WI: Jesus has descendants?

Hi everyone, long-time lurker and first-time poster here. I signed up years ago, but virtually never had the time to post here (and when I did I didn't have any ideas kicking around in my head) and eventually I kinda forgot about this forum entirely until like...a year ago.

Anyhoo, as the title says, for my first ever AH query here I'd like to ask - what if Jesus is confirmed as having married and fathered children in the Gospels, whether it's with Mary Magdalene or some other woman? What effects would this have on Christianity, both theologically and structurally? The first questions that come to my mind are: would female clergy (especially in the higher ranks) be a thing for much longer than they were historically, would clerical celibacy still become a norm, and would this 'Ben Yeshua' bloodline be able to occupy a special leadership role in Christianity similar to the Alids?
 
Probably would never hear of them. Do you ever hear of what happened to Jesus' brother James and any descendents he may have had? Of course you dont. He opposed Saul of Tarsus and the creation of Pauline Christianity (which is modern Christianity; as opposed to being a branch of Judaism as James wanted, and which Peter also supported).

Moses had a son. And "they" ended up adding the letter nun to his surname to change from Moshe to Manassah. Since all Torah scrolls are written faithfully identically, Torah scrolls to this day have a nun hanging higher and awkwardly squished in, an obvious addition to a ling lost scroll. In the case of Yehoshua ben Yosef having a son you either never hear of it, making Dan Brown a freaking genius, or any mention of the child in a gospel or epistle or whatever ends up being "corrected" perhaps just as obvious (helping Dan Brown) or those writings are declared heresy and perhaps gnostics take them in.

Whatever happens, I dont see the truth being known and accepted. If it is then Pauline Christianity is butterflied and it isnt anything we recognize as OTL Christianity.
 
Interesting...so let's say (since otherwise Christianity more or less exists as OTL, as you pointed out) that the second scenario happens: Jesus' kid or kids become a widely known and accepted part of Scripture, and their existence & heritage aren't denied by any of the Apostles. Presuming Jesus started preaching at age 30 and died only a few years later, let's extrapolate and say his oldest son is in the 11-13 range at the time of the crucifixion, so he's able to accompany Jesus & the other disciples through at least the middle or late parts of his ministry ('Ben Yeshua' performing miracles of his own is entirely optional, but would probably help with his notability). Would this kid and any existing siblings then just follow in their probable uncle's footsteps and support the perpetuation of Christianity as just another Jewish sect, in which case I imagine it'd never really explode in popularity and fade away some time in the future? Or is there any chance that they could reconcile with Saul/Paul, get mixed up in his struggle against Peter & Uncle James, and assert themselves as not just the Church's rightful leaders but also (as Paul did with Jesus) universal, rather than strictly Jewish, saviors following in the footsteps of their dad?

Assuming further that Christianity doesn't just wither on the vine (the likeliest result of Road #1), what could their role be in ATL Christianity - hereditary Popes of a sort, an analogue to the Japanese Tenno, or nothing special if Paul/other early Church Fathers successfully reject their authority? (much like how the Alids didn't exactly have an easy time during and after the Fitnas for a while) How would they be able to hang on to any bloodline-derived authority over the early Church, and what are the theological justifications they could come up with to defend such a position? And would the Romans be at all interested in collecting their heads, either in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion or further down the road when Christianity starts blooming across the Empire and Judea is rocked by rebellion?
 
Interesting...so let's say (since otherwise Christianity more or less exists as OTL, as you pointed out) that the second scenario happens: Jesus' kid or kids become a widely known and accepted part of Scripture, and their existence & heritage aren't denied by any of the Apostles. Presuming Jesus started preaching at age 30 and died only a few years later, let's extrapolate and say his oldest son is in the 11-13 range at the time of the crucifixion, so he's able to accompany Jesus & the other disciples through at least the middle or late parts of his ministry ('Ben Yeshua' performing miracles of his own is entirely optional, but would probably help with his notability). Would this kid and any existing siblings then just follow in their probable uncle's footsteps and support the perpetuation of Christianity as just another Jewish sect, in which case I imagine it'd never really explode in popularity and fade away some time in the future? Or is there any chance that they could reconcile with Saul/Paul, get mixed up in his struggle against Peter & Uncle James, and assert themselves as not just the Church's rightful leaders but also (as Paul did with Jesus) universal, rather than strictly Jewish, saviors following in the footsteps of their dad?

Assuming further that Christianity doesn't just wither on the vine (the likeliest result of Road #1), what could their role be in ATL Christianity - hereditary Popes of a sort, an analogue to the Japanese Tenno, or nothing special if Paul/other early Church Fathers successfully reject their authority? (much like how the Alids didn't exactly have an easy time during and after the Fitnas for a while) How would they be able to hang on to any bloodline-derived authority over the early Church, and what are the theological justifications they could come up with to defend such a position? And would the Romans be at all interested in collecting their heads, either in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion or further down the road when Christianity starts blooming across the Empire and Judea is rocked by rebellion?
I cant answer many of those questions, as a Jew I may not be the best on Christianity. But it would make a fun and exciting ATL story about the Romans taking a son of Jesus and installing him as "High Priest" or some type of royality to control the Jewish population. And make it more interesting- twins. One is hidden and thought dead, Romans raise the other and install as "universal head Jew guy" then the other twin, being raised by an underground "Christ Jews" sect comes of age and is a freedom fighter.
 
How do we know He didn't have descendants?

The Gospels are silent on the family of Jesus, other than his parents and their ancestors, because they weren't important, not because he had no other family than his parents. Tradition has it that St. James was His half-brother, but you won't find this in the Gospels. There would have been no practical barrier for him having a wife and children, and there is no theological problem with this. It was not as if He was a priest.
 
I cant answer many of those questions, as a Jew I may not be the best on Christianity. But it would make a fun and exciting ATL story about the Romans taking a son of Jesus and installing him as "High Priest" or some type of royality to control the Jewish population. And make it more interesting- twins. One is hidden and thought dead, Romans raise the other and install as "universal head Jew guy" then the other twin, being raised by an underground "Christ Jews" sect comes of age and is a freedom fighter.
Whoa, I like that idea. I believe I now have a concept for my first-ever TL here :D
How do we know He didn't have descendants?

The Gospels are silent on the family of Jesus, other than his parents and their ancestors, because they weren't important, not because he had no other family than his parents. Tradition has it that St. James was His half-brother, but you won't find this in the Gospels. There would have been no practical barrier for him having a wife and children, and there is no theological problem with this. It was not as if He was a priest.
For the purposes of this thread, I was thinking about 100% confirmed, undeniable descendants who are publicly acknowledged as Jesus' bloodline by a majority or at least a plurality of the Apostles & the early Christian community in general.
 

Deleted member 97083

I cant answer many of those questions, as a Jew I may not be the best on Christianity. But it would make a fun and exciting ATL story about the Romans taking a son of Jesus and installing him as "High Priest" or some type of royality to control the Jewish population. And make it more interesting- twins. One is hidden and thought dead, Romans raise the other and install as "universal head Jew guy" then the other twin, being raised by an underground "Christ Jews" sect comes of age and is a freedom fighter.
Or combine the two characters and make it a parallel to Moses. Jesus has one son, who is taken in by the Romans and raised as a prince, but defects and becomes the pious leader and liberator of the Jewish people.
 
How do we know He didn't have descendants?

The Gospels are silent on the family of Jesus, other than his parents and their ancestors, because they weren't important, not because he had no other family than his parents. Tradition has it that St. James was His half-brother, but you won't find this in the Gospels. There would have been no practical barrier for him having a wife and children, and there is no theological problem with this. It was not as if He was a priest.
Well actually the Christian Bible does use the word brother. It is Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran TRADITION that says that the word brother actually MIGHT mean cousin or half brother from a previous marriage of Jesus' father Yusef (though no evidence or mention of a previous marriage). This is because they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary for her lifetime.
 
Well actually the Christian Bible does use the word brother. It is Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran TRADITION that says that the word brother actually MIGHT mean cousin or half brother from a previous marriage of Jesus' father Yusef (though no evidence or mention of a previous marriage). This is because they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary for her lifetime.

Wouldn't it be step-brother from Joseph's previous marriage, rather than half-brother? Half-brother implies that Joseph was Jesus' father (and by extension Mary wasn't a virgin, God isn't Jesus' literal father etc. which came to be central tenets of Christianity).



Would Jesus marrying and having kids make him seem more worldly, more human? And consequently affect how people see Jesus' divinity (especially if Jesus' kid's are around to say that their father never claimed to be the Son of God, or at least not in a literal sense- if the eldest is 11-13 at the time of crucifixion, and has accompanied Jesus on his journeys he'll have a semi-decent grasp on his father' score teachings).

Jesus having a well-attested wife could potentially affect the role of women in Christianity? That said they were pretty active/prominent in early Christianity anyway. If it's Mary Magdalene I doubt she'd be considered a prostitute (but, again, I don't think that became established until significantly later on IOTL).
 
Wouldn't it be step-brother from Joseph's previous marriage, rather than half-brother? Half-brother implies that Joseph was Jesus' father (and by extension Mary wasn't a virgin, God isn't Jesus' literal father etc. which came to be central tenets of Christianity).



Would Jesus marrying and having kids make him seem more worldly, more human? And consequently affect how people see Jesus' divinity (especially if Jesus' kid's are around to say that their father never claimed to be the Son of God, or at least not in a literal sense- if the eldest is 11-13 at the time of crucifixion, and has accompanied Jesus on his journeys he'll have a semi-decent grasp on his father' score teachings).

Jesus having a well-attested wife could potentially affect the role of women in Christianity? That said they were pretty active/prominent in early Christianity anyway. If it's Mary Magdalene I doubt she'd be considered a prostitute (but, again, I don't think that became established until significantly later on IOTL).
In Catholicism, Orthodox, and Lutheran the words used are that he could be half brother or cousin. Why they choose that as their tradition and not step I do not know. As far as Yusef being the father or step father, I say this is Alternate HISTORY.com, not Alternate Philosophy.com or pseudo-historical religious doctrine.com. We need to be scientific and think it's best we just call Yusef the father of Yehoshua.
 
Or combine the two characters and make it a parallel to Moses. Jesus has one son, who is taken in by the Romans and raised as a prince, but defects and becomes the pious leader and liberator of the Jewish people.
That's an equally compelling idea. Would this idea work best with a young (say, infant to 7) or relatively old (10/11-13) 'Ben Yeshua' though? The latter would've gotten to know his father better and surely isn't likely to be half as forgiving or accepting towards his foster family, and Romans & Roman culture in general, as the former would. On the other hand, the latter would set up more drama with his adoptive Roman family.
Wouldn't it be step-brother from Joseph's previous marriage, rather than half-brother? Half-brother implies that Joseph was Jesus' father (and by extension Mary wasn't a virgin, God isn't Jesus' literal father etc. which came to be central tenets of Christianity).



Would Jesus marrying and having kids make him seem more worldly, more human? And consequently affect how people see Jesus' divinity (especially if Jesus' kid's are around to say that their father never claimed to be the Son of God, or at least not in a literal sense- if the eldest is 11-13 at the time of crucifixion, and has accompanied Jesus on his journeys he'll have a semi-decent grasp on his father' score teachings).

Jesus having a well-attested wife could potentially affect the role of women in Christianity? That said they were pretty active/prominent in early Christianity anyway. If it's Mary Magdalene I doubt she'd be considered a prostitute (but, again, I don't think that became established until significantly later on IOTL).
Science aside, I suppose it'd make the most sense for Jesus' wife/kids and followers to insist that he's Yeshua ben Yahweh, not Ben Yosef, and that Joseph was just his stepdad; it would logically follow that, if Mary is assumed to have still been a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus & stayed a virgin afterwards, then James and any other siblings of Jesus would be rendered step-siblings or cousins in Biblical canon. This still gives Jesus' kid the right to call himself God's Grandson, which sounds a lot better than 'grandson of a Jewish carpenter you've probably never heard of' and would help him assert himself in any theological/power struggle with Uncle James. Jesus having a family of his own would definitely reinforce the perception that he's 'one of us' so to speak and might lend a more humanistic bent to Christianity from the get-go.

Nobody besides Mary Magdalene really comes to my mind as a candidate for Jesus' wife and the mother of his child or children, so sure why not, let's go with her. As I recall though, the Gospels themselves don't support the idea that Mary Magdalene = the repentant prostitute who anointed Jesus with expensive perfume, that was a later invention and not one that's likely to have come about in a world where she's confirmed to be his wife.
 
Top