Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: LoKe
Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,
the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.
That's where you're wrong. She had
a child. If there were no other children, then it was without a doubt the decendant of Jesus Christ. They don't
need his DNA, they have hers.
while i believe she may have had a child.. how does having one child prove it is his though? im just throwin that out there because that's what the zealots would ask.
she could have had a child after jesus died.. right? i don't really know the story of mary, i don't follow a single thing from any religion cuz it makes me laugh.
🙂
but either way.. i figure if he had a child before she was with jesus (or even not with jesus) it would have been mentioned.. but there is still the chance of having children well after his death.