WI: Jesus was straight

Assuming that Jesus were to have credible lineal descendants (I don't include the Merovingians for a variety of reasons), and the lines were to survive to the present day, I can imagine that they would not lead terribly stable lives.

Case in point, a sizeable majority of Muslim families who can trace their lineage to the Prophet do not live in the Middle-East. The reason for this being that their pedigree often makes them a walking liability for the regimes there (Shiite, Sunni, or secular), and because of this they often face political problems, forcing them to seek refuge elsewhere.*

It seems to me that a similar situation would be likely to transpire in the case of hypothetical descendants of Jesus.

*(Before it is brought up, I am aware of the noteworthy exception to this case represented by the Hashemite family in Jordan.)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I fail to see why some obscure translation is relevant. (And indeed, if you have the Hebrew version of the New Testament wouldn't that be fairly impressive? As far as I know we only have the Greek.) In any case, I think this question has been firmly settled by His Holiness Pope Pius IX.

The source of Mary's virginity is Isaiah 7:14, which last I checked was in the Old Testament ;-)
 
Last edited:
Couple options. First, the lack-of-divinity option. It is hard to ascribe divinity to someone with living offspring (and even assuming divinity was not ascribed to Jesus by the apostles, but by 2nd or 3rd generation of converts, living human family is hard to write away). In this case, I see it mainly staying as a Jewish reforming movement, which ironically, would probably be more successful, since there would be a focus on the message and not the messianic/prophetically foretold/divine aspect. There is, of course, the Paul question - I'm still unsure as to what to presume. Let's say Paul, drawn to the more radical aspect of Jesus' message, still stays the same. Can Christianity occur without a divine Christ? I'd say yes - but with belief in Jesus as Supreme Prophet, a la Muhammed. Same Pauline message of salvation through faith, but in a single God, not through Jesus. The theology and soteriology will be changed beyond recognition (and I'm too tired to come up with plausible ones at the moment...)

Divinity of Jesus retained - I think we'd see a more mainstreaming of Nestorian-esque Christology. That Jesus was fully human until the Crucifixion, then he became divine. Or that he always had divine will, and assumed divine status post-mortem. Something that makes it ok for Jesus to have kids as human, and then be considered Divine post-facto.

The ancient Greeks and Romans believe Zeus/Jupiter had fathered children all over the place and they did not question his divinity or believe he ceased being a god for a time or became a god later.

I do not see how it is hard to ascribe divinity to someone with offspring.
 
If Jesus had surviving children, it increases the risk that the Christian faith gets a hereditary leadership. In OTL Jesus' brother James became an imortant early leader, if there are other family members of Jesus, this "party" would have been more powerful. This would probably keep the religion (which wouldn't even be called Christianity) within the "Jewish" fold. Then like all of these Jewish Messianic movements, Christianity would be destroyed during and after the Jewish revolt.

KEVP
 

MrP

Banned
The ancient Greeks and Romans believe Zeus/Jupiter had fathered children all over the place and they did not question his divinity or believe he ceased being a god for a time or became a god later.

I do not see how it is hard to ascribe divinity to someone with offspring.

Is this not at the root of the Merovingian claim? I always took that as a holdover from the tradition of ancient monarchs (or nobles) of claiming divine sanction for their rule by tracing a lineage back to a god - Caesar and Venus, for instance. It might not sit easily with Christian ideas, but it seems to have made sense to everyone beforehand.
 

Keenir

Banned
Point of order: the Bible never says Mary was a Virgin, the Hebrew word used is "almah", literally "young woman". Immaculate conception was a later redaction, during the translation into Greek (i.e. parthenos).

That said, carry on.

isn't that the Russian name for the Neandertal/ape-men beings roaming the backwoods of Russia?
 

MrP

Banned
not really - just trying to see if it's what linguists call a "False Friend".

like English "no" and Japanese "noh".

Hang on. Trying to see? But one means girl, and the other means bigfoot.* Of course it's a false friend! :confused:

* Untidy translation for emphasis before y'ask.
 
there is actually a belief that jesus's blood extends to the french throne.

The belief is that Jesus bore a child with mary magdiline. This comes from the excerpts of the not well preserved gnostic gospels as well as a con artists trying to usurp the throne.

However this belief gained more momentum with the publishing of the "di vinci code".

according to jewish tradition older men would marry young 13 year olds, (in the jewish culture 13 is when one becomes an adult.)

So most likely Mary magdiline would have to be 13 or 14 at the time. Plausible?
 
Top