[quote=godsent]The da vincis code has been playing on my mind,this particular question i have been trying to figure out!
Even though he was 100% man and 100% god what would it matter if he has kids?..he was 100% man so he must have had sexual hormones,even though he was god!
But,i can’t help think that he didnt NEED sexual intercourse,but i wouldn’t rule it out!
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Jesus was fully human, and, therefore, had both the desire and the capacity for sexual intercourse. He just never indulged that desire.
I think that there may have been a few reasons for this.
The first is the consideration of a mate: where could he have found a genuine partner, a woman on his own level?
The second is his dual nature: his humanity was male, but I would suggest that the ascription of either sex to God is fundamentally flawed. God is the Spirit of which both male and female are the image (Genesis 1:27)
The third is the very issue upon which Dan Brown touches in a very shallow fashion: dynasticism. Imagine what would have happened if Jesus had begotten children. The Church would have treated them as living gods. They would have had more children, and factions would soon have formed, wars following not long after. The disunity would be even worse than it is now.