Mary Magdalene and the Holy Bloodline

Hello Children, it is I, Atomix. After reading "The Da Vinci Code" I became interested in the Sangreal documents and the Merovingian bloodline.
So I did a lot of "googeling" as they say and found a wealth of information on the subject, The Priory of Sion, Knights Templars, Mary Magdalene and such. I'm now reading the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail which is supposed to have a lot of details on the subject.
What does everyone else think about the bloodline and everything? I believe it because there is a lot of evidence to suggest Jesus was married, like how a Jewish man had to get married in those days. None of the Gospels say anything about how odd it is that Jesus wasn't married unless...............................He was?

here's what I just posted in another thread, this morning:

none of this stuff in the DaVinci Code or Holy Blood, Holy Grail, etc. makes any sense outside the historical context which, by necessity, includes the political context. That means you need to read from as many sources as possible before you can draw any conclusions. Since none of us were there through the first four or five hundred years, conclusions and theories are about all we've got.

For me, in my 10+ year amateurish studies and in the infancy of my admittedly poor comprehension, the only conclusions that I've been able to form is that politics have had a far greater impact and influence on what we generally refer to as "religion" than anything else. Christianity, formed during a period of tremendous political upheaval and intrigue, seems to have been largely shaped by power struggles. I don't say this was all done with sinister intent - I think there were a great many people trying very hard to do the right thing (as they are in politics today) and about an equal number who didn't care a whit for the right thing as long as they could acquire money, power, and land (much as it is today in politics).

My point is just this: read, read, read, read, read and then start thinking.

I'm just re-posting it here to answer your question about "what do I think?"
Do I believe all this holy bloodline stuff - maybe. It's plausible but there is much, much more to study before I buy into it. I loved the DaVinci Code as a fictional work - a great murder mystery! But, Dan Brown breaks no new ground with anything he wrote in this book. It was highly entertaining but hardly scholarly. HBHG will reveal to you the basis of the Dan Brown story and even those authors didn't go anywhere that had not been well-travelled (unless you count the wild goose chase that Plantard sent them on).

here's a nice long discussion about Jesus possibly being married.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ancientmanuscripts.com...

I agree that we need to do a lot more researching. It was very neatly handed to us in The Davinci Code by a wonderful author. That makes it so easy to just accept it at face value.

I also agree that it is probably very accurate on many points, though. I will definitely be seeking more information. This book has put a lot of people in a questioning frame of mind, which is exactly where they need to be.

So what your saying is that the political situation back then formed much of christianity as we know it today? There was a TV show about the political influence in Isreal at the time of Jesus on the other day I should have watched it. Tanx for the links guys

[edit on 8/4/05 by Atomix]

because it is not written in the Bible does not make it untrue. Just because it is written in the Bible does not make it true.

If one in their travels learns to "feel" the spirit of others, and the great strength that some spirits are able to project from within one will learn that anything is possible and most likely probable.

What does everyone else think about the bloodline and everything?

Check into Jesus and Riennes, France...there's a chapel there you might find incredibly intriguing.... I believe Dan Brown also lists some suggested readings (even in the book itself), such as other researchers of the Holy Grail as the Holy Bloodline instead...

moving to Faith, Spirituality & Theology

see you there

another thought about Mary Magdalene, is that maybe she wasn't Jesus's lover or wife, but his prized student. Some people believe that she was a disciple just like the others chosen to spread the word of Jesus.

www.urantiabook.org...

Worldwatcher, your link mentions the town of Magdala, isn't that the town where Mary Magdalene came from? Magdalene meaning: "From the town of Magdala"

I believe so. I think Mary of Magdala became Mary Magdalene, same as how Jesus is sometimes refered to as Jesus of Nazareth.

The first mention of Mary Magdalen in the Bible is in Luke 8:2

"And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmaties-Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come several demons"

now these demons refered to in the bible, could be actual demons of the paranormal type, but more likely I think the "demons" were various illnesses, perhaps even mental illness. I feel that back in the days, medical conditions that were not easily cured were immediately suspected to have been caused by spirits, demons, and witches.

This is not to say I don't believe in the paranormal type demons, just that anything unknow was diagnosed as such.

I forgot to finish my thought.

So back Mary M, I think she was sick, after lots of praying on her behalf by either herself and those around here, she overcame the illness and was left with that description.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by worldwatcher]

I personally dont think Jesus was married, because that wasnot his purpose on Earth. Why get married and doomed your wife and children to persucution has the family of the "Christ" ?? Why wouldnt the Gospels speak of Jesus and his lovelly wife and his possible children?

Personally i see no problem with Jesus beeing married, once the Christian religion supports marriage, I just dont think he was.

Things like the DaVinci code, are theories, they have no proof or foundation, besides the beliefs of people that lived 500 and 1000 years later and more... I think we should keep in mind that the "last Supper" painting of Leonardo Davinci is JUST THAT, a painting... not a Paparazzi shot taken at the moment of the Last Supper.

There are dangers to this kind of theory tho. It is another basis to the infamous and very dangerous "serpent seed Line" teaching. This states that the white peopl are the only TRUE Children of Israel, because "Jesus's Wife" went to France and England and all their white descendents are THE TRUE ISRAELITES. On the other side of the coin are all of thos who are not white, and therefore all those who are not "descendentes of Jesus and Mary Madgdalene" are carriers of the evil serpent seed .... This is the same kind of doctrine behind Hitler and many more other racist groups.

It may be desguized as something nice, but it isnt...

Part of the theory preposed by the Da Vinci Code and the Knights Templar was not only that Jesus was married and sired children by his wife MM. But it also proports that Jesus was never crucified. He had children through MM and then somehow Mary Magdalene (after Jesus' natural death) migrated to France and that only the Priory Of Zion and other secretive groups know this secret and are consecrated to guarding and preserving the royal and Holy bloodline of Christ...

Now comes the rub...WHAT HOLY BLOODLINE? If Christ was not crucified and did not obtain a bodily ressurection then what "royality" is there to protect? he is now just a great prophet and teacher. He is now no different than Ghandhi, Moses, Plato, or any other great prophet or leader. Why would his "Holy" or "Royal" bloodline be worth "protecting" even at the cost of death? That would be like having a secret society that protects the "HOLY" bloodline of the prophet Hosea. It makes no sense on those grounds!

now these demons refered to in the bible, could be actual demons of the paranormal type, but more likely I think the "demons" were various illnesses, perhaps even mental illness.

there is also a school of thought that says Mary M had been initiated into one of the sects that had a seven stage initation and that this passage is a reference to that.

If Christ was not crucified and did not obtain a bodily ressurection then what "royality" is there to protect?

The Fact as stated in the NT that he was a direct decendant of the House of David and the line Solomon.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
now these demons refered to in the bible, could be actual demons of the paranormal type, but more likely I think the "demons" were various illnesses, perhaps even mental illness. I feel that back in the days, medical conditions that were not easily cured were immediately suspected to have been caused by spirits, demons, and witches.

Yeah, like how in China they thought ilnesses were evil deagons or something like that.

Jesus having married would not have made sense, even according to Christian doctrine. What would his children be? Son of God, Grandchild of God, Greatgrandchild of God, Descendant of God? It all sounds very silly to me. I agree with BaastetNoir. Jesus realised he wouldn't be long on Earth, so why cause problems for a wife? Besides that, all this is just speculation, it cannot be proved one way or the other.

Other than that, why should anyone have to "protect a holy bloodline" anyway? What is so holy about a bloodline? If God wanted it safe, it would be so. How do you think the "bloodline" survived from Abraham to Jesus? Were there a bunch of fanatics "protecting" it? It gets me mad the amount of importance people place in blood.

Stalkingwolf, while that is a nice theory, doesn't it go kind of against christian beliefs? Only a "select few" who have been properly "initiated" can get closer to God?

[edit on 10-4-2005 by babloyi]

BaastetNoir,

My understanding of the 'serpent seed line', as you call it, is different. The Bible tells us Abraham had two children, Ishmael by the slave woman Hagar, and Isaac by his wife Sarah. Ishmael carried the 'seed of bondage', which I assume is the same to you as the 'serpent seed line', and Isaac carried 'the seed of promise', from which would come the Redeemer (Jesus). Isaac, the child of promise, signifies salvation by grace through faith. Ishmael, the child of bondage (born of a slave woman), signifies the law, a salvation of works.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (with his technicolor dreamcoat) are considered the fathers of Judaism and the twelve tribes of Israel.

The line of Isaac goes directly to the Virgin Mary, the second Eve, who begets Jesus, the second Adam. In Jesus the Redeemer, we find salvation by grace through faith.

If the stories about Jesus and MM are true, and descendents of Jesus did become European Kings, that doesn't mean their descendents are the true Israelites. Nor does it mean they are all white. Those that carry the 'seed of bondage' aren't necessarily all non-white, either. It seems Hitler twisted the story to suit his own purposes.

Muslims believe that they are descended from Ishmael, and furthermore, that he carried the 'seed of promise' as Abraham's first child. There are as many interpretations of history as there are cultures that trace their roots back into it.

The real story is lost somewhere in the morass of time, and it is up to each of us to discern our own personal truth with the flawed tools available.