Comments on: The Archaeology of the Jesus Tomb http://blog.zimorama.com/apologetics/the_archaeology_of_the_jesus_tomb/ Thoughts on Christ and Culture Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:12:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: the zim http://blog.zimorama.com/apologetics/the_archaeology_of_the_jesus_tomb/comment-page-1/#comment-32 the zim Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:08:38 +0000 #comment-32 I think most people (including myself) get uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus being married and having a child for two reasons: it seems to degrade the veracity of the Bible which omits these important "facts" and the implications for the doctrine of the incarnation and hypostatic union if Jesus were to have a child.<br /> <br /> As for the first reason, the Bible itself says it doesn't give the difinitive word on EVERYTHING Jesus said and did (John 20.30-31). I take this to mean that God has told us what is important for his purposes and told us everything we need to know. IF it was true that Jesus was married (a likely situation considering the culture) or had a child (likewise likely if he were married) then the Bible's neglect of these topics means it wasn't that important for us to know- in other words, that's not the point.<br /> <br /> Second, we have to admit the doctrines of the incarnation are complex. They are made even more complicated when we try to understand every nuance of them (just read some early church history to know what I mean). IF Jesus were to have a child would it be 1/4 divine? No. Jesus is wholely human and divine (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm) not some sort of hybrid. Divinity is not something that is transferred like this. Any son that might have been born of Jesus would be a product of his human nature alone.<br /> <br /> Things get really complicated when we consider that Jesus is the Second Adam. If he was not born under Adam's headship- whereby he was not fallen; this is why the virgin birth is so important- what about any children he might have? They would be born under Jesus' headship and thereby not fallen as well. This opens doors that I don't want to speculate into. I think most people (including myself) get uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus being married and having a child for two reasons: it seems to degrade the veracity of the Bible which omits these important “facts” and the implications for the doctrine of the incarnation and hypostatic union if Jesus were to have a child.

As for the first reason, the Bible itself says it doesn’t give the difinitive word on EVERYTHING Jesus said and did (John 20.30-31). I take this to mean that God has told us what is important for his purposes and told us everything we need to know. IF it was true that Jesus was married (a likely situation considering the culture) or had a child (likewise likely if he were married) then the Bible’s neglect of these topics means it wasn’t that important for us to know- in other words, that’s not the point.

Second, we have to admit the doctrines of the incarnation are complex. They are made even more complicated when we try to understand every nuance of them (just read some early church history to know what I mean). IF Jesus were to have a child would it be 1/4 divine? No. Jesus is wholely human and divine (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm) not some sort of hybrid. Divinity is not something that is transferred like this. Any son that might have been born of Jesus would be a product of his human nature alone.

Things get really complicated when we consider that Jesus is the Second Adam. If he was not born under Adam’s headship- whereby he was not fallen; this is why the virgin birth is so important- what about any children he might have? They would be born under Jesus’ headship and thereby not fallen as well. This opens doors that I don’t want to speculate into.

]]> By: Shawn Raloff http://blog.zimorama.com/apologetics/the_archaeology_of_the_jesus_tomb/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Shawn Raloff Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:41:19 +0000 #comment-31 I watched this too and I agree with your analysis. However, logic and faith converge on this very point: would the fact that Jesus married and fathered a child change his place in history or any of our fundamental beliefs?<br /> <br /> I believe that the logic and faith answer to this question is no.<br /> <br /> He was tempted in every way that we are, and still he was without sin. As an imperfect man, husband and father it gives me great comfort to know my Savior understands what I am going through and even when I fail to live up to His example he chose to die for me!<br /> <br /> Bad science and archeology aside, this show increased my faith, even though I still thought it was a big steaming pile of bunk :-)<br /> I watched this too and I agree with your analysis. However, logic and faith converge on this very point: would the fact that Jesus married and fathered a child change his place in history or any of our fundamental beliefs?

I believe that the logic and faith answer to this question is no.

He was tempted in every way that we are, and still he was without sin. As an imperfect man, husband and father it gives me great comfort to know my Savior understands what I am going through and even when I fail to live up to His example he chose to die for me!

Bad science and archeology aside, this show increased my faith, even though I still thought it was a big steaming pile of bunk :-)

]]>