It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA tests Show that The Merovingian Bloodline does not originate from the Middle East

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
In this episode of diggingforthetruth, which was a History Channel Series, towards the very end, a test is done on a Merovingian Queen's tooth. The test reveals that the queen had no ancestry back to the Middle East. This calls into question the supposed 'Divine Rights of Kings', the fictional,"Da Vinci Code", Lawrence Garner's work, and the whole idea of the bloodline extending back to the Annunaki, promoted by the likes of Nicola De Vere, in "The Dragon Legacy'. this also proves that the Merovingians were not directly descended from Jesus.


edit on 30-8-2017 by davido because: typos




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: davido

(admitting to have not watched the video yet)

This is the first I've heard of the Merovingian's originating from the Middle East. I had to do a quick search and found no other sources to back this theory (I may have missed some). I do believe in the bloodlines that you mentioned but not all unions are within the lines.

She could have been married to the king as a "status" marriage...maybe he had Middle Eastern DNA but I guess we will never know. I am interested to see what the video has to say in regards to the DNA. I am willing to bet that it was mostly from that area and perhaps heavy in Scandinavian as well, southern Europe (Italy/Greece) won't surprise me either.

Interesting times back then, wish I could time travel to see how it was.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: davido

It seems the Queen was married into the Merovingians according the family tree chart in the video, she wouldn't have the "Jesus DNA" , her descendents would.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: davido

It seems the Queen was married into the Merovingians according the family tree chart in the video, she wouldn't have the "Jesus DNA" , her descendents would.


Found this in the wiki, "Ingund and Aregund were the daughters of Baderic, King of Thuringia.", if Aregund is what they are saying instead of the way I heard it "Aragon". Thuringia appears to be Germanic, which later was in conflict with the Merovingians.

I found this.
"A 2006 DNA test on a sample of the remains of the woman in the sepulchre, presumably Aregund, found no Middle Eastern heritage. This test was inspired by the theory made popular in The DaVinci Code and earlier in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that the Merovingian royal family was descended from Jesus."

So this puts the research of the tv series into question.(as usual)

Good Point!



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Have seen this document some time ago. I noticed there is a familytree so i checked what geni says... Clothar I, King of the Franks is your 42nd great grandfather.. well when you think that Charlemagne is universal ancestor to all Europeans (Charlemagne is your 36th great grandfather. So if Jesus had children and familyline not broken most likely all of us would be his descendants..
What comes to Divine Rights of the Kings... Lets take a look on Habsburgs, there were many other families too who had same ancestors but Habsburgs insisted to be theirs.. so started Habsburgs lineage in Kinghood.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: davido

I descend through the Merovingian blood lines through Dogbert and supposedly 11th cousin to Diana and Charles through the De la Spencers, Hilyard and another blood line I cant remember. I have 3 x royal linage through my fathers blood line, And I have had my DNA checked and there is zero Middle eastern DNA. All my DNA except for my Native American side is European.

I have no magical powers and cant walk on water. Oh well, I did marry a man with the last name of EL, but that didnt help either. lol



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: davido

I descend through the Merovingian blood lines through Dogbert and supposedly 11th cousin to Diana and Charles through the De la Spencers, Hilyard and another blood line I cant remember. I have 3 x royal linage through my fathers blood line, And I have had my DNA checked and there is zero Middle eastern DNA. All my DNA except for my Native American side is European.

I have no magical powers and cant walk on water. Oh well, I did marry a man with the last name of EL, but that didnt help either. lol



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: davido

I descend through the Merovingian blood lines through Dogbert and supposedly 11th cousin to Diana and Charles through the De la Spencers, Hilyard and another blood line I cant remember. I have 3 x royal linage through my fathers blood line, And I have had my DNA checked and there is zero Middle eastern DNA. All my DNA except for my Native American side is European.

I have no magical powers and cant walk on water. Oh well, I did marry a man with the last name of EL, but that didnt help either. lol

I have not had a DNA test, but my Brother linked me to the Plantegenets and the Merovingians through Joseph (Josephes) "The Rama- Theo" Bishop of Saraz (44 - )

I got on this kick today coming across some old Diana sites. Prince Charles claiming to be descended from Vlad the Impaler and such. Also, the Count of Saint Germain, Some believe, Joseph of Arimathea – Jesus’ Uncle ,was Count Germain. Also, he is linked to Lucifer and King Arthur. De Vere, who was murdered, was very arrogant and pretentious, as if the rest of us were 'rags upon his sight' However; if I have the same blood, I am a humanitarian who tries to respect all humans, as I feel we all have divine potential. I can't say that for my relatives though. It was actually the quote by Diana that the Windsors are lizards, that got me started today.


I do not have any magical powers either

edit on 30-8-2017 by davido because: typos

edit on 30-8-2017 by davido because: typos

edit on 30-8-2017 by davido because: added new paragraph



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Regardless of your religious beliefs, here's the problem: This question is based on the assumption that Jesus (as described in the Bible) existed at all. Furthermore, if he was of a virgin birth, who the hell knows what his DNA would be, because it isn't necessarily mandated that he have either his father's (which he wouldn't with a birth as described) or his mother's DNA.

Starting with an unknown and then basing a hypothesis on that which you then go and start an investigation on is not very scientific.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Jesus is mentioned by Josephus, the most prominent historian at the time.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

Now, there is debate between the Gnostics and the Roman Catholics concerning Jesus's divinity and miraculous powers, the trinity, and the role of women in the church, and the virgin birth. Constantine, even claimed that he was God, as he had Jewish descent as well.
edit on 30-8-2017 by davido because: fixed sentence



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: davido
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Jesus is mentioned by Josephus, the most prominent historian at the time.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

Now, there is debate between the Gnostics and the Roman Catholics concerning Jesus's divinity and miraculous powers, the trinity, and the role of women in the church, and the virgin birth. Constantine, even claimed that he was God, as he had Jewish descent as well.


To be fair, the text you refer to from Antiquities, wasn't written until 93 or 94 CE and the part you quote, the Testimonium Flavianum, is considered by the vast majority of scholars to be a 2nd century alliteration by Christians and not the original words of Josephus.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thanks to all who replied, the next time I feel like posting a thread, I will read the comments on utube first, as there can be valuable information therein. The history channel tests proves nothing, but Missak1's post, who has the geneology and a DNA test does it for me, as she has no Middle Eastern heritage, is of the bloodline. I want to believe in self-actualizing things, so this puts the issue to rest for me. Actually, I am comforted in the belief that I am NOT descended from Jesus.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: davido

I have been working in the legal system for the bulk of my adult life: I need more than just the claims of one guy's opinion written down in the first century AD.

Like I said...that's not very scientific.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes but the arguments center around what Josephus said about Jesus. The point is that he said 'something' about Jesus.

From Wiki 'Historical Jesus'

"Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11][12]"
Historical Jesus



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How about the Nag Hammadi Finds? Yeah dates to maybe 400 CE, but many references to Jesus, unaltered sitting in a cave.
If no one named Jesus walked the Earth, who are the Christians mentioned by a variety of Early Caesar's and writers? Was it all made up? The burning of Rome did not happen? I too am in a profession where 'assume' makes an ass out of you and me.
I was taught in college that Jesus was only a philosopher, I do not dispute this, as I was not there. It's not my job to convince you, but to present things the way I see it. But, I do not claim to know for sure, one way or the other. However, it seems apparent that someone named Jesus the Nazarene walked the planet near the first century. This is interesting because Nazareth was not founded as a city until the 3rd Century CE. Additionally, there was a sect called the Essenes, who believed in taking care of the sick and elderly, while living as ascetics. They were a Jewish cult who some claim, practiced the Nazarene Way. I do not contend that the 'organized church' did not intentionally adjust the stories for their own purposes. It appears like the early church were at odds with the Gnostics, who valued philosophy over obedience, or conformity to Roman rule.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: davido
In this episode of diggingforthetruth, which was a History Channel Series, towards the very end, a test is done on a Merovingian Queen's tooth. The test reveals that the queen had no ancestry back to the Middle East. This calls into question the supposed 'Divine Rights of Kings', the fictional,"Da Vinci Code", Lawrence Garner's work, and the whole idea of the bloodline extending back to the Annunaki, promoted by the likes of Nicola De Vere, in "The Dragon Legacy'. this also proves that the Merovingians were not directly descended from Jesus.



Not at all surprised. If course they weren't descendants of Jesus; He never contributed DNA to any bloodline. Claims to the contrary are to sell books, or gain power.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: davido
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How about the Nag Hammadi Finds? Yeah dates to maybe 400 CE, but many references to Jesus, unaltered sitting in a cave.

Four-hundred years is a long time for anything to be written, compiled, rewritten, etc. You know, it only took one year for Winston Groom to write "Forrest Gump," and we now have, historically speaking, probably millions of references to a guy name Forrest Gump who did amazing things with historical people and lived a relatively simple life and dished out a lot of unarguably deep wisdom.

Back when writing/reading was relatively unheard of for the average person (well, obviously movies were completely unheard of), it still wouldn't take 400 years for stories of people to travel relatively wide in the Holy Lands at that time, and as we can see in modern times, just the idealistic views and actions associated with individuals, whether true, embellished, or fabricated, is enough to start a cult following, regardless of accuracy.


If no one named Jesus walked the Earth, who are the Christians mentioned by a variety of Early Caesar's and writers? Was it all made up? The burning of Rome did not happen? I too am in a profession where 'assume' makes an ass out of you and me.

The possibility that it's all made up is certainly plausible...at least the supernatural and divine aspects of a man around whom a cult began and eventually prospered. But to be fair, I never said that a man named Jesus never walked the earth--hell, I never even said that a man named Jesus who was a Nazarene never walked the earth, or that he never did many of the earthly things ascribed to him--all I did was point out that there is no smoking gun of proof, and that basing a scientific debate on a bloodline supposedly from Jesus is based on a faulty scientific premise.

But to be fair, I am assuming nothing, I am just raising rather pertinent questions and being appropriately skeptical.


I was taught in college that Jesus was only a philosopher, I do not dispute this, as I was not there. It's not my job to convince you, but to present things the way I see it. But, I do not claim to know for sure, one way or the other.

I was taught for 20 years in church that Jesus was the divine son of God and sacrificed himself to save mankind by dying on the cross and rising from death three days-ish later and ascending to Heaven to remain with God. Jesus worked many miracles and led a relative band of misfits in the name of God to become better people and spread the word, many of whom ended up dying for their beliefs.

But I have also done scholarly research into religions and claims and whatnot since then, and have come to the conclusion that what I was taught (and what "the church" claims) has zero backing other than a group of people who simply WANT to believe because of a book compiled from ancient writings and translated many times over.

If you cannot see the flaws in basing a relatively scientific investigation into bloodlines based on the Jesus of the bible, then I guess this discussion is pointless (and I don't think that it is).

But like you, I claim not to know, I only question and have my own skeptical views based on research that I have done from both sides of the looking glass.
edit on 31-8-2017 by SlapMonkey because: coding mistake



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: davido

It is extremely easy to follow the strong bloodlines.....they are not ugly......they are beautifull and handsome extra intuitive and empathtic and intelligent people.....with specific physical bone structures.

Unmistakable.

The bloodline remains distinct.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: davido

Can I point out something very important about attempting to build a genetic picture of a family?

It is necessary to sample more than one individual, in order to build a proper genetic profile for the family as a whole. Families are more than collections of DNA, and family is not exclusively about blood either. Families took on children not their own, and still do (thankfully), which means that in order to gain a proper data set, more than one example of this alleged Merovingian bloodline, would have to be studied in order to learn anything worth knowing.

I am not saying that I believe that the Merovingian bloodline is related to Christ, or the Middle East, or any other thing, but what I am saying is that without a much broader genetic profile of the family involved, this test means very little.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

Yes, i am extremely good looking

Modest Too!
edit on 31-8-2017 by davido because: added text



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join