It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A Shocking Theory

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:38 AM
I was involved in a discussion last night about the Sangreal / Holy Grail.

As I have posted here before my theory is that Mary Magdelene is the Holy Grail. She is the vessel in which the blood of Christ ( the child of Christ/Sangreal/Royal blood) was carried to France after being spirited away from Jerusalem by Joseph of Arimathea.

This is not such a wild a theory in fact it's a fairly popular one these days.

However someone mentioned last night the links between Jesus and Egyptian Magi, rituals which I had already knew about and another person for a joke quipped " Well the Egyptians were famous for incest maybe Jesus and his mother got down to some loving"

Now I appreciate that this is high blasphemy but it got me thinking.

If Jesus was deep into the Egyptian rituals/Mystery schools etc then whose to say he didn't go that step further.

Egyptian Royalty famously engaged in sexual relations with relatives in order to keep the bloodline pure ( hell, so did the royal families of europe for that matter) so it's possible that Mary Magdelene was a relative of Jesus or that Mary Magdelene is none other than the Catholic Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

This wild I know and probably unfounded but what actually happened to the mother of Jesus, she seems to disappear from records.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by StJude
If Jesus was deep into the Egyptian rituals/Mystery schools etc then whose to say he didn't go that step further.

That right there is a huge assumption. If you would like to spur on intelligent discussion with people who both agree and disagree with your premise, you're going to have to flesh out and defend that standpoint, first. Whether you like it or not, that's the point that will be most bitterly contested here on this thread.

After all, if there were a thread that starts with the assumption that you, StJude, are a crack addicted psychotic pedophile who's also into bestiality, then asks how you would feel about a colt, would you be more likely to contest the (I highly suspect) initial assumption, or discuss how you would feel towards a colt if you were a crack addicted psychotic pedophile who is also into bestiality?

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:39 AM
I'm seeking evidence to back up my theory as we speak Junglejake.

Still, I did say it was widly specualtive and sometimes that has it's place to.

After all. What real evidence is there for any story contained within the bible other than the bible itself?

Very, very little and as you are a born again Christian i respect that such a theory is not appreciated.

As for the crack addicted, beastial , peodophile rant. I wonder what else you have on your mind...

[edit on 18-1-2006 by StJude]

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:01 AM

I can understand why you'd be abit bitter toward's his theory, but if jesus was really into egyptian ritual's as theorized, then there is a chance he did more then is told.

All in all tho. There's no actual evidence that jesus did exist outside of the bible. Your whole religion is based on a fictional man with no historical basis. Sure, the location's are in the real world as well as the bible, but that holds true for alot of fiction written today as well. It's the character that has not other historical refrence other then a book written by men, to control men.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:09 AM

Actually there is a lot of evidence for the story of Christ outside of the Bible. I can think of at least three historians who wrote about Christ. It would be hard to say they were all collaborating in "wild speculation:.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:33 AM

Can you post source's or the name's of these historian's and about when they were alive, what year's they wrote about jesus? I haven't seen anything much regarding jesus historically.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:34 AM
There are threads discussing evidence for jesus outside of the bible Bill feel free to look them up.

No reputable historian mentioned Jesus Christ by name or said he was the messiah aka Son of God.

The Bible is the principle evidence for Chritianity and it was written by Christians.

So it's fair to say it may be just a tad bias towards them don't you think?

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:41 AM
i could be wrong and i dont feel like going and looking it up right now.
but i believe that both marys were present at crucifixition so if they were then that would make them being the same person impossible (unless it was some kinda hidden bible code). it is possible that him and mary m. were related as that was a big hebrew coustum at the time.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:45 PM
Here is a link discussing the mystery schools

Mystery Schools

Lest we forget that incest is not mentioned in the ten commandments

Here is another that links Jesus with incest claims

Jesus the Mamzerut

As I said above. The egyptians and royal dynasties throughout history have practiced incest in order to keep the bloodline pure so if Jesus was a member of an egyptian cult or copied many egyptian rituals then he may have taken that extra step.

I propose two possible theories ( Let's discount for a minute any notion that Jesus was the Son of God which is unproven and open to immense speculation) which under certain circumstances could be possible.

1) The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a result of Mary's union with a relation. Possibly even Joseph. This would imply Mary and Joseph also followed the egyptian ways.

2) That Mary Magdelene and Jesus were related or that Mary Magdelene was Jesus Mother and their union gave birth ( so to speak) to the holy grail legends.

Wild theories maybe, but not without foundation.

I shall look for more evidence.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by StJude]

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:45 PM
Make no mistake; it wasn't bitterness that caused that post. From my understanding of who Jesus was, which does come from the Bible, saying that he was focused on Egyptian mythology etc. is directly contrary to the Jesus presented in the Bible.

As for the extreme example of an assumption that I applied to you, StJude, there was thought behind it. I don't recall many, if any, discussions with you in the past, so I didn't have enough knowledge of your own beliefs to make something directly contrary for the assumption. Instead, I chose several things that I am 99.9999% sure don't apply to you, and 100% sure the all of them don't apply to you. That was the only reason I went so extreme; it wasn't because I was upset with you or anything like that.

The whole purpose of that comment was to let you know what the major point of contention will be in so far as your shocking theory goes. Then I tried to present an example that would show you how ludicrous, in my mind, your assumption of who Christ was is. Obviously, the example I used as my assumption for you was supposed to convey how out there your assumption of Christ is from everything I know.

As to non-Biblical evidence of Biblical stories, there is far more than you may realize. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can find many explanations in this and this thread. They are fairly lengthy, though, being the fifth and sixth most replied to threads on the entire ATS website. If you've read accounts of people who state, and provide evidence for, why they don't believe the outside sources are legitimate, I encourage you to look into the author Lee Strobel to see what the opposition, that is, Christians who believe there is a lot of evidence supporting the validity of the Bible, believes and why. Even if you don't believe it, understanding where Christian's assumptions are when entering a debate will only help you to make your case stronger. There are several reputable historians who are used for many other, non-Christian understanding of the history, culture, and events in both Jewish culture, Roman culture, and Greek culture. To say that historians can take those parts of the ancient non-Biblical historian's accounts, but have to dismiss the mention of a man named Jesus as not being reputable is hypocritical.

However, you're right, no secular, non-Christian source calls Christ the messiah or son of God. If they did, they, ipso facto, become a Christian source. That's the fundamental tenant of Christianity, after all.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:43 PM
well, after the slaughter of the innocents it's said that jesus and family went to egypt. he could have picked up some mysticism while there as a refugee.

also, the bible does have gaps pertaining to about 30 years of the life of jesus, so we can't really know what he was like with only the bible.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:52 PM
There is actually another thread in here about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being brother and sister.

Please continue the converstation there.


log in