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.

 

Bloodline Problem

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I've been doing preliminary research on the bloodline theory that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Christ, and that this was initially the beginning of a royal and holy bloodline that traced its roots to Mary Magdalene. The problem is, this is not consistent with the scriptures, and I'll tell you why:

According to the New Testament, in several places Jesus mentions or is mentioned as being the saviour for all peoples, that salvation had passed from being only for the jews, to being for the gentiles as well. Follow my thoughts on this: If salvation was only contingent on whether or not you were a literal blood relative of Christ via His impregnation of Mary Magdalene, gentiles would still be without a redeemer because Mary Magdalene was a jew, a hebrew, an israelite. 2 jews do not a gentile make.




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I really don't think Jesus had a wife...I mean he was Jesus. Besides if he did I'm sure his disciples would have written it down. The illuminati aren't descended from Jesus. Ok I'm not exactly certain of their exact origins but they're most likely descended from an ancient secret society made up of people determined to dominate and control the Earth through any means necessary. Also they are determined to keep their bloodlines pure and make sure their descendents stay in control. Sorry if I didn't explain this very well



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Proud Canadian,

I agree. David Icke believes the Illuminati are descendants of the babylonians, and believes he can trace it. I haven't read any of his materials, but if he contends that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, then he's gonna have to explain the scriptures which point repeatedly to Jesus being a world redeemer, not via literal bloodline, but via spiritual change.

One of the reasons that particular bloodline theory arose, is because of the "sons of God," texts, which clearly establish the nephilim hybrids as the kings and rulers of our planet. It was not unusual for a woman to be abducted and impregnated with a hybrid and the story of Jesus sounds quite similar. The difference is, His birth was supernatural. He was God's ONLY son, fully human (in the flesh) and fully God (spiritually) which means that the other hybrids were forgeries, attempts by the fallen ones to mimic God. At least, that's my theory.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The main problem I have with the Nephilim/Fallen Angels/ ruling the world theory is if you go by the Bible it says God wiped them all out in the flood. I don't see how they could have survived to rule the world. At least not physically; I do believe in spirits though.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
If Jesus knew that he was... "JESUS" , then everybody else he came into contact with had to be aware of His "partial human" existence, as well as he did.
Now, do you think everybody accepted that this young man was born from the seed of an alien Father, or do you think it would have been as impossible to prove His source of life then, as it is today?

Is there any way 'his people' could have maintained the fact that they were walking the same path as a man born from an unfertilized seed, or worshipping and following the words of God's only son... while also keeping it a secret?

Wouldn't you agree that as interesting as the controversy is surrounding the conditions of His conception is today, it would have been something that no one could have overlooked while He was growing up as a 'half-alien' child?
Wouldn't Jesus have been killed as a child for who He was, long before He was crucified as an adult for what He believed and the message He was teaching?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
The main problem I have with the Nephilim/Fallen Angels/ ruling the world theory is if you go by the Bible it says God wiped them all out in the flood. I don't see how they could have survived to rule the world. At least not physically; I do believe in spirits though.


It says there were giants in the world in those days, and also after (after being a reference to after the flood). These were also nephilim hybrids. Some examples of post flood nephilim are the rephaim (there's a whole list of them with odd names, rephaim is just one of the groups). Nimrod was most likely a hybrid, as he tries to rebuild the temple of Enki (the tower of Babel), which was also known as the Etemenanki. He is also known as the babylonian Marduk. The chinese texts say his father's eyes (his father being Cush), shown with double brightness. The bible refers to him becoming "mighty" before the Lord, which is a word always used in reference to the nephilim in that section of the bible. Nimrod was post flood and the first world ruler, following the flood, of the babylonian system. This is what Icke is picking up on: the Nimrod and Cush geneaology.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Contentious
If Jesus knew that he was... "JESUS" , then everybody else he came into contact with had to be aware of His "partial human" existence, as well as he did.
Now, do you think everybody accepted that this young man was born from the seed of an alien Father, or do you think it would have been as impossible to prove His source of life then, as it is today?

Is there any way 'his people' could have maintained the fact that they were walking the same path as a man born from an unfertilized seed, or worshipping and following the words of God's only son... while also keeping it a secret?

Wouldn't you agree that as interesting as the controversy is surrounding the conditions of His conception is today, it would have been something that no one could have overlooked while He was growing up as a 'half-alien' child?
Wouldn't Jesus have been killed as a child for who He was, long before He was crucified as an adult for what He believed and the message He was teaching?



Jesus was fully human. He wasn't a hybrid, genetically. He was fully possessed of the spirit of God, which is a different aspect that has nothing to do with our genetic code. In other words, He was the antithesis of the hybrid nephilim, who were part human and part something else, genetically, but lacking the spirit of God.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Wait a minute hybrids afer the flood?! Uh oh....I don't like that. But if they returned somehow wouldn't God have destroyed them again? If they seriously did appear a again even after the flood it makes total sense to me that they'd be behind the illuminati; not only spiritually but physically. It's a scarey disturbing thought.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
Wait a minute hybrids afer the flood?! Uh oh....I don't like that. But if they returned somehow wouldn't God have destroyed them again? If they seriously did appear a again even after the flood it makes total sense to me that they'd be behind the illuminati; not only spiritually but physically. It's a scarey disturbing thought.


Yes, after the flood, according to the biblical texts, anyway. The Philistines were hybrids. Goliath was a hybrid. There were hybrids in ancient Babylon, China, Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well. The "giant" strain was pretty much wiped out. It says in the OT (old testament), that every trace of them would vanish from the earth. It's my theory that this was because He didn't want scientists in our time, trying to clone them back into existence as ready made armies or something. A Hitlerian type of proposition: Superior warriors, as it were -- supermen.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
So does this mean they aren't around anymore after all?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
So does this mean they aren't around anymore after all?


No, it means the "giant" strain isn't around or at least, won't be around until the fulfillment of the prophecies kicks in (or perhaps kicked in recently?). See, they were mighty in more ways than one. Some were mighty, intellectually, not brawn, but brains - mega geniuses.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by undo]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Undo you're a christian right? (just curious
) So the nephilim are still around in the shadows of society? Do you believe they're part of the illuminati? Not to sound like David Icke but do you think it's maybe possible that some of our world leaders are part nephilim? Like not fully human?

I was raised a christian (protestant) then stopped going to church when I was 12. My mom became a Catholic when I was around 15. I haven't really read the Bible much but sounds like there is some interesting and relevant stuff in it.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
Undo you're a christian right? (just curious
) So the nephilim are still around in the shadows of society? Do you believe they're part of the illuminati? Not to sound like David Icke but do you think it's maybe possible that some of our world leaders are part nephilim? Like not fully human?

I was raised a christian (protestant) then stopped going to church when I was 12. My mom became a Catholic when I was around 15. I haven't really read the Bible much but sounds like there is some interesting and relevant stuff in it.


1. Undo you're a christian right?

yes

2. So the nephilim are still around in the shadows of society?

yes

3. Do you believe they're part of the illuminati?

possibly

4. Not to sound like David Icke but do you think it's maybe possible that some of our world leaders are part nephilim? Like not fully human?

maybe

hehe



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
If salvation was only contingent on whether or not you were a literal blood relative of Christ via His impregnation of Mary Magdalene, gentiles would still be without a redeemer because Mary Magdalene was a jew, a hebrew, an israelite. 2 jews do not a gentile make.



Undo, what makes you think salvation is only for descendants of Christ? I know you research everything thoroughly but I've never heard anyone make that claim before. Where did you find that?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe


Undo, what makes you think salvation is only for descendants of Christ? I know you research everything thoroughly but I've never heard anyone make that claim before. Where did you find that?


It isn't only for descendants, that's the point. See, if salvation was based on the bloodline (meaning only royals that were descendants of Christ, such as the royal families of europe), only jews would be saved by having the blood of Christ flowing in their veins. But it isn't based on genealogy. It's based on spiritual salvation, which amounts to the resurrection of both the spirit and the body, in the hereafter.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
There were definitely giants around after the flood. Joshua 14 in the OT deals with Caleb and his conquest of Hebron, which was populated by giants. If I am not mistaken, Caleb completely wiped out that group in his battles to take Hebron.

As far as Jesus leaving heirs through MM, I'm still on the fence about that one, though the purported powers of the Merovingians leads me to consider some type of divine background for them. Is there a connection as is said?

If so, I don't believe it precludes salvation for all. Perhaps the bloodline of Jesus, if it exists, was meant to be a source of 'shepherds' for the faithful, something that would have been a direct challenge to the Illuminati and the supremacy of the early RCC. Hence the First Crusade against the Cathars.

Fascinating considerations, to be sure.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I've been doing preliminary research on the bloodline theory that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Christ, and that this was initially the beginning of a royal and holy bloodline that traced its roots to Mary Magdalene. The problem is, this is not consistent with the scriptures, and I'll tell you why:

According to the New Testament, ...


well, if try to use the NT as one of your primary sources then your research is bound to lead you to the mainstream views, opinions, and dogma of the "Christian conclusion". I'm not saying to ignore the NT as a source but the NT, is primarily a collection of stories intended to support Chrisitanity. You can not use any source document to examine the veracity of that particlular source. That just not how one "researches".

Another poster here seems to be laboring under the impression that the apostles chronicled the Christian Jesus as first-hand witnesses - like news reporters. Even devout Christian scholars do not credit the apostles with authorship of the books bearing their names. Only some of Paul's writings, the guy who never actually met the living Jesus character, as being likely to be, more or less, actually written by Paul though pretty much no one accepts that Paul wrote the "Acts" book. So, to present an argument that "if Jesus had been married, the appostles would have written about it" is without any merit of scholarship.

I take no position on this whole "bloodline" business though I find the subject to be interesting and worthy of study. To begin with, in order to credit this line of thinking - pro or con - one must logically begin with a core belief that there was such a character as Jesus and that we have an accurate portrayal of this person's life. I cannot wholly accept or reject that premise to begin with from a purely historical perspective.

Further, the issuance of "salvation" is based entirely on the belief in the divinity of this Jesus which remains entirely a matter of personal faith rather than of history. So, this part of the argument is really moot.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The guy that wrote the book about the "holy bloodlines" of Jesus was proven to be a fraud. In fact, even he admitted it later.

That whole bloodline thing is nothing more than a hoax.
In the 4th century, the Catholic Church had a meeting in Nicea and threw out alot of passages in the Bible, in particular all references to reincarnation in the Bible. I would be willing to bet that the Church, having celibate nuns and priests, would be all too happy to omit any reference to Jesus being married, if he ever was. It would strengthen their case for celibacy for their clergy.

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
The guy that wrote the book about the "holy bloodlines" of Jesus was proven to be a fraud. In fact, even he admitted it later.

That whole bloodline thing is nothing more than a hoax.


That's a bit of an oversimplification and generalization. The authors (3 men - Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln) of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" of whom I assume you are speaking were themselves the victims of an admitted hoax by Pierre Plantard but that was only for one portion of their research. Their entire theory did not rest solely on the falsified documents and testimony of Mssr. Plantard. Still, it is mostly a set of clues and mysteries upon which they based some theories. I'm only making the point that you cannot accurately dismiss their full body of research as an admitted hoax.
Wikipedia - quick read for those unfamiliar
It should be noted that the book commonly referred to as "HBHG" is hardly the first of its kind, either.

Even a cursory study of early Christian sects - some that lasted until destroyed by the RCC in the Albegensian Crusades and the period of the Inquisition - firmly believed that Jesus survived the crucifixion either by faking his death or by using a substitute. Some firmly believed that Jesus was never truly here in the flesh at all. Quite a few considered it blasephemous to say that "Jesus died" as they believed that their divine Jesus could not be killed in such a way. The story of the Templars trampling on the cross is believed to have stemmed from a large sect that felt that the RCC's devotion to the Passion story was heresy and the Templars were not denouncing Jesus or Christ-worship but rather were denouncing the RCC. Of course, as history will show, the RCC just killed all of them - men, women, and children so, they can't really speak for themselves. History, as they say, is written by the victororious.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There is no Biblical ANYTHING that Christ had a wife. As a matter of fact, the assertion that He had a wife goes contrary to all which one will gather from the Bible.
Also, as one will read in the Bible, the church is His bride, not Mary.

No other algebra need be utilized to get the answer.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join