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.

 

Jesus & Sons - A family business since AD36

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
God being omnipotent has absolutely no reason to create a subsect of himself in human flesh, and one at that who kept telling everyone that they are not to repeat his words, or say he was the saviour. And one who most importantly fled like a scared rat from his hunters.

What is it with this constant anti-Jesus thing?

Looking at your tag-line (as I mentioned in another thread) you clearly are not Christian.

What is it that bothers you about someone that is?

How can you possibly judge people on their religious belief when (by your own statements) you don't believe they have any basis or worth?

As to the scared rat statement- EXACTLY and real slow for my lack of insight what are you referring to?

How can you possibly know what God did or did not do or wanted or did not want?

Does he communicate directly to you?

While you're at it point out some of those 'holes' you keep bringing up. I need some deflection in my thought process.

Thanks-






posted on May, 24 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Purplesunn
As long as you are married to a woman and not having sex outside of the marriage, no sin is being committed.


Actually one of the ways of acquiring a wife is by sex. So even if he was married by sex, he could technically still be sinless (even though I don't believe he was if he existed as shown by his actions toward his mother which is a sin according to the Ten Commandments).



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
JoeDoaks (and anybody else who's interested):


I have drawn no satisfactory conclusions for myself regarding whether or not Jesus was married, had children, had a tie-in to the Merovingian line, etc. There are compelling arguments on both sides, I think. Edited to add:
I consider each of these issues separate - in other words, Jesus was married or not; to Mary Magdelene or not; had offspring or not; etc.

Same for this whole idea about what and/or if there ever was such a thing as a Holy Grail.

I can't find any real evidence of a connection between the Templars and the Cathars (or Waldensians sp?) other than the temporal and the fact that the RCC decided to kill all of them. I can't believe that if 3 (or more?) Popes decided to order the slaughter of everyone in every group that called themselves Christian but did not affiliate with the RCC that there is not "something" more to the story....I just can't decide what I believe about what that something might have been.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
I can't believe that if 3 (or more?) Popes decided to order the slaughter of everyone in every group that called themselves Christian but did not affiliate with the RCC that there is not "something" more to the story....I just can't decide what I believe about what that something might have been.

And a couple of Kings as well! I know- this still perplexes me.

I also find it interesting that in both cases the same general geographic areas of their main power (Cathar and Templar) were attacked by the same power centers (Papacy and France) were involved and the Spanish courts benefited from both destructions.

Interesting reading, yet so many unanswered questions.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
don't you think that would be a big deal to non-Christians since that's not what was written? Then why has anyone failed to document it, prove it and go after the heir(s).

For follower's of Christ, don't you think Him having kids would be a big deal? Wouldn't they have hopes and raise up the children of the Son of God, then write it down as the Hebrew people have been known to do for so many thousands of years?

I guess since no-one can attack what Jesus says, they have to be more creative about trying to change who he was. Coming up with a 'theory' 2,000 years later since a bit late, doesn't it friends?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Saint:

You know I like you and respect you. But, I think maybe the point is not about changing the history 2,000 years, later but rather is speculating (aha! the conspiracy of it!
) that maybe some of the history has been "undiscovered".

I guess it would be a big deal. The "big deal" for me would be the "cover up" rather than the fact, itself. If it were true, why hide it? I would think no less of Jesus knowing that he lived even more as a human on earth than was previously reported.

Now, what about the lineage and descendants? Hmmm...there's a sticky wicket. Just how would the world be changed if there were a traceable and documented lineage of Jesus? That's too big a subject for me, right now.

Again, I'm not saying I believe any of the current and popular speculations.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
don't you think that would be a big deal to non-Christians since that's not what was written?


Written explicitly in the Christian canon is more like it. And it's not a big deal for me. The Christian text doesn't have any bearing on me so whether or not Jesus was married, had kids, gay, existed, etc doesn't bother me at all.


Then why has anyone failed to document it, prove it and go after the heir(s).


If you include the Gnostics and whatnot, then it is documented. It could also be shown through actions in the NT such as the wedding passage and the anointings. It could also be shown through the similarities of Jesus and Mary M to Osiris and Isis. As for heirs, there isn't exactly a DNA code laying around to have compared.


For follower's of Christ, don't you think Him having kids would be a big deal? Wouldn't they have hopes and raise up the children of the Son of God, then write it down as the Hebrew people have been known to do for so many thousands of years?


Well I'm not a follower of Christ, but I can tell you that I have discussed this with my Southern Baptist family and it changes a lot of things for them especially if it's Mary M that he was married to considering we were taught that she was one of the whores of the NT. So Jesus marrying a whore and making babies with her somewhat reduces him in their eyes.


I guess since no-one can attack what Jesus says, they have to be more creative about trying to change who he was. Coming up with a 'theory' 2,000 years later since a bit late, doesn't it friends?


People can't attack what Jesus says? From a Jewish perspective, his words among other NT characters such as Paul can most definitely be shown to not be within the norm of good Jewish behavior. Is the notion of Jesus being married to Mary M a new one? I don't think so. I think that the Catholic church did a bang up job on suppressing the feminine. Politics were so tightly intermingled with religion and was a great source of control for them. So that would mean that sometime around the same time that the divinity of Jesus was being voted upon, the nature of Jesus was masked. If it is true that Jesus was married, does it really change anything? No. But if he isn't divine, it changes everything. Christianity is supposed to embrace that he was fully human and fully divine. A full human has full human needs.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
don't you think that would be a big deal to non-Christians since that's not what was written? Then why has anyone failed to document it, prove it and go after the heir(s).

For follower's of Christ, don't you think Him having kids would be a big deal? Wouldn't they have hopes and raise up the children of the Son of God, then write it down as the Hebrew people have been known to do for so many thousands of years?

I guess since no-one can attack what Jesus says, they have to be more creative about trying to change who he was. Coming up with a 'theory' 2,000 years later since a bit late, doesn't it friends?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

In my view, there is more written that suggests he was married than not, as I list in my previous post. Why has no one documented it? Well, for many centuries, the Jewish people were persecuted in virtually every country in Europe, therefore, a Jewish royal family would be a big target to the RCC and all anti-Semites. If it was Jesus' family, the church would see that as a threat, and the family would need to hide until the threat was over.
Regarding your statement about the Hebrews documenting things; why do you think that all of their documents from the time period of Jesus do not mention him once?
The Jewish records do not mention any of the disciples, or any members of Jesus' entourage. The only names mentioned outside of Josephus' works, and the gospels are the famous ones, like Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Caesar. It is no wonder the Jewish people do not believe Jesus was the messiah, since they have no record of him.
The Cathars were Christians, expanding quickly, very popular, civilized, sophisticated, and a threat to the churches supremacy in the area.
And, the betrayal, looting, burning, rape, and pillaging of Byzantium was also a Crusade against Christians in Europe. Byzantium was at the time the largest, most technologically advanced, culturally diverse, civilized, and impregnable city in Europe. It only fell becuz they trusted the Crusaders to not attact a fellow Christian city, but as happened so many other times in other places, the Crusaders lied, and betrayed them.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
In my view, there is more written that suggests he was married than not, as I list in my previous post. Why has no one documented it? Well, for many centuries, the Jewish people were persecuted in virtually every country in Europe, therefore, a Jewish royal family would be a big target to the RCC and all anti-Semites. If it was Jesus' family, the church would see that as a threat, and the family would need to hide until the threat was over.

I don't buy this line or reasoning. Nothing in the Bible states Jesus was married. Any presumption that he was is just speculation.

Jewish royal family? Who were they? Where did the originate? It wasn't from Christ. Herod is a much better guess and he wasn't Jewish.


continuing:
The Cathars were Christians, expanding quickly, very popular, civilized, sophisticated, and a threat to the churches supremacy in the area.

Why do you claim the Cathars were Christian? They believed in suicide among other things.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
In my view, there is more written that suggests he was married than not, as I list in my previous post. Why has no one documented it? Well, for many centuries, the Jewish people were persecuted in virtually every country in Europe, therefore, a Jewish royal family would be a big target to the RCC and all anti-Semites. If it was Jesus' family, the church would see that as a threat, and the family would need to hide until the threat was over.

I don't buy this line or reasoning. Nothing in the Bible states Jesus was married. Any presumption that he was is just speculation.

Jewish royal family? Who were they? Where did the originate? It wasn't from Christ. Herod is a much better guess and he wasn't Jewish.


continuing:
The Cathars were Christians, expanding quickly, very popular, civilized, sophisticated, and a threat to the churches supremacy in the area.

Why do you claim the Cathars were Christian? They believed in suicide among other things.

Did you even look at my list of Biblical evidence that suggests he was married? It is not long, but it is longer than any list of evidence that I have seen that supports your presumptive claim that he was not. Imho, though both of our views are conjecture, mine has a more substantive base.
Re: the royal family... you ask who were they? It would be more appropriate to ask who are they. The Austrian royal family, the Hapsburgs are, currently. The Cathars were Christians, they followed the advice and teachings of Christ far more closely than the Christians who tortured and killed them. They depised shows of wealth, discouraged drinking, felt church leaders should not wear fancy clothes or jewellery, and they let women be parfaits, their priests. And they studied Jesus' teachings in their churches. They sure sound Christian to me.
As for them committing suicide, from what I read they only did so rather than be killed by their Catholic captors. The Inquisitors would dig a great fire pit and threaten to throw any Cathars who did not convert on the spot into the flames. Many times the Cathars saved them the trouble and jumped in rather than join their barbaric invaders. To me, that is noble, and not much different than Christs death on the cross. Do you consider that suicide Joe?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaksWhat is it with this constant anti-Jesus thing?

Looking at your tag-line (as I mentioned in another thread) you clearly are not Christian.
Addressing the latter first. Were I of the Christian belief, you would not be pointing out that I was a Christian. Your point then is? Now then, since that is clarified hopefully you understand the "anti-Jesus thing". Think of it in terms of Christians being anti-Jew; anti-Muslem; anti-atheist, and you might be able to find perspective if you are open to perspective.


What is it that bothers you about someone that is?
Turn that question on yourself, what is it that bothers you that I and others do not believe as you do? You should find 'your' ultimate answer which at least addresses the scope of your own fellings about non-Christians, even though that you would have touched only on my basal reason. Grow a thick skin, for if you are going to play in open religious threads, you need to advance past level one and understand that you will be challenged.


How can you possibly judge people on their religious belief when (by your own statements) you don't believe they have any basis or worth?
Because I utilize the intelligence given to me by God, not faith beaten into my head by others. Now why do you judge my belief?


As to the scared rat statement- EXACTLY and real slow for my lack of insight what are you referring to?
Obviously it is high time you apply yourself to studying the words in your Bible, especially if you wish debate its merits. Were you acquainted with same, you would not be asking this question of me, and I, as I have stated countless times, have no desire to take on the position of pedagogue. Come prepared, or review my post history, the information contained therein offers much insight relative to your question. when you are amenable to broadening your horizons your questions will be more worthy of a direct answer.


How can you possibly know what God did or did not do or wanted or did not want?
A hint for you, never ask such questions if you take a side, because it will be turned around and posed to you. Now in my case, since, I have already provided historical data to show that your Biblical text is not what it presents itself to be, I am several steps ahead of you because you have nothing to support your Biblical text. Once more, my previous posts will be your guide, and you can search 'Giza' to save you some time.


Does he communicate directly to you?
Is he a he?


While you're at it point out some of those 'holes' you keep bringing up. I need some deflection in my thought process.
Press that button and read my posts, you will find many, if you are in fact interested. You are not new here and have seen my posts many times I am sure.

The quintessential net expression of insecurity.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The Merovingians of France claim themselves to descende from Troy, but according to several secret"Prieure Documents" the Merovingian strip is older than the siege of troy.
There are many footnotes which refer specificaly to one of the 12 tribes of Isreal,the tribe of "Benjamin", citing Dueteronomy 33, Joshua 18, & judges 20 &21.

Moes placaes a blessing on the patriach of the 12 tribes, of the the Benjamins he says.

"The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in saftey by him and the lord shall cover him all the day long and he shall dwell between his shoulders" (33:12)

The benjamins where selcted for a selected and special blessing.
Maybe that the promise that the Lord will live between their shoulders is s reference to the the legendary Merovingian birthmark - the red cross between the shoulders -

A second biblical reference is in Joshua 18.
When the 12 tribes arrived in the promised land each was alloted a tract of land, and according to the appointment the tribe of Benjamin was appointed territory that was later to become the sacred city of Jerusalem.
In other words even before it was the royal city of David and Solomon in was the property of the Benjaminites.

A third passage quoted in the "dossiers secrets" is a fairly complex piece of work...A levite travelling through Benjaminite territory is attacked and his concubine raped by a group of followers of "BELIAL" a Sumerian mother god, also known as Ishtar and Astarte.
After calling a meeting of the heads of the 12 tribes the Benjaminites are told to hand over the responsables to justice.
For some reason they dont want to - and protect the responsables by force of arms.

The result is a long and bloody war between the Benjaminites and the other 11 tribes. During the war a cursed is pronounced on any man who gives his daughter to a Benjaminite, which is later lifted, but to late..and the Benjaminites are nearly exterminated.

But quickly a solution is found. At Shiloh, in Bethal, theres a feast, and the the menfolk of the tribe remained nuetral in the war, and so the women of the tribe are fair game...
The Benjaminites are told to hide in the vineyards and when they congregate to dance, to take them as there wives.
Despite their near annihaltion, quickly they row in number and power again, so much that in samuel 1 they give Jerusalem its first king, Saul.
After the war, for whatever reason, it would seem that the majority of the Benjaminites would go into exile willingly. There history says they went to Greece, in the Pelopenese area "ARCADIA" where the united with the Arcadian royal family, later with the advent of the christian era they emigrated up to the rhine area of Germany where they mixed with various tuetonic tribes and from there to France where they wed the Sicambrian franks.

Subsequently the families of France like the Plantanards or the Lorraines are of semetic or isrealite origin.
And if its right that Jerusalem was the property of the Benjaminites then the entry of Godfroi de Boullion to Jerusalem was simply the act of him reclaiming what was rightfully his, the throne.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by andy1972]

[edit on 25-5-2005 by andy1972]

[edit on 25-5-2005 by andy1972]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII


Well, for many centuries, the Jewish people were persecuted in virtually every country in Europe, therefore, a Jewish royal family would be a big target to the RCC and all anti-Semites. If it was Jesus' family, the church would see that as a threat, and the family would need to hide until the threat was over.


One thing if you were referring to Jesus being royal...If Joseph was nothing more than Jesus' foster father, then the tribal heritage through Joseph would not be his to claim.


Regarding your statement about the Hebrews documenting things; why do you think that all of their documents from the time period of Jesus do not mention him once?


Because there is no proof that he existed???????


The Jewish records do not mention any of the disciples, or any members of Jesus' entourage. The only names mentioned outside of Josephus' works, and the gospels are the famous ones, like Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Caesar.


IMO that alone should say something. If the sages in "his time" weren't writing about him, then I don't see how he could have existed. Other "messiahs" that came along were written about and some even wrote themselves. Why did Jesus not write something? Surely if he were "G-d" then he would not have been illiterate so there should have been no issue. Also, if he were all knowing, he would have been able to see the future and know the importance of proof behind his existence. I mean if people are left to choose between heaven and hell alone and if Jesus is the only way, I would think that he would have made the evidence a bit more clear on his behalf. As far as the writings of Josephus go, there are flaws with those as well and I would even be willing to go one step further and say they are fraudelent.


It is no wonder the Jewish people do not believe Jesus was the messiah, since they have no record of him.


You do know that having no record of him is really not the reason why right? If not, I would love to tell you why!



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972
The Merovingians of France claim themselves to descende from Troy, but according to several secret"Prieure Documents" the Merovingian strip is older than the siege of troy.
There are many footnotes which refer specificaly to one of the 12 tribes of Isreal,the tribe of "Benjamin", citing Dueteronomy 33, Joshua 18, & judges 20 &21. . . .


Well, that's some story. As to Merovingian claims, where is this coming from? This is not the story relating to them that I am aware of.

I am unaware* of the Trojan claims, the Israeli claims and the rest. As the Meroviongians disappear into the alpine area of Europe centuries before Godfrey I don't see any possible link from them to him. Around 750 the last Merovingian was driven from his kingdom.

The Carolingians replaced them. Charles Marrtel (The Hammer) and Charlemagne (The Great) being two prominent Carolines. A sub-group, the Capetian, replaced them around 987 ending around 1328 only to be replaced by another dynasty.

Godfrey came upon the scene from what is now the area near Belgium (lower Lorraine). Around 1099 he led the occupation of Jerusalem yet was not the leader of the Crusade. Taking the title Defender of the Holy Sepulcher, he refused the title King. His brother Baldwin became King after Godfrey died. Had there been any inclination into some Christ or Jewish based blood trail it would have become public and pronounced at that time. 0=0

This fairly deals with some kind of Benjamite ascendency.

What I see at ATS is a religious conspiracy. Multi-faceted.

One face is to denigrate Christianity by various means such as the Jesus had kids thread. Another is to denigrate practices of some Christians such a Lent. Yet another is to sneak in some Jewish blood claim (as now in this thread) to the base blood-line of European royalty.

None of these claims hold water. Like a sieve, one can not lay claims upon something one is poking holes in at the same time.

*as to genuine. I am aware they exist.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The Merovingians claim to have come from Troy..if its the truth then this would explain some of the names such as TROYES and PARIS in France.
Wether they arrived from Troy or Arcadia ia academic.
Homer states that at the seige of Troy there was a substantial number of arcadians present.
According to greek histories, Troy was founded by settlers from Arcadia.
The bear in ancient Arcadia was a scared animal, to which many sacrifices were made, in fact the name "arcadia" derives from "ARKADES" which means "the people of the bear"
The ancient arcadians claimed to descend from Arkas, the patron of the land, whose name also means bear, according to myth Arkas was son of kallisto.
For the Sicambrian franks, from which the Merovingians stem, the bear enjoyed a similar status, but in her Gaelic form, Arduina, which survived long into the middle ages, as late as 1304 the church was still damming the worshipping of said creature.

In the early fifth century the invasion of the hun into Europe forced a migration of nearly all European tribes.
It was at this time that the Sicambrian franks , the ancestors of the Merovingians crossed theRrhine into Belgium and southern France.
The Sicambrian entry into france was gradual and not an onslaught, they just filled the natural vacum left by the absent Romans.
They maintained many of the roman cultures along with there own and lived an existance very similar to the departed Roman way of life.

The First Sicambrian king Merovee, died in 438, his son, also called Merovee, was proclaimed king in 448 and died 10 years later, and is recognised as the first king of the Franks as a united people.
The wealth accumulated by the Merovingians was fantastic, the coins of gold being made at a royal mint at what is known now as SION in SWITZERLAND.
Many of the coins were recovered in the Sutton Hoo treasure ship in britain and are in the british museum and bear an equall armed cross, exactly the cross used by the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem in the crusade.

The Merovingians were regard not as monarchs but in a form of superbeings above kings, their touch and their robes had healing properties. They were accepted as kings automatically at 12 years old without ceremony or coronation but by sacred right.
The king ruled, but did not govern.
This was left to a "chancellor" much the same as the British political system.
Even after they accepted christianism, the kings remained polygamous.
While the rest of the kings of Europe bowed to the order of monogamy from the church the Merovingians contiuned with many wifes, and the church seemed reluctant to protest ???

The most famous Merovingian king Clovis 1 reined between 481 and 511 and was through him that they converted to roman chistianity.
Officially at this time the roman christian church had very little power and followers.
Apparantly Clovis converted after the constant nagging of his wife, already converted, Clothilde, whos unle was Saint Remy.
The roman church recognising the need to secure its power in a country where one in five bishops were "ARYAN" and didnt believe in the divinity of god and insisted in his humanity, turned to Clovis, a hero, to head a secular force strong enough to withstand the opponets and implement the roman church throughout the country.
Its known that in 469 a number of secret meetings took place between Sant Remy and Clovis, and directly afterwoods thean accord was reached between Clovis and the Church, fot the church it was a great political triumph.
The roman church would survive and establish itself as number one in the west,the equall to the greek orthodox in Constantinople.
In 496 Clovis was officially baptised in rhiems by Sant Remy and named "NOVUS CONSTANTINUS" or "NEW CONSTANTINE" and the allegiance and mutaul dependancy was formed gaining a roman christian empire for the church administered by the Merovingians on a secular level.
Clovis died in 511leaving behind a empire full of warring kingdoms, and the throne was pursued by a thousand claimants.
The power of the throne lapsed and the power of the "COURT CHANCELLORS" or "COURT MAYORS" grew and grew. a factor that would lead to the fall of the empire.
Dagobert was born in 651 heir to the throne of AUSTRASIE, which would later be lorraine, when he was five he was kidnapped, and with this Grimoald, the court mayor, arranged that his own son took the throne.
Dagobert was in the care of the bishop of Poitiers, who refused to kill him and sent him to a convent in Ireland where he married Mathilde.
His wife died giving birth to his third child.
His second wife was GISELLES DE RAZES, niece to the king of the visgoths.
According to existing documentation the wedding was celebrated at Rheade..now RENNES LE CHATEAU, in the site of the church of the magdala.
In 674 Dagobert announced his presence as the lost king and was officially pronounced king of Austrasie.
The empire grew and the amount of gold held at his court in rheade was enormous.
But, the church expexted him to continue as their sword arm, and he didnt, and seriously curbed the expansion of the church in his realm aswell as destroying one or two nobles who threatend his rule.
Thus he had substantial enemys within the nobles and the church, one notable enemy was his court mayor, "PEPIN THE FAT"
On December 23rd 679, Dagobert went hunting, given the date maybe a ritual hunt.
While sleeping in the forest, his godson, acting on the orders of Pepin pierced him in the eye with a lance, the murderers then returned to the court murdering all his family, or so they thought.
The church, not grieving, condoned the action.
The death of dagobert was not the end of the Merovingian dynasty, they ruled in minor forms for 75 years more in other parts.
The throne of Dagobert was taken by the son of Pepin The Fat, the famous Charles Martell. Martell, never wanted the throne, and in fact never took it, it scared him, he was supersticious, and very quickly he marriad a Merovingian princess.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Interesting chain you have laid out. I disagree with your beginning premise as to the Trojans and will address that below. What all this has to do with the blood of Christ as you have posted thusfar I won't venture.

Disclaimer:
Much if not all of history is really pseudo-history. Very few facts are verifiable. Most are based upon conjecture and supposition.

Troy, Paris and France-

I doubt that the name Paris (for the city) came from the Trojan survivors. Firstly, Paris had to be the most hated person to have ever existed to them.

Secondly, the original name for the place was Lutetia Parisiorum by the Romans and Lutèce by the Franks. The people inhabiting the area were a small Gallic tribe (parisis). Sometime after Christ the name Praisis became the norm.

Thirdly, many Romans claim descent from Aeneas- a surviving Trojan royalty though not a prince. Romans didn't normally name places after people. If they did, then Aeneas' name would have been prominent and Paris would never have been named.

Troy (Troyes) was Troia to the Greeks, Illium, Illion and Troia to the Romans.

Paris (the prince) also was known as Alexander. There is some speculation that Troy, per se, really existed on the south shore of pre-Macedon. Regardless of where Troy existed or whether it was real or not the Greeks supposedly believed it in Homer's time.

The Trojan War provided an easy excuse for the Greek Dark Ages and destruction of so many of the societies claimed by Homer to have existed.

As to the Trojans having Jewish royal blood, I think this too is modern revisionism. Troy (if it existed) was older than David.

Moses appears about the time Troy is founded, somewhere near 1580 BC. The War occurred somewhere around 1170 BC. David appeared around 100 years later.

The dates don't work out. Now maybe the Jewish royal line is really Trojan? The descendants of Elymi, another of the Trojan survivors? This could help explain the obvious differences in Davidic Israel- where the ten tribes were 'set apart' from the favored two?

I could more easily believe that Hebrew royalty descended from Greeks than vice-versa. But if this were true or fairly true than Alexander (the Great) would certainly have made a point to treat the local of Palestine better than he did.

If I were to believe any Hebrew/Jewish royal blood flowed into the outer world it would have to be to Assyria and Persia. From the Chaldean-Persians to the Romans, Jerusalem was nothing more than a provincial backwater. The Romans dispersed the remaining Hebrews.

With Clovis I, you may have a tie to some Roman line. The pagan beliefs he abandoned were Roman!

So, (presumption upon presumption) to stretch this, Clovis may have descended from Romans who had descended from Trojans. Not a Hebrew or Jew in the line at this point. Nonetheless he was 'crowned' the New Constantine by the Roman Catholic Church and his descendants bound by that agreement.

Another 'theory' is the Cimmerian/Sicambrian line to which you seem to lean.

At this stage all are nothing more than hypothesis. 'What do you think if' type of reasoning.

To tie the Merovingians into Christ is beyond my imagination. What little is written about them leads me to believe they claim far older ancestry- probably Atlantis/Egypt. From descriptions of them, I venture they were related to the Bosque/Hibernians/Welsh or some other such mystery people.

As any claim to 'royalty' from Christ's adherents would have had to come through his mother Mary, that claim is a moot issue. Hebrew lineage did not pass through women as also Salian lineage.

The theory I like the best thus far is Merovingian->morthern Africa. Possibly Cathaginian (Vandal)-> Phonecian. This would work well. Sorcery, mysticism and red hair (ala Vandals.) Problem with this is that the Byzantines would never have accepted Clovis! Leave the Vandals out and it could be a player except the red hair- gotta find some group that ties in with red hair.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
While the twelve apostles are the most well known group of people who were identified as disciples of Jesus, there were others: a much larger group of people were identified as disciples in the opening of the passage of the sermon on the plain (an abbreviated Sermon on the Mount) that begins in Luke 6:17.

Mary is mentioned in Luke 8:3 as one of the women who "ministered to Christ of their substance". Their motive, according to the author of Luke was that of gratitude for deliverances he had wrought for them: Luke tells that out of Mary were cast seven demons, in an exorcism. These women accompanied him also on his last journey to Jerusalem (Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:41; Luke 23:55). They were witnesses to the Crucifixion.

Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis. Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society. Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married. Although Jesus was a non-conformist and had many conflicts with Jewish tradition, His parents, Joseph and Mary, were not. The Bible says that they were careful to perfectly obey the laws of their people. It also says that Jesus was "subject unto them". Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus. There are 18 silent years in His life (12 - 30). The Gospel of John tells us that there were many other things which Jesus did which have not been recorded.

There are hints scattered in the Gospels of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary. If she is the same Mary of Bethany in John 11, then we can explain why Martha arose to greet Jesus and not Mary. Some scholars say she was sitting shiva according to Jewish custom. "Shiva" was when a woman was in mourning. Married women were not allowed to break-off from their mourning unless called by their husbands. In this story, Mary does not come to Jesus, until He calls her.

At the Resurrection, when Mary meets Jesus in the Garden, there is a degree of intimacy (see the Aramaic here) which one would expect between lovers, not friends.

The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife".

The story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus is cited by some scholars as the most direct witness to their marriage. It is in all four Gospels and was a story in which Jesus gave express command that it be preserved. This ceremony was an ancient one among many royal houses in the ancient world, which sealed the marital union between the king and his priestess spouse. We find it mentioned briefly in the Song of Solomon. Although we may not understand its significance, Jesus and Mary knew exactly what they were doing. To be the valid Messiah, He had to be anointed first by the Bride. They were by-passing the corrupt Jewish establishment.

Mary Magdalene

Several women named Mary are mentioned in the biblical gospels, including Jesus' mother and Mary from Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus, the woman whom Jesus praised for learning from him, Luke 10:38-42). One of these "Marys" is referred to as "Magdalene," which means "from the village of Magdala."

Mary Magdalene is first mentioned as one of the women who accompanied Jesus on his preaching mission and helped to support him financially (Luke 8:1-3). Luke adds that seven demons had been cast out of her, presumably by Jesus (Luke 8:2). Nothing in this passage suggests that there was anything unusual about Mary's relationship with Jesus, other than the very unusual fact that she was included among Jesus' retinue. Jewish teachers in Jesus' day usually didn't teach women or include them as followers. In his inclusive practice Jesus was virtually unique, and his relationship with Mary and her female counterparts quite counter-cultural.

The next time we run into Mary Magdalene she is among the women who observe the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 15:40). Then, on Easter morning she and a couple of female companions go to the tomb of Jesus, only to find it empty. Mary, according to John 20, encounters Jesus near the tomb, and then goes to announce his resurrection to the other disciples (John 20:1-18). In a sense, she is the first Christian evangelist, the first person to pass on the good news of Easter.

This is all we know about Mary Magdalene from the biblical gospels. Several centuries after these texts were written, Mary became associated with the prostitute who bathed and anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7:36-50). But there's nothing in Scripture that makes this connection. We have no reason to believe that Mary had ever been a prostitute.

The Gospel of Mary, written in the second century, goes even further than The Pistis Sophia in portraying Mary as a source of secret revelation because of her close relationship to the Savior. At one point Peter asks, "Sister, We know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember--which you know but we do not nor have we heard them" (section 10, trans. George W. MacRae and R. McL. Wilson). So Mary reveals what the Lord made known to her in a vision, the content of which seems like mumbo-jumbo to anyone other than a second-century Gnostic.

The Gospel of Mary reports that several of the disciples were none too impressed by Mary's purported insights into heavenly things. Andrew responded to her revelation by saying "I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas" (section 17). Then Peter asked, "Did he really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" But Levi speaks up for Mary, "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us" (section 18).

Ah, at last, here's fuel for the fire of a secret marriage between Mary and Jesus. She is the recipient of his secret revelations and private speeches. The Savior, who is not called Jesus in The Gospel of Mary, even preferred Mary to the other disciples, loving her more than them. Mary's relationship with Jesus has clearly entered a new dimension we have not seen before.

But there is nothing here to suggest that Jesus and Mary were married. Jesus' love for Mary leads him to reveal special truth to her, not to take her as his wife. Nothing in The Gospel of Mary points to a sexual or spousal relationship between Jesus and Mary.

The Gospel of Philip is one of the latest of the non-canonical gospels, written well into the third-century. It is not a gospel in any ordinary sense, but rather a collection of theological observations written from a Gnostic point of view. Some but not all of these observations mention Jesus. Two passages refer to Mary Magdalene, who plays a tiny role in this gospel.

The first of these passages reads, "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion" (section 59). Much has been insinuated about the word companion, which, in the Greek original is koinonos. But, contrary to the wishful thinking of some, this word doesn't mean spouse or sexual consort. It means "partner", and is used several times in the New Testament with this ordinary meaning (for example, when Paul refers to himself as Philemon's koinonos in the Philemon 1:17).

The second passage in The Gospel of Philip that concerns Mary is the most suggestive: "And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Savior answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her?' When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. Then the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (sections 63-63).

Even if we suppose that this passage, which appears in no other document, and which was written two centuries after the biblical gospels, conveys historically accurate information, the passage itself seems to disprove Jesus' marriage to Mary. Surely if Jesus had been married to Mary then his special affection for her wouldn't have been an offense. And surely Jesus could have satisfied the disciples' question by explaining that Mary was his wife. But he doesn't do this. Instead he explains his special affection for Mary by pointing to her ability to see the light, that is, to have knowledge. Nothing in this passage suggests that Jesus and Mary were married, even if we read it literally. Moreover, given what is said elsewhere in The Gospel of Philip about kissing (sections 58-59), it's possible that this passage isn't even meant to be taken literally. The text may very use the metaphor of kissing to say that Jesus revealed truth to Mary. If this is true, the The Gospel of Mary is consistent with what we have seen elsewhere in the Gnostic gospels.

___

But since the earliest decades after Jesus’ death, a parallel lore flourished, particularly in southern France, where in 1208 the people were condemed to death by Pope Innocent III for believing that Mary Magdalene was the "grail mother." In the parallel story, Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and she was pregnant with his child when he was crucified at Qumran, not Golgotha as it is usually thought. Mary delivered a child, and then she and the baby were spirited to France, where she died. This secret teaching—partially described in “The DaVinci Code”--is said to have been preserved by the Knights Templar, a monastic military order formed at the end of the First Crusade.

___

“They didn’t attack Mary Magdalene because she was Mrs. Jesus,” says liberal scholar John Dominic Crossan. “They attacked her because she was a major leader, that she was up there with Peter and the rest and they fought like hell to put her back down in her place.”

Crossan does not believe Jesus was married. In fact, he considers the entire question an insult to Mary Magdalene, because it implies that she is important only through marriage. “To say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is a putdown, unless you say she was clearly as important as Peter and that’s the reason she’s married to Jesus.”

Crossan believes, instead, that Jesus wasn’t married to anyone—because he was too poor to afford a wife and children.

In any case, many scholars agree that in the 4th Century, around the time Constantine converted to Christianity, church patriarchs began trying to suppress women’s leadership roles in the Christian movement. At the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., convened by Constantine, Jesus’ divinity was debated and voted on. Later, as the church evolved, the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized—and the Gospel of Mary and the others were thrown out.

Liberal scholars say that, among the reasons these other books didn’t make it into what is called the “biblical canon” are that they include clear evidence of Mary Magdalene’s importance in Jesus’ ministry, and that they portray Jesus less as the Son of God and more as a great teacher preaching about an interior spiritual path.
____

Still, this much is known: In the 5th Century, not long after the Council of Nicea, Pope Gregory the Great delivered an Easter sermon in which he associated Mary Magdalene with sinfulness. He said that the adulterous woman in John 8 was Mary Magdalene, even though that woman is never named. And he said that the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet in Luke 7: 36-50 also was Mary Magdalene—but she, too, is not actually named in the Gospel. “They turned Mary Magdalene into a paradigmatic female sinner,” King says. Meanwhile, the church began describing Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a virgin. In the process, says King, “they molded the ideology of femininity in Christianity.”

Sources

Was Jesus Married?, by William E. Phipps, Harper & Row, 1970
The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, by Margaret Starbird, Bear & Company, 1993
www.beliefnet.com...

____

Since it was common place for Rabbi's to be Married? Especially to practice in Synagogues would it not make more sense for the Bible to say he wasn't? (Luke 14: "And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all.")

Or can it not be taken that Luke, etc would have expected us to know he would have been Married? This could explain why it was not mentioned as in the area they would have been preeching the people would have understoond Jewish Tradition?

It was also common place for Jewish people to be Married from an early age, since Jesus went through other Jewish Rituals such as the circumcision (Holy Prepuce (Feast of the Circumcision, First of January.).) would this not further back up the idea that he would have been married?

Also since it was Jewish Tradition to have arranged marriages it would have had to have been a girl of a family near to where Jesus' Parents were from, Magdala was near there and within travelling distance. Also since Jesus' Father was a Carpenter it is likely he would have done work for Rich Family's and well Mary had enough money to support Jesus'.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis.


Not true. All Jews are commanded to marry and to reproduce.


Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society.


Proof.


Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married.


If Jesus existed, he could not have led a congregation without being married provided that he was a Chazzan/Shaliach Tzibbur which is not a rabbi. The Chazzan is the one who leads the singing and chanting and is also called a canton. The Shaliach Tzibbur is the one who leads the prayer service. The role of the rabbi is to teach.


Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus.


First, there is nothing that says Mary M was a Jew. If the marriage was to be arranged, she would have to be. Second, you seem to misunderstand the arranged marriage part. It's not like you have someone picked for you and then you meet them on your wedding day. The two people are introduced via friends or a matchmaker, i.e. like in Fiddler on the Roof. They go out on dates to see if they like one another. After each date, they come home and discuss the date so that anything that needs to be ironed out or fixed can be. Both parties have the right to not accept the arrangement.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
So if your a rabbi you have to be married but if your a priest in Ireland, at least, you can't get married? Jeeze religion is so messed up.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis.

Not true. All Jews are commanded to marry and to reproduce.


Yes well done.


Originally posted by Shonet1430

Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society.

Proof. .


What do you think the source was for? I didn't put it there for my health.


Originally posted by Shonet1430

Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married.


If Jesus existed, he could not have led a congregation without being married provided that he was a Chazzan/Shaliach Tzibbur which is not a rabbi. The Chazzan is the one who leads the singing and chanting and is also called a canton. The Shaliach Tzibbur is the one who leads the prayer service. The role of the rabbi is to teach.


Did you read what I typed?

Luke 14: "And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."


Originally posted by Shonet1430

Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus.


First, there is nothing that says Mary M was a Jew. If the marriage was to be arranged, she would have to be. Second, you seem to misunderstand the arranged marriage part. It's not like you have someone picked for you and then you meet them on your wedding day. The two people are introduced via friends or a matchmaker, i.e. like in Fiddler on the Roof. They go out on dates to see if they like one another. After each date, they come home and discuss the date so that anything that needs to be ironed out or fixed can be. Both parties have the right to not accept the arrangement.


Yes? I notice most of the Bible doesn't go "He was black, he was Jewish oh that fellow over there he is a Hindu" etc, etc... but if you would go and do some research you'd find out Magdala and the Lake of Tiberias was/is a heavily Jewish area with the Jewish population going there(Tiberias) after the Second Revolt in 135 AD. (Bar Kokhba's revolt)

And in modern Hindu and Muslim Arranged Marriages they have the right to not accept it, doesn't mean they will. A lot of people do because of family pressure.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join