Jesus's blood line?

[Irishdreamer]

A lot of controversy has been created over the Davinci Code and the idea that Jesus could have been married and had children. I think, why not? He was human. Also there is reports of stories removed from the bible. Why? I am very curiouse about this and would like others opinions.

[Sornaensis]

A lot of controversy has been created over the Davinci Code and the idea that Jesus could have been married and had children. I think, why not? He was human. Also there is reports of stories removed from the bible. Why? I am very curiouse about this and would like others opinions. Every man HAD to be married by the age of thirty in Isreal. Period. Even the mental SOBs. What do YOU think?

[Irishdreamer]

I think that the catholic church in a effort to keep there priests from marrying banned the books from the bible dipicting Jesus and Mary Magdelin as Husband and Wife and thus child bearing. It makes more sence that he did marry, bieng that coupling of man and woman has been the "right" thing since adam and eve.

[Moonbeam]

Here's a fascinating fact (well at least I thought it was fascinating.) It can be proven mathematically that every single person living now is a descendant of every single person living 2000 years ago, assuming they reproduced. Isn't that amazing? (Better go get the reference in case some one asks...)

[Sornaensis]

Here's a fascinating fact (well at least I thought it was fascinating.) It can be proven mathematically that every single person living now is a descendant of every single person living 2000 years ago, assuming they reproduced. Isn't that amazing? (Better go get the reference in case some one asks...) NO WAI! O_O I thought we just "popped" into or were "blown" into existence in 1953! My whole world is falling apart!

[Moonbeam]

NO WAI! O_O I thought we just "popped" into or were "blown" into existence in 1953! My whole world is falling apart! What are you talking about?

[Irishdreamer]

Ya'll are just funny - I think ya'll are great!

[Replicon]

Here's a fascinating fact (well at least I thought it was fascinating.) It can be proven mathematically that every single person living now is a descendant of every single person living 2000 years ago, assuming they reproduced. Isn't that amazing? Well, the fact that everyone living now is a descendant of someone living back then isn't all that fascinating (once you get over the whole stork thing). But the fact that it can be proven mathematically might be. How do you prove it "mathematically"?

[Xaqaria]

I think that the catholic church in a effort to keep there priests from marrying banned the books from the bible dipicting Jesus and Mary Magdelin as Husband and Wife and thus child bearing. It makes more sence that he did marry, bieng that coupling of man and woman has been the "right" thing since adam and eve. Not really a valid theory, since celibacy for catholic priests didn't become indoctrinated until 1022 by Pope Benedict VIII.

[dodobird]

it's me, but shhhhhhhh don't tell anyone!

[Sornaensis]

What are you talking about? Gnome35 is God, duh! Didn't you read his thread?!

[Moonbeam]

OK, I guess I didn't explain that right. Every person alive now is a descendant of every person who was alive 2000 years ago, of those who reproduced. I guess that last part was the critical part. I just thought it was a strange thing to imagine. Like, everyone in the world is a descendant of Confucious and Julius Ceasar and Ramses and an Australian aborigine and a native American, if they lived that long ago. And every European is a descendant of Mohammed ( guess it hasn't been long enough since he lived for it to include every one in the world). The point of the context that I read it in was that if Jesus had reproduced, every single person alive today is his descendant. I couldn't find where I read this before. And not being a mathematician or knowing the formula they used, I can't really prove it. I looked a little and found where it said that every person alive today is a descendant of every person alive 3000 years ago, but I can't find the one that said 2000 years.

[Man of Steel]

That sounds like so much bullshit, to be perfectly frank, Moonbeam.

[Xaqaria]

I really don't believe this is true. There are many people with cultural barriers in their genes that have never been crossed.

[Moonbeam]

OK, I still haven't found what I originally read, but here are two places describing the same idea: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...2019650&page=1 http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=428360 And here is a very useful site to get your DNA tested: http://www.merkaba.org/announcements/dna_test.htm

[Replicon]

Doesn't descendent normally mean "a chain of parent-child relations"? While I might buy that we're all related (by some kind of obscure n-th cousin type relation), but I don't really buy that Caesar is my great-great-great[......]-great-grandfather.

[Sornaensis]

That sounds like so much bullshit, to be perfectly frank, Moonbeam. Ok then, where did all these people come from if not people before them?

[Moonbeam]

Doesn't descendent normally mean "a chain of parent-child relations"? While I might buy that we're all related (by some kind of obscure n-th cousin type relation), but I don't really buy that Caesar is my great-great-great[......]-great-grandfather. The articles explain it; it does mean direct descendant.

[27]

I think it's possible Jesus may have married. I see no reason why he wouldn't have.

[Xaqaria]

The articles explain it; it does mean direct descendant. The problem is the word descendant in itself. Maybe we are all related, but then if you're a bible reader this is a pretty self evident fact and need not depend on Jesus having children at all.

[Moonbeam]

The problem is the word descendant in itself. Maybe we are all related, but then if you're a bible reader this is a pretty self evident fact and need not depend on Jesus having children at all. What is the problem with the word descendant? It is a pretty simple concept. What does being a bible reader have to do with it? It's pretty self-evident that we're related whether or not you read the bible. I just thought it was slightly interesting that when you look at in the span of just a few thousand years, which includes the time in which there are historical figures such as Jesus, Julius Ceaser, etc., to think that everyone alive now is descended from them, and every other random person from that era, given the condition that they reproduced and had surviving descendants. That's all. Nothing more profound than that. If you don't think it's interesting, OK; but it's not a problem with word definitions and it doesn't really have anything to do with the bible, other than if Jesus had reproduced. What the original thing I read was trying to say was that the book about Jesus' two or three descendants was stupid, because if he did have descendants, there literally would be millions or billions of them, not just a couple people. It's all or nothing, that's the point. If you reproduce, within some period of time everybody on earth will be your descendant.

[Xaqaria]

To be descended from someone, there must be a direct paternal/maternal line between you and the ancestor. Otherwise you are not descended from them. There is no such thing as direct or indirect descendants. Either you are a descendant or you aren't. I don't believe that everyone is descended from everyone 2000, 3000 or even 6000 years ago. There are aboriginal tribes in Africa, Australia, South America, Alaska, etc. that have not interbreeded with Europeans or middle-easterners for at least 3000 years. I also don't believe that math could prove anything when it comes to ancestry; and at the very best could only show a probability. Talking about everyone being related is another story, and the reason why being a bible reader is relevant is because according to the bible we are all related to Jesus since we all are descendants of Adam, and need not have anything to do with Jesus having children. What the original thing I read was trying to say was that the book about Jesus' two or three descendants was stupid, because if he did have descendants, there literally would be millions or billions of them, not just a couple people. It's all or nothing, that's the point. If you reproduce, within some period of time everybody on earth will be your descendant. Do you honestly believe that is true? Do you honestly believe it is physically impossible to keep a direct line without off-shoots? Do you think if a series of parents and children only have one child every generation, somehow their genes are going to magically pop up in billions of other people?

[Moonbeam]

I know what descendant means! Reading the frigging articles!

[Xaqaria]

I did. They sound to me like the literary flourishings of journalists who don't know that much about geneology or probability.What they fail to understand is that when applying the trends to a specific ancestral line, it becomes pure speculation as to how many children actually were concieved and grew up to have children of their own. I'm sure if Jesus were actually the son of God and he did have children, we could reasonably entertain the possibility that his family kept strict tabs on each generation.

[Xei]

Moonbeam, I don't think that can be true. I'm guessing when you say 'of those who reproduced', you must mean, 'of those who reproduced and whose children reproduced and so and and so on until the present moment'. If the line dies out, then obviously there are no living descendants. And many lines of died out. So many of the people who had children 2000 years ago, or even several generations of children, do not have living descendants. Also if you consider those people who only had limited numbers of children. Say there was a line of descendants where each only had one child. Then there'd only be one descendant around today. So only one person has those ancestors. Also consider those who do not travel. Consider a tribe who have lived in a totally isolated region of Africa for the last 2000 years. How could we possibly be descended from them?