one of my concerns throughout the conversations and through the Da Vinci questions has remained what implications are being made that change Christianity, in regards to Jesus being a father. If the nostic gospels are correct and Mary was Jesus' wife, why is this a shameful or incorrect thing? Were we not to replenish the earth? If this was done in marriage and God Himself established the marriage covenant and made us for one another, why is this such a taboo thing to have occurred?

I absolutely abree with you. I've been a father for nine years. It's the greatest thing that happened in my life. How could Jesus teach about relationships unless he experienced live himself. Also, Jesus has a father.

While there is nothing at all wrong with being a father in general, there is no credible evidence at all that Jesus was a father. This program only gives a speculation on the question. Jesus knew who would betray him. Why would he name a son after the man who would betray him - Judas (the New Testament Hellenized form of Judah).

It boils, I believe down to this. 1 Jesus was the deity we know as God (one in the same) 2 He had to be 100% perfect in order to be the complete and holy sacrifice for our sins. So, can he be the Holy Lamb and NOT be a virgin? If he was sexually aroused, was he deity? If the answers to those questions are yes, then no problem, however we Christians believe the answers are no so it is a BIG DEAL. As for credible evidence, there will be none. The Bible doesn't list every detail. It jumps from Jesus' young adulthood to ministry without details of what went on. It doesn't specifically say how old the world is or when dinosaurs fit in...that's why we have faith and not science to guide OUR lives.

You ask, "If he was sexually aroused, was he deity?" It should be obvious that the answer is no; similarly, you could ask, "If he urinated, could he be deity?" Again, the answer is no. God has no physical features whatsoever; God is spirit. This is the position of Judaism, and this is why it was then - and is now - regarded as blasphemous that a man should be thought to be God. Scripture states clearly four separate times that, "God is not man."

Certainly, the church would have had a difficult time with their trinity concept if, in fact, Jesus had children of his own. Since they claim that what proceeds from God is God, what would you do with "grandchildren" of God? I suspect that the church would have covered up any evidence of Jesus's marriage and children, though they openly proclaim him as "fully man."

Consider the combination of these two scenarios:

(1) Respect and acceptance (by non-Christian Jews) of James as head of the Christian congregation in Jerusalem, evidenced by (a) Gamaliel's remark that the Christian movement could be "of God" (Acts 5:39), and (b)no concerns about the safety of Christian Jews in Jerusalem until Paul's teachings(to Gentiles)were suspect (Acts 21).

(2) The charge of blasphemy against Jesus when it was erroneously believed by Jews that Jesus equated himself with God(John 10:33).

In the examples stated above, we have a conflicting combination of respect and contempt. How is it possible that ALL of Christianity wasn't in danger from the Jews who were angered about Paul's teachings? Why wasn't every Christian similarly being accused of the blasphemy with which the men in John 10 charged Jesus? If it were blasphemous for Jesus to claim to be God (he didn't), it would similarly be blasphemous for Jews to believe it and proclaim it in their spread of Christian belief.

So, how can admiration and respect for the Christian movement (see also Acts 5:13 which shows non-Christian Jews holding the Christians in "high honor") be coupled with previous charges of blasphemy?

The only possibility is that James and the Jerusalem congregation of Christian Jews did NOT teach either the divinity of Jesus or the abolishment of the Torah, and the men who thought Jesus blasphemed misunderstood his claim to be "son of God." Jesus, in his defense against the charge, went on to equate the expression "son" with Psalm 82:6 (I say ye are gods, sons of the Most High..." (John 10:34). Three centuries later, the church transformed this innocent messianic expression "son of God" to "God the son."

In Acts 15 - 21, James expresses concern about Paul's teaching and was afraid for Paul's safety. What about the safety of James and the Jerusalem congregation, had they been preaching that Jesus is God? Is it possible that non-Christian Jews could be fiercely angered by their perception of Paul teaching against circumcision, but somehow accepting of James and all other Christian Jews teaching that Jesus is God? Even at the very end of Acts, Chapter 28:31, we see that Paul lived in peace, preaching openly with no persecution. And prior to that, he went into the synagogues, preaching about Jesus. What is the possibility that he would have been welcomed into the synagogues on the Sabbath if Christianity taught that Jesus is God and that the Torah is abolished? (Acts 13:42).

The possibility is ZERO, as might be construed from the reaction of Jews to the suggestion that there could be more to the expression "son of God" than when this same expression applied to King David and King Solomon - or to "Adam, the son of God" (in Luke 3:38).

I like the idea of Jesus being a father. To me, it makes more sense than him being celibate. Marriage and parenthood are two of the most powerful, essentially human experiences one can go through...and for Jesus to teach and inspire people the way he did, doesn't it follow that he must have had great understanding of the human experience? In my opinion, a married man and father is more qualified to teach and serve as an example of how to live than one who hasn't experienced these rites of passage.

Again, just my opinion.