have on the world. Anyone claiming to be a descendant of Jesus's offspring would be considered insane by most and in some places may even be killed.

Thank you

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:32 AM
It is true that many men that have reached Jesus's age, have not reproduced. If you go by Darwin's theory, Survival of the Fittest,

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:40 AM
It is true that many men that have reached Jesus's age have not reproduced yet. If you go by Darwin's theory, Survival of the Fittest...

Here's a external quote...

This is what Darwin called Survival of the Fittest or Natural Selection. Those individuals with slightly better adaptations, according to the theory, would get more food, be healthier, live longer and, most importantly, have more mates. As time progresses, traits become more obvious, therefore later generations will be more defined and, possibly after thousands of generations, form a new species.

I got this quote from

It's your turn now... BRING IT ON!!!

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by galm 1
It is true that many men that have reached Jesus's age have not reproduced yet. If you go by Darwin's theory, Survival of the Fittest...

Wikipedia says...

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

I believe that is the situation we are in.

Darwin's theory does not prove that Jesus had children.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:30 AM
Sorry about that, I was just trying to buy some time... This is a tough topic... The Catholic religion believes that Jesus had a wife and children... There's really no true facts that state Jesus had children... Except the bible...

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:25 PM
Since galm1 did not bring any new evidence to the table or put forth an argument I'd like to pass on my turn.

I see no reason to write a long reply given the situation.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:26 PM
I think that this debate isn't quite over yet... I've been motivated to keep on trucking... anyway... Thank you so much Vagabond...

Here's a quote from Link...

we took a detour through the New Testament teachings about Jesus. There we discovered that the Jesus of the New Testament is both fully human and fully divine, but that He is only one person. The properties of both natures (human and divine) are evident in the person, each according to its respective nature.

Three factors are particularly relevant.

First, getting married and begetting children are human activities. Since Jesus was truly and completely human, He was certainly capable of marrying and, for that matter, of having children. This may seem surprising to those who have not thought much about the humanity of Jesus. If we think about Jesus’ incarnation, however, we will also be surprised that He could be wrapped in swaddling clothes. We will be surprised that He would have to eat and sleep. Devout Christians have always stood astonished before these facts, but they have always admitted them. We ought to be surprised that Jesus Christ would be able to marry and to beget children. Our surprise, however, should not turn into denial. Jesus’ full masculinity is a necessary consequence of His complete human nature.

Second, the Bible teaches that marriage, sexual relations, and having children are good and pure activities. Marriage was instituted by God Himself, before sin was in the world. Part of His original design in creation was for human beings to “be fruitful and multiply,” and humans have never multiplied by sprouting in cabbage patches. Sex was part of God’s perfect plan for humanity. In the beginning God made humans as male and female. In spite of all the wrong things that can be done with human sexuality, Hebrews 13:4 bluntly declares that marriage is honorable and the bed (a metaphor for sexual relations within marriage) is undefiled. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul teaches that husbands and wives owe sexual intimacy to one another. According to the Bible, human sexuality is holy and good within the marriage covenant. If Jesus had chosen to marry and to have children, He would have been doing nothing sinful per se. A Jesus who married and fathered children would have been morally permissible.

A third factor helps to answer these questions. Jesus is a theanthropic person. In other words, He has a complete human nature and a complete divine nature, united into a single personality. Each nature displays its attributes in the person, but not in the other nature.

Sorry, it's VERY long... I cut it down to the best of my abilities... blah blah blah...

What it is saying is that if Jesus was perfect, how come he didn't follow human nature? We're not perfect... So that explains why many men that reached Jesus's age have not reproduced... but what about Jesus... he was Perfect.


posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by galm 1
What it is saying is that if Jesus was perfect, how come he didn't follow human nature? We're not perfect... So that explains why many men that reached Jesus's age have not reproduced... but what about Jesus... he was Perfect.


Regarding Jesus being perfect

Working under the assumption the Jesus was perfect we must address a question that theory brings up : What was Jesus perfect for ?

More directly, was Jesus sent here to be the perfect regular Joe or the perfect messenger of Gods word ?

The question framed in that light will show that according to the bible Jesus was sent here to be the perfect messenger of God. Indeed Jesus getting married and raising a family would take away from his ability to be Gods perfect messenger which is by every indication in the bible is Gods mission for Jesus.

It would have been unusually cruel for God (the kind, friendly fuzzy god of the new testament) to send Jesus to earth, have him get in a family then make him chose between his family and spreading Gods word. That situation would require Jesus to either be the perfect father or the perfect messenger of God. I don't believe to be both is possible. Being the perfect father or the perfect messenger of God has consequences that I believe to be incompatible - Jesus could not have been both.

Every indication in the bible points towards a Jesus who is there to do Gods work as the bearer of his message not of a Jesus here to fulfill his humanly desires.

Jesus: exceptional just like everyone else

What would be the point of God sending Jesus if he was just going to basically be like everyone but with magical powers ? It would seem to be a waste to send Jesus to earth just so he could be another average Joe by getting married and popping out 1.5 kids. The exceptional thing about Jesus was that he was unlike other people.

Think of it, Jesus starts claiming he's the son of God then goes, hey we need to chill on this God stuff for a second, that chick over there is smoking hot.

It's worth noting that Jesus wasn't the only guy reported to have magical powers in the day.


Even if we assume Jesus was here to get married and have kids what women would be of high enough stature to undertake the task of being his counterpart , the bearer of Gods Sons children ?

It seems God would have to send another kid of his in the form of a women for such a union to occur. This would obviously be a morally turbulent situation as Jesus would be dating, marrying and having kids with his own sister.

For these reasons and many others I think there is significant cause to doubt that Jesus got married and had kids who then went on to be his secret blood line.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:57 AM
Well, it's time for my closing statement...

btw, cool new backround image... anyway...

It is true that having a family would've taken away from his ability to be gods perfect messenger... Jesus knew his crucifixion was very close, so maybe he thought it was time to lay a foundation in his bloodline for future generation.

My job was to prove to the jury... I mean... Judges... that Jesus was married and had children... In the begining, this was a very tough task for me to accomplish... and I also felt like I deprived discomfit of a good debate... and for that, I'm sorry.

Looks like this debate is finnaly comming to a close... your turn for a closing statement...

*shakes hand*

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:17 PM
In closing ... thanks again to ATS and galm1 for making this possible.

I submit the following for your consideration :

Jesus, the Son of God sent to earth in human form was here to spread Gods word, to be his physical messenger. Getting married and raising kids would have definitely gotten in the way of his ability fulfill Gods task for him. On top of that it probably would have cast doubt on his claims to be the Son of God. Furthermore it would have been cruel for Jesus to take a wife and have kids knowing he wouldn't be there to take care of his family. Gods entire mission for Jesus, to spread his word, would have been undermined if Jesus got married and had kids.

Based on the above lines of thinking I believe there is strong reason to conclude that Jesus did not get married and did not have children.

I know this hasn't been an easy position for you to take galm1, I'm fret to think how I would have handled your side of the argument. I think you did fine. *shakes hand*

Joseph Joubert said...
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:07 PM
Good show gentlemen. We will now await the decision of our judges.

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:40 PM
The winner is Discomfit.

Judges comments:

What debate? I feel bad for galm 1 getting stuck with the position he did, but he obviously didn't do any research, and if he had, he could have made an argument. You don't have to believe in your position to win, you just have to raise the possibility. By the way, large copy and paste jobs are not research. That should be against the rules.

discomfit clearly wins.

- This was a disappointing debate. I personally do not blame discomfit for that, as he did not have an opponent that was willing to properly combat him. I expect big things from discomfit in later rounds when facing a worthy adversary.

While I do fault galm 1 a bit, it is unfortunate that he was put on the short end of the stick, with a side that he did not support himself. But the mark of a true debater is being able to create a valid argument for any stance.

top topics


log in