 |
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 08:55 PM by Bigwhammy
|
reply to post by sizzle
I don't mean to talk down to you, I need to heed that advice as well. I can easily get sidetracked off into UFOs or whatever. I try to bring it back
against the test of scripture. But that's the cool thing about the Bible you know? It's all about the supernatural and the paranormal -- and it's
the real deal - it has never really been debunked no matter how hard they try it is still around.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 09:34 PM by meremortal
|
yes and dont cast pearls before swine!
but getting back to jesus having children?
maybe it just goes against our indroctrination!
the truth can be shocking as we all know!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 09:47 PM by sizzle
|
 Originally posted by meremortal
yes and dont cast pearls before swine!
but getting back to jesus having children?
maybe it just goes against our indroctrination!
the truth can be shocking as we all know!
Yes,
As was briefly touched on earlier; (to my knowledge) there does not seem to be any clear-cut teaching that would have been against Jesus taking a wife
and having a family, as that was the norm for the Jewish tradition. But Jesus was not the norm. And in most every instance I can think of; His mind
was trained upon the work of His Father.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 10:09 PM by Amaterasu
|
Originally posted by OhZone
These books do seem to present a case of a true bloodline.
However, I would not get excited about any living descentdant of same.
Supposedly all royal families came from this line.
NOw then, these families all had children that did not make it to the throne.
They all had kids that were still lower on the royal list.
If you do even the most rudimentary math on the generations of descendants from those times, you would come out with a phenomenal figure of
descendants. That would include many of us.
So, you see it is really no big deal.
Even I seem to be descended from royalty. Wm the Conquerer is in the mix my great-aunt dredged up in her 10 year quest to research our family
genealogy. (She traveled to Europe and looked at many church records and other historical documents.)
There were several others in English, Scandinavian and French positions, but I have forgotten them all.
And if li'l ol' me can claim royal blood, I imagine many can.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 10:15 PM by Amaterasu
|
Originally posted by sizzle
Originally posted by meremortal
yes and dont cast pearls before swine!
but getting back to jesus having children?
maybe it just goes against our indroctrination!
the truth can be shocking as we all know!
Yes,
As was briefly touched on earlier; (to my knowledge) there does not seem to be any clear-cut teaching that would have been against Jesus taking a wife
and having a family, as that was the norm for the Jewish tradition. But Jesus was not the norm. And in most every instance I can think of; His mind
was trained upon the work of His Father.
Actually, the amount of time accounted for in the Bible of Jesus's life is extremely small, and there were tender moments of a sort - the washing of
feet, for example. So I believe that the whole marriage thing just was a non-issue and never brought up.
I suspect that he was married, and it was Mary M. that was his wife. It's a "gut" thing, I suppose, that I believe this, and I hold no disdain for
any who would think otherwise. There is currently not enough evidence available to determine either way.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:07 PM by dismanrc
|
reply to post by Icarus Rising
He could be the ancestor if Jesus was married and had kids.
If I remember correctly, ancient Jewish law mandated marriage by the age of 30. With this in mind Jesus would have been married by the time he began
to preach. The Bible never stated if he was or not.
Anybody have more info on ancient Jewish marriage customs and law to double check me?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:11 PM by sizzle
|
reply to post by Amaterasu
I have no doubts that Mary M loved Him deeply and that he was terribly fond of her. Many marriages have been founded on far less.
I think that probably the one small factor that holds me back on falling for it, hook, line and sinker; is the story where Jesus went out into the
desert (wilderness(?) for 40 days and Satan came to tempt him. He was offered all the usual temptations known to man and earthly kingdoms; and He
said, "No." His kingdom was not of this world.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:16 PM by dismanrc
|
reply to post by St Udio
The difference between the angels and Jesus was that they where directly created by God and Jesus was born. By being born he gave up his divinity to
become human. Then after his death was resurrected and giving his divinity back by God.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:18 PM by idle_rocker
|
Originally posted by dismanrc
reply to post by Icarus Rising
He could be the ancestor if Jesus was married and had kids.
If I remember correctly, ancient Jewish law mandated marriage by the age of 30. With this in mind Jesus would have been married by the time he began
to preach. The Bible never stated if he was or not.
Anybody have more info on ancient Jewish marriage customs and law to double check me?
I believe you are correct on the marriage requirements. However, remember Jesus was considered pretty much a rebel in his day, so believing he never
married would not be hard for me to surmise. In fact, I would think doing what the rulers commanded would be exactly what he would not have done.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:19 PM by sizzle
|
Originally posted by dismanrc
reply to post by Icarus Rising
He could be the ancestor if Jesus was married and had kids.
If I remember correctly, ancient Jewish law mandated marriage by the age of 30. With this in mind Jesus would have been married by the time he began
to preach. The Bible never stated if he was or not.
Anybody have more info on ancient Jewish marriage customs and law to double check me?
I was sincerely hoping that we would get something solid going here. Don't get me wrong. I love speculative debate as well. Sometimes you can draw
reasonable conclusions by these methods. Sometimes not... 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:25 PM by sizzle
|
reply to post by idle_rocker
Very good point! IR! I had almost forgotten that about Him. Sitting with the wine-bibbers, tax-collectors. Oh My! Turning over tables in the temple
and chasing people out, oh my!  Calling the Sadducees and the Pharisees pit-vipers full of dead men's bones. Some panty-waist, huh?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:30 PM by idle_rocker
|
That's right. He had no fear. How could you be human and go through what he did with NO FEAR? But I got us off-topic a bit.
I see no reason why one or more of Jesus' half-brothers couldn't have procreated. In fact, they almost surely did, given the marriage laws of the
day. And a man was pretty much an outcast if he couldn't create a male child.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:35 PM by sizzle
|
reply to post by idle_rocker
I contacted a fellow ats member who has an active genealogy membership search. She recently had a thread and researched the bloodlines of queen eliz,
George Bush, Obama, Cheney, etc. Haven't heard back from her.
Edit: Although it is the weekend. Everybody doesn't spend it glued in front of their puters. Present company excepted.  Don't forget daylight's
saving's time.
[edit on 8-3-2008 by sizzle]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:39 PM by idle_rocker
|
Well, you know there's been news articles about how Prince Charles believes he has a jewish lineage. Not saying that's true, but I've read some
things about it. Don't believe everything I read, however.
Those news articles even got twisted into how he could possibly be the anti-christ. Now that, I definitely don't believe.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 11:43 PM by sizzle
|
reply to post by idle_rocker
He can't be the Anti-Christ! The Pope already bought the ticket for that! 
Just kidding! Just goes to show ya how many theories ya can hear.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 12:04 AM by idle_rocker
|
Tis true. And they always cause controversy and bitterness in the threads. If we could all just be nice too each other....And hey, I'm guilty of
falling into the trap too.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 10:14 AM by Icarus Rising
|
reply to post by dismanrc
I don't want to derail the thread with a discussion of semantics, but I will say the post you replied to was in reference to the original title of
this thread, where sizzle postulated on the existence of a living ancestor to Jesus. My comment was directed at my impression that perhaps one
of sizzle's ancestors was a living descendant of Jesus, but for the intents and purposes of the title of the thread, ancestor was the wrong
term to apply.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 11:22 AM by St Udio
|
reply to post by dismanrc
a couple thousand years & millions of manhours of theological spin
produced that quaint explaination...
how is it that the mission of Jesus included the Divine authority to
"Forgive Sin".....
can't have it both ways,
as the synagod-of-satan wants you to believe in a divine being stripped of Divinity & merely mortal....
or is the reality that Jesus was the Son-of-God (still a Divine being) but housed in a mortal shell ?!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 11:28 AM by sizzle
|
reply to post by Icarus Rising
For all intents and purposes
and to help clear this up a bit for
those who may be confused a bit:
The original title of this thread was in error, it stated;
'Living Ancestor Of Jesus?'
IcarusRising corrected me on this.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 11:32 AM by sizzle
|
This might be off-topic a bit, but does anyone have the correct central daylight savings time? My puter gives one time and my tv scheduling gives
another. they both are suppose to be automatic changeovers.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
