Could jesus still have had kids even though he was god?


#1

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!

Any opnions on this particalur question?


#2

[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!
[/quote]

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.


#3

It matters because to have children, Jesus would have to be married to a earthly wife to have earthly children. This would make him an adulterer since Jesus already has a Bride–it is called the Church:

See Mt 9:15, Mt 25:1-13; John 3:26-30; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-32, Rev 19:7, 21:2, 21:9 and 22:17.

808 The Church is the Bride of Christ: he loved her and handed himself over for her. He has purified her by his blood and made her the fruitful mother of all God’s children.

796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. The Lord referred to himself as the “bridegroom.” The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him. The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.” He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.” And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church


#4

Given that marriage is a vocation. We have to understand the vocation of Christ. He was sent to die for mankind. That was his vocation per all the prophets.

His marriage is with the Church-all of us. It would have been a complete degradation for him to have married in the purely human sense of taking a wife. Not only that it would have been utterly irresponsible of him to marry knowing that he was sent to die. Him being just in all things would not take on responsibility that he cannot fulfill to the fullest. Totally out of character of the Word made Flesh.

in XT.


#5

[quote=AquinasXVI]Given that marriage is a vocation. We have to understand the vocation of Christ. He was sent to die for mankind. That was his vocation per all the prophets.

His marriage is with the Church-all of us. It would have been a complete degradation for him to have married in the purely human sense of taking a wife. Not only that it would have been utterly irresponsible of him to marry knowing that he was sent to die. Him being just in all things would not take on responsibility that he cannot fulfill to the fullest. Totally out of character of the Word made Flesh.

in XT.
[/quote]

Good post!

Godsent, you wrote: “But,i can’t help think that he didnt NEED sexual intercourse,but i wouldn’t rule it out!”

Just curious: why won’t you rule it out? Are you suggesting that having sexual intercourse is a “need”—if so, why? Does sexual intercourse have any meaning for you beyond the creation of children? Are you familiar with the Theology of the Body?


#6

I’ve found Fr. Andre Louf’s writing on this very insightful:

Jesus not only became a human being, but also a man, a person of the male sex. That is not something either accidental or arbitrary. The possibility that God could become a human being was latent only in the male sex. The man, after all, is a symbol of God’s mighty Love, the Love that redeems and saves. Whereas woman represents the humanity that God has chosen for redemption and bliss [the Church]. That is why Jesus was bound to become a man. In the male sex the profound mystery of His being was prefigured: Jesus is the very image of the Father, His Love, faithful and strong, for human beings.

But there the symbolic value of Jesus’ masculinity stops. Or rather, it is already as complete as it could be. To take one step further and enter upon marriage here on earth with a concrete woman, that for Jesus would have been a nonsense. In the mystery of His proper nature, He, The God-Man, has received more than marriage with just one woman could give. For it is He Himself who give purpose and meaning to every marriage between human beings.

On the one hand the fullness of God’s Love was in Him, God’s tenderness as well as His toughness, for He was Himself God. On the other hand in His twofold nature, as God and man, He was the peerless marriage, the perfect conjunction, in His own person, between the redeeming God and redeemed humanity. In His divine nature He is the gift beyond measure, and in His humanity He is receptiveness par excellence. Thus in His emotional and sexual life as a man all tension was resolved. For His love was already satisfied and sated, was deeper and wider than He could have experience in a marriage. His physical status as man-and-celibate is the token of this.

Therefore Jesus qua man had also to remain virginal. In that virginity of His, the conscious and unconscious sexual dynamic, the masculine and the feminine pole in Him, are put wholly at the service of the spiritual reality which He is and to which He comes to bear witness: He is the Son of His Father and His image; among human beings He is the firstborn from the dead, the new man, or rather: the Man, simply the Man, Ecce Homo!

Jesus’ unique situation did not preclude a bond with woman. He counted women among His acquaintances, intimate friends, fellow-workers. In particular He had a mother; for like all human beings He was born of a woman. What is most remarkable is that this bond with His mother soon expanded into something much broader and universal. For from the very start every woman was more to Him that she was in her concrete and limited femininity. And all that she could be for Him Jesus had already been provided with in His own person. Thus Mary was not only His mother, but still more His sister, His bride, His daughter, and eventually His most intimate companion and the mother of all people.

We see in Jesus how sexual abstinence can bring out the profound spiritual reality of a person. It helps to lift man’s whole sexual potential on to another plane, where it can develop and be fulfilled without ceasing to be male or female. This fulfilment of human sexuality far transcends the gratification of its transient and constricted eroticism - a fact that will surprise no one who realizes how closely the whole of sex is interwoven with the image of God in man.

Teach Us to Pray, by Andre Louf, Paulist Press, 1975.


#7

Well, for one thing, Jesus died. As in dead, not alive. I don’t know of anyone who has married and had children after they died. The are a gazillion people that saw him die and it is part of the secular historical record of the times. During his life on earth, when the Sadduces tried to make a fool of him with the question about the woman with the seven husbands, Jesus made it crystal clear that in heaven we will not reproduce (not to put too fine a point on it). Jesus rose on the third day, but now he has a glorified body, a heavenly body. So, even if there were a “perfect” bride (other than the Church…good point on the adultery), there is no “whoopee” in heaven.


#8

Catlieth:

whoopie on earth by married couples open to life is a symbol of the eternal communion of each person with God. Check out Christopher West’s synthesis of John Paul II’s theology of the body. It will blow your mind away. I’m still trying to pick up the pieces of mine.

in XT.


#9

If Jesus were married, and had children…he would have never left them to fend for themselves!!! He would have been the best daddy in the world.

Besides…someone would be walking the earth 1/4 God…and don’t you think THAT would be talked and written about?


#10

[quote=Mystophilus]The first is the consideration of a mate: where could he have found a genuine partner, a woman on his own level?
[/quote]

And what level would that be? Jesus came down to *our *level. The word became flesh, and was born in a manger.

[quote=Mystophilus]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)
[/quote]

This is vaguely insulting. Jesus was a man while on earth.

[quote=Mystophilus]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.
[/quote]

I am tempted to say… even more so than his mother?


#11

[quote=AquinasXVI]His marriage is with the Church-all of us.
[/quote]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. :stuck_out_tongue:

But seriously, I forget where the bible talks about this, could you remind me? If I remember, it wasn’t Jesus relationship to the Church that was being described but something else.

[quote=AquinasXVI]It would have been a complete degradation for him to have married in the purely human sense of taking a wife.
[/quote]

This almost makes me angry. Why is taking a wife “complete degradation”???

[quote=AquinasXVI]Not only that it would have been utterly irresponsible of him to marry knowing that he was sent to die. Him being just in all things would not take on responsibility that he cannot fulfill to the fullest. Totally out of character of the Word made Flesh.
[/quote]

What if Jesus did not know he was sent to die? That is what I believe.
“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Matthew 26:39


closed #12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.