And their is another reason for the Anti-Jesus kid craze. If Jesus was knocking boots with Mary than that would make him human and solely human; which runs against some of the beliefs of Jesus being the avatar of God on Earth and thus purely spiritual and incapable of getting Mary knocked up.

Now, to the believers that think that Jesus was either entirely human or a combination of spirit and human, this doesn't bother them near as much, as obviously if Jesus was entirely or half, he'd have human urges too.

The problem being, the RCC and many Protestants (my mother included) belive in the only the spirital version of Christ and so are rip roaring mad that anyone would even think of Jesus being capable of something even rometly human, such as sex.

Another reason for the controversy is that if say, the Pope were to admit that the Jesus was getting around, then that would mean his place as a role model to others would be shot. Because sex entails that he loved, lusted, hated, fought and all the other stuff that make us human, but are also the darker parts of out nature at times.

No longer would we have the clean cut Jesus who pooped out gold and never got sick or tired. No, now we would have some bearded weirdo who isn't that much different than us but tell us to live our lives to a standard that some find difficult to live with.

That would be the major problem Kea, the complete undermining of the figure and legacy of Jesus torn down because he couldn't keep his wang in his robes.

And I'm pretty sure that all denominations of Christianity don't want that to happen in the near future.

Edited to make the title more descriptive.

A better question is it wrong to have sex in the first place as a religious figure? Further look at the social group and sect he was part off.

For him to be as old as he was, to not be married, well it would be unheard of for those times. And frankly, I trust the Bible that the Catholic Church came up with about as much as I'd trust Bin Ladin to be put in charge of a Hebrew School.

I'm thinking about going Coptic.

God was supposed to have made humans the way they were, so why wouldn't God be capable of everything that humans are capable of? Including human emotions and relationships including all the messy squelchy bits?

The existence of gnostic gospels don't necessarily mean Jesus was married to Mary, though. The Gospel of Mary could have been written many decades after her death. What it does seem to show is that there were competing sects that revered Mary and Peter. There seemed to be rivalry between the two (the gnostic gospels depict Peter as jealous of Mary) and the followers of Peter eventually won.

Dataran; the official RCC view of Jesus is that he was 100% god and 100% man. It's a 'mystery'; it's not supposed to add up, it's just supposed to answer conflicting doctrinal requirements.

I have yet to see a shred of proof of Jesus having a kid. The gospel of mary has to be thrown out, for the same reason biblicail accounts are not taken as truth. Well, i don't know why their always thrown out, but they are, so to be fair, they have to be taken out. The evidence of a relitive of jesus being the holy grail is much better. So until further notice, I go with the Dogma theory. Jesus didn't have kids, he had brothers/sisters. The blood of god would run in thier veins. Just my two cents.

Why would the "blood of God" run in the veins of Jesus' brothers and sisters? They'd be normal humans with Joseph and Mary as father and mother, respectively.

Blood of jesus. Or more like 1/2 the blood of jesus. It was a movie okay! Stop making fun of me! :p

I think the idea was like wheel of time. People flock to the Dragon Reborn. People would flock to a brother of Jesus.

This stuff is allowed in Gen Chat now?

I knew it! This proves my theory that Jesus is a descendant of Eärendil!

Nice. I got a good laugh out of this one. Thanks, waffle!

It's all a matter of faith.

If you believe Jesus was an avatar of God and did not manifest any human desires, there's no way he had a kid.

If you believe he had a human part, it's entirely possible but certainly not proven that he did.

What I want to know is...if your faith is so strong, why would you be bothered by a fictional movie that contradicted your beliefs? It shouldn't threaten your faith at all. If your belief in your religion is so weak that a fictional movie could threaten it....maybe you should take a look at yourself.

If Jesus was 100% God? He'd want his followers spending their time bettering their community and working for charity, not protesting some movie.

People seem to get "religious hobbies," things to which they devote far more time than, say, scripture sturdy or serving their neighbors. The way I see it, Jesus's marital status is not relevant to my personal salvation, and is therefore far less deserving of my time and attention than things like being a good husband and father and serving others.

Yes, but Jesus also wants us telling other people about Him, and this movie can hurt that. It's not that we feel "threatened" personally by the movie, it's that we don't want people getting wrong ideas from someone who is claiming to tell the truth about the subject.

Nobody knows the truth about Jesus's marital status. There's no document that says he had kids, there is also no document that says he hadn 't. But it's largely inconsequential. If he did, they lived out their lives in obscurity, had no influence over his church, and are lost to the mists of history. They do not matter. The fact that some people are gullible enough to buy Dan Brown's hype also doesn't matter. There's always people willing to believe wild conspiracy theories because they make life more interesting. There's people who think that aliens built the pyramids, that Elvis isn't dead, and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile.

Consider this: the more energy people spend denouncing Brown's fluffy airport novel, the more they feed his hype. But treat it like the fluffy mediorcre airport novel that it is, and the controversy will go away. His novel's claims that the discovery Jesus had kids will "shake the very foundations of humanity" is all hype to make the story more exciting. But consider the likely real life outcome if somebody dug up an ancient geneology chart with Jesus's name at the top?

Scholars will go "Hmm.. that's interesting". Athiests and agnostics will go "Hmm... That's interesting." Some churches will reject the findings and go on believing what they had before. Some churches might incorporate the findings and adapt their beliefs slightly to make room for a Jesus who had a family, but otherwise go on believing what they had before. Some people might even start new branches of Christianity. Hardly foundation-shaking.

I can certainly understand that, but...I somehow doubt Jesus would want you trying to suppress information that contradicts scripture.

It's one thing to spread a campaign that makes sure everybody knows that Davinci Code is a work of fiction. But if you're going to use that angry, hateful tone that folks like Jerry Falwell and Bill O'Reilly use all you're going to do is alienate more people from your faith.

If the writers are claiming it's real, you can debunk that easily. Ask.. 'What research, exactly, did the writer do?' Or ask 'How the heck would Leonardo Davinci know if Jesus had a child?' But often the evangelicals just completely fail to look at other people's perspective. The same thing could be said about Passion of the Christ. There isn't a whole lot about the actual crucifiction in the bible. Not a whole lot of detail at least. And Passion of the Christ was a play written in the middle ages to create anti-Jewish sentiment. And Mel Gibson passes it off as fact.

So..I say, make your argument, but let people believe what they believe and be polite about people who disagree with you.