Is it possible Jesus was a widower?

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Did He need a Savior?

Click to expand...

whoisdiss said:

... Now you're just making this ridicolous to get around what I'm saying...

Click to expand...

Nah, i'm just inviting you to break down yer OP question and examine it and match it up with Who Jesus the Christ said Himself He was. I'm also wondering where your speculation was derived from.

Please elaborate.

Thank you kindly.

Seems very unlikely...or there would be some hint of it somewhere in the NT.

whoisdiss said:

True, but Jesus was still a human and like us in everyway.

Click to expand...

Name another person of that day who was virgin born?

drstevej said:

Name another person of that day who was virgin born?

Click to expand...

I think he meant that Jesus' nature was 100% human--just as the Church later reaffirmed. The circumstances of his birth would be something else.

Originally Posted by drstevej View Post
Name another person of that day who was virgin born?

Click to expand...

Albion said:

I think he meant that Jesus' nature was 100% human--just as the Church later reaffirmed. The circumstances of his birth would be something else.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you can separate one from the other.

Thank you kindly.

Albion said:

I think he meant that Jesus' nature was 100% human--just as the Church later reaffirmed. The circumstances of his birth would be something else.

Click to expand...

the product of a biological virgin birth is the female clone of the mother.

and the daughter would obviously be capable of cvirgin birth too.


Its possible that Jesus is a female clone of Mary and the beloved disc is a clone daughter of Jesus. The beloved would then be the grand child clone of the original Mary.

before Jesus departed, he took the beloved disc to Mary mother of Jesus which biologically are clones and Jesus presented her as the mother

the woman whos accused of adultery is possibly Jesus also since she also gave birth to a child without a father.


its possible the clones are still cloning themselves until now. Keeping an ancient secret with them. They may not even be on earth anymore.

timewerx said:

the product of a biological virgin birth is the female clone of the mother.

and the daughter would obviously be capable of cvirgin birth too.


Its possible that Jesus is a female clone of Mary and the beloved disc is a clone daughter of Jesus. The beloved would then be the grand child clone of the original Mary.

before Jesus departed, he took the beloved disc to Mary mother of Jesus which biologically are clones and Jesus presented her as the mother

the woman whos accused of adultery is possibly Jesus also since she also gave birth to a child without a father.


its possible the clones are still cloning themselves until now. Keeping an ancient secret with them. They may not even be on earth anymore.

Click to expand...

Let's stick with the Biblical account of things. Cloning has nothing to do with this.

brinny said:

Not sure how you can separate one from the other.

Thank you kindly.

Click to expand...

There's no connection. I don't know exactly how to explain separating the two when they are not conjoined in the first place. The subject of Original Sin is about a condition of all men by virtue of their humanity. The virgin birth, although miraculous, neither facilitates the transmission of O.S. nor circumvents it. It has nothing to do with it.

If the product of a virgin birth (and there never was another like the one involving Jesus) is a human, O.S. is in the picture, just as if that person were the product of a normal fertilization and birth.

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Not sure how you can separate one from the other.

Thank you kindly.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

There's no connection. I don't know exactly how to explain separating the two when they are not conjoined in the first place. The subject of Original Sin is about a condition of all men by virtue of their humanity. The virgin birth, although miraculous, neither facilitates the transmission of O.S. nor circumvents it. It has nothing to do with it.

If the product of a virgin birth (and there never was another like the one involving Jesus) is a human, O.S. is in the picture, just as if that person were the product of a normal fertilization and birth.

Click to expand...

Yet, in this birth, of a virgin, is the exact pivotal point of necessity for our Savior to be born. As it is written:

"And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." ~Luke 2:9-11

and

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." ~Isaiah 9:6

As it were, the good news worthy of celebration is that God, through His only begotten Son, came to earth, (refer to John 3:16 re: why) and therein lies the Hope and Redemption, and the Saving from our cursed-ness for us.

His virgin birth is pivotal on an eternal scale for it changed our sorry course forever. It is of the utmost consequence spiritually. At least to God the Father it is, and to His only begotten Son Who died for us.

Thank you kindly.

Impossible, the kids would be half Gods or something?
God who is holy marrying a sinful human being? He came for His bride and only marries her when she's made holy through His blood, without spot or wrinkle.

Albion said:

Let's stick with the Biblical account of things. Cloning has nothing to do with this.

Click to expand...

Virgin birth (parthogenesis) is the natural form of cloning - it had nothing to do with technology. Some animals which reproduce sexually like Reptiles, fish, and birds do virgin births all the time and many other animal groups without human intervention.

Look this up in google. It's in our scientific literature. An excellent example would be whiptail lizards.

It wasn't until recently some of these groups were discovered to be capable of virgin births.

One day, we might discover it in mammals, and eventually, humans.

Albion said:

I think he meant that Jesus' nature was 100% human--just as the Church later reaffirmed. The circumstances of his birth would be something else.

Click to expand...

But what do you mean by "nature?" Are you speaking of physical, biological, genetic nature or are you speaking of philosophical, moral nature?

I think the Church's affirmation concerned Jesus' physical nature; I don't think the Church has ever affirmed that Jesus carried the psychological baggage of sin that the rest of us face. In the wilderness, Jesus dealt with the call of His flesh; He picked it up, felt it, then put it down. I don't think the Church ever affirmed that after His wilderness temptations Jesus yet suffered Paul's Romans 7 struggle.

If Jesus is 100% human he would be absolutely female. All females are capable of virgin birth with a little tweaking even without a sperm ddonor. The egg cell contains all that is needed for reprooduction. The xfunction of the sperm is mostly a switch and introduction of foreign geetic material.. otherwisse it serves no purpose

thats your dilemma.

we love to talk about the virgin birth but completely ignore the science of it. If anyone thinks science is for fools then why on the internet?

All of the other types of relationships and family members Jesus had were mentioned in the Bible: parents, siblings, friends, people he socialized with... if he had been married and widowed, wouldn't that have been mentioned?

and why would it matter either way? it doesn't change who He is or what He has done and is still doing.

timewerx said:

And why was the paintings of him looked looked like a young woman?

Click to expand...

The paintings of him you are refering to were done by artist who wanted to make something that looked good to them at their time. They didn't know Jesus or what he looked like. They just wanted to express an idea and present it in the way that their contemporaries would know what it was supposed to be. IMO, Jesus probably looked nothing like the pale, pasty looking European models used in art.

Albion said:

Let's stick with the Biblical account of things. Cloning has nothing to do with this.

Click to expand...

LOL! You gots a point there

Messy said:

Impossible, the kids would be half Gods or something?
God who is holy marrying a sinful human being? He came for His bride and only marries her when she's made holy through His blood, without spot or wrinkle.

Click to expand...

Impossible, the kids would be half Gods or something?

Click to expand...

LOL! That's true, sis

drstevej said:

Name another person of that day who was virgin born?

Click to expand...

I'm curious about your adjectival phrase, "of that day". Why is it in there? Was there another person who was/is virgin born in some other time??

timewerx said:

the product of a biological virgin birth is the female clone of the mother.

Click to expand...

Not quite a clone. A clone would be genetically identical. A biological virgin birth doesn't necessarily have to have ALL of the genetic material of the mother. All of our chromosomes are in pairs. And, generally each of a particular pair are not identical. A biological virgin offspring COULD have one of the elements of any pair duplicated and then not have a copy of the other element. You ARE correct, though, that a biological virgin birth would ALWAYS be a female. The fact that Christ was male illustrates the miracle of the Holy Spirit's part in the conception.

Phoebe Ann said:

He's engaged to His Church.

Click to expand...

Yes; He already has a bride; that He knew about from the beginning of time; so He would not go and marry another.

Hi, Phoebe; there's something about us that seems similar; but I can't put my finger on it.