Did Jesus have children?

There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child.

There Is No Historical Evidence That Jesus Was Ever Married or Had a Child

The argument that Jesus was married or had a child comes solely from silence. No New Testament document speaks of such relationships, nor do Christian or secular writings from the early centuries of Christianity. The closest document is the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, written approximately 275 A.D., written neither by the apostle nor in the time period of the New Testament. As our book The Da Vinci Code Controversy [10] notes, even the passage used to suggest a married Jesus is used grossly out of context.

President of Jerusalem 's University of the Holy Land, who appeared in the movie. "Also, Jesus" ossuary was very plain compared to the others found in the cave. The idea that the originator of a religion would end up in such a plain ossuary as compared to the others found in the cave is kind of telling as to whether this is really potentially the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth or not." Further only 6 of the 10 ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed - 4 were not. In addition, Mariamne is not part of Jesus' family in the New Testament, and we shall see there is no historical evidence equating Mariamne with Mary Magdalene. There is also not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus and Mary were married or had a son by the name of Judah. Finally, Jose is probably not Jesus' brother because then his ossuary would have read, "Jose, son of Joseph" just like Jesus'. [2]

“Judah, son of Jesus,” hinting that Jesus may have had a son. But what truth can be found in this story? This is not a question of what are the chances of finding another tomb in the Jerusalem area with these same names but what are the chances of the people in this tomb not being the biblical family of Jesus?

The Lord speaks from the cross in tender consideration for His mother, indicating to her that now John was to be her son; and to John, telling him, “Behold your mother!” (vv. 26-27). We know that she did have other sons by natural birth (Mark 6:3; Ps. 69:8), but John 7:5 tells us, “Neither did His brethren believe on Him.” How much more strong is the spiritual relationship than the natural! John took her after this to his own home. Her other sons had deprived themselves of such a privilege through unbelief. Yet after His resurrection His brothers were found in the upper room with the disciples. Apparently through His death and resurrection they were converted to God. Yet they had lost the dignity of caring for their mother.

Now leaving the shores of Galilee, He goes to the area of Nazareth, His Own country, where it is emphasized that His kingdom is in reproach and rejection. In this return we learn in the blessed Lord Himself, how to accept this. The wisdom of His teaching is undisputed: people are astonished at this and at hearing of His mighty works. But instead of seeing by faith the reality of God's power in this, they dispute His right to possess such power! Where did He get this? they ask. Was He not only a carpenters son? Did they not know His mother, His four brothers and all of His sisters? Formal religion has claimed that Mary had no other children then the Lord Himself, therefore assuming that these were nephews or nieces; but Psalm 69:8 is conclusive, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." Mary had at least seven children after the Lord was born, for "all" His sisters implies at least three.

Joseph, obedient to the heavenly vision, took Mary as his wife, yet they refrained from all sexual intercourse until after the birth of her divine child, her firstborn, for she later had at least seven others (Ps.69:8; Mt.13:55,56).

Verse 25 Her firstborn son. There are evidences in the New Testament that Mary had other children. These were the Lord's brethren according to the flesh. Terribly unbelieving during His life, the cross brought them out. James the Lord's brother had a distinguished place, but was content to speak of himself as a "servant."

But James was not a "disciple"; he was one of the Lord's brethren who did not believe all the time the Lord was living here below; "neither did His brethren believe on Him" (John 7:5). "His brethren" were sons of Mary after His own birth. Of course we can understand that Romanists have been anxious to make out that they were sons of Joseph and not of Mary. But they were sons of Mary and of Joseph. They would like to make them out sons of a former marriage of Joseph. We do not know anything of a former marriage, nor do they. We do know that scripture is quite plain.

Take Mark 6:3 for instance, and there you will find that what I have just stated is fully acknowledged: speaking of our Lord, it says, "Is not this the carpenter the son of Mary, and brother" (not the cousin, you see) "of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon?" We do not know what particular place God gave to Joses and Simon, but we do know that James and Judas, or Jude (it is the same name), were both called to an eminent service.

On comparing these statements, there cannot, I think, be any doubt that Mary the mother of Jude, James and Joses, and "The other Mary," constantly associated with Mary Magdalene, are the same, nor that Mary the wife of Cleopas is also. Jude is brother of James, and James is son of Alpheus, alleged to be the same as Cleopas, and James Jude) and Joses sons of Mary, I suppose wife of Cleopas. Thus the identity and connection of persons is evident. Mary called "The other Mary," the constant companion of Mary Magdalene, was wife of Cleopas and mother of James, Jude, Joses, and Simon, and these were immediate relations of Christ; whether by Cleopas or Mary does not appear. This does not affect the question as to Mary's having a family after the birth of Christ, nor her living with Joseph, of which I think Scripture leaves no doubt. But further, this would determine that James the Lord's brother is the apostle James the less, because James the Lord's brother is brother of Jude; Mark 6:3. And James the apostle is Jude's brother; Luke 6:16; and son of Alpheus. And, I think, from the place James holds in the Acts, and in the Galatians, it is the same James, and not another. For in Galatians it is "James the Lord's brother," and "Certain came from James"; and in Acts "Tell it to James," and James presides, in a sense, in Acts 15. The absence of all addition in the case of James is the natural proof of his being the well-known James.