Single Jesus Christ, the Last Adam: No Children, Yet Unashamed

Uncle MythMan says ...

We’ve been confused about God's Word: God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone;” but Uncle MythMan is a man (God has made that exceedingly clear), and yet remains alone!

The problem? our assumption that God wills man to be good.

No Christian girl–not even one who wants to do God's will–would even consider giving Uncle MythMan a chance.

Why not? Because Uncle MythMan is unable to ‘make an appropriate public appearance.’ So he looks to Jesus and sees-nothing about dating and –nothing about marriage except ‘the condition under which one should end it.’

Uncle MythMan looks at Jesus’s life and sees that God did not ‘make Jesus a mate’ as he did with the first Adam (which was reasonably a contributing cause to Jesus's gigantic ego ... good thing "appropriate" Christianity throws out all reason aside from ‘`cause The Boss said so’).

Some “National Geographic”- or “History International”-specials bring up The Unrecorded Years and conjecture that Jesus may have been married-&-divorced within the years the Gospel doesn't detail.

(It was traditional for young Jewish men to 'just up-and-marry'; one reason Jesus's ‘Eve’ was apt to eat of ‘the forbidden fruit’ known as Adultery, giving Jesus the right to divorce her.)

'Oh God! Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?' Uncle MythMan subconsciously cries. ”I’ll tell you why:” say the voices in his head, “Because you chose Jesus instead of Simon Peter!”

(You remember what He told Simon Peter? "Where I am going, you cannot follow." That's because Simon Peter's fate was tied to relationships here, and Jesus's path was not.)

But Uncle MythMan is left in the same environ, with the same bodily-functions; would God grant us useless bodily-functions? Functions that serve no purpose but selfish, messy pleasure?

The commandment was “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” and all men’s efforts (whether they know it or not) are directed to that cause.

Really, the greatest fruit a man can help to manifest is ‘the flesh of his own blood’—children. Although they’re “more trouble than they’re worth” (as long as the parent is stuck in the “what’s in it for me”-mindset), the children are truly the life-force of the parent.

That’s a theory regarding the several-hundred-year average life-span of the ancient Old Testament fathers: It could very well be that each of those herdsman-kings simply passed the name on until such time as a new generation’s leader felt it was time for a newer name—when a name got to be too common among the original bearer’s progeny, the foremost among them was decided to be worth a more-narrowly-focused house.

‘That’s why’ Christianity is so-big on Jesus’s Name, declaring-wars AND –peace “in His Name”: because the action is “what our family does” ... ‘Jesus built furniture because Jesus' father was a furniture-builder and –his father's father was a furniture-builder and –his father was and –his father was etc.’ ‘And so’ Jesus is fruitful.

God doesn’t really care about names, but His Law remains The Truth no matter what you call it. (Even “God”–though usually meant as a name when capitalized–is really more like a power-title—just like “Lord,” “Sir,” “Master,” “Daddy,” “Mommy,” “Boss,” etc.)

Q would like to bring fruit like the first Adam’s, but seems destined to bear fruit like the last Adam’s.