Doppleganger (evilgrins) wrote in jesuslovesme,
Doppleganger
evilgrins
jesuslovesme

  • Location:
  • Mood:

Let's try putting the books aside...

...seems everytime I ask a question a couple dozen people bonk me on the head with scripture. I've got a very basic question here and I'd just like to have an answer from you.

If I wanted a response from the Bible there's like 3 or 4 of them in this house so I'm sure I could take a peek.

On the topic of whether or not Jesus may've actually had a family of his own, not counting the extended on his human parents no doubt had providing him with siblings, I often find it interesting that people react to the ide of his having a wife and children as more horrific than anything you'd find in a...well...horror movie. I mean, surely Jesus raising his children while doing everything else he did is not that unbelieveable.

The man raised the dead for Pete's sake! He made more food from very little food!! He walked on water!!!!

Surely he could take the time to bounce his own child on his knee and give a hug to the wife.

So...why is it you (Yeah...You!) have a problem with the very concept of Jesus having a family of his own? On Earth while he was doing everything so miraculous...why is such a basic bit of normalcy in his existance such a bad idea?

just to be clear: saying "because it's not in the Bible" or any variation thereof is not a valid answer; I'm already very aware of that fact.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 1 comment

Anonymous

April 28 2007, 16:55:36 UTC 9 years ago

That's actually a really good question, and I (as a "Christian") also find it strange and more than a little amusing that so many people raise such hell about this possibility. In theory it wouldn't be a problem at all. There is nothing inherent in Jesus' mission that would rule out having a family, or vice versa. I suppose the problem is that if he did have a family that would mean that the Bible doesn't provide an accurate picture of him. So I guess I can see why people object to it, although they need to be clearer that their objeciton is not (or at least shouldn't be) about the appopriateness of Jesus having a family, but about whether or not the Gospels give us an accurate picture of who he was. (Hope I'm avoiding the simple "but the Bible says he doesn't" view!) It definitely isn't true, as people on both sides of the Christian question seem to assume, that as a rabbi Jesus couldn't or shouldn't have had a family. That is just bad history, whether it comes from Dan Brown or the Pastor of First Church. Sorry if my post is boring, but those are my thoughts...