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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I've been researching quite a few things as regards the bible. One thing I did a study on was inconsistencies in the New Testament. I also reviewed the arguments for and against its authenticity. The following were my preliminary findings:

The Papacy may have tinkered with the texts. However, it appears to be limited to inclusion of what I refer to as the anti-female verses, particularly those found in II Timothy. You can tell the verses have been added for several reasons, least of which is the clumsy transistion from the anti-female verses into verses referring to child-birthing. Jesus was very supportive of women in active religious roles. Furthermore, in other places, Paul discusses how women and men are on equal footing in Christ and in several instances, women were leaders and preachers of the word. These thoughts don't jive with the anti-female verses.

A great deal of Revelation is directly referring to Papal Rome, and more specificially, Papal Rome as an Empire. It's a miracle that the book survived, and is a testament to the fact the papacy didn't tamper with most of the New Testament. Had they known at the time, that Revelation was a witness against the actions of the Holy Roman Empire and Pagan Roman Empire, they would've refused to include it in the bible.

Many other verses, are not only confirmed in other places in the New Testament (referencing the teachings, elaborating), so that the thoughts are consistent, many are often doubly confirmed in the old testament. It's only those rare instances where the information doesn't flow, and seems chopped up and dropped into place to provide an argument for a teaching of the RCC, that simply isn't confirmed by the rest of the verses. Some see this as a mistake in the word of God. I view the anti-female verses as tampering that can be clearly distinguished just by being comfortably familar with the rest of the teachings, checking whether they confirm them or go against them.




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Undo - you are definitely onto something but don't stop there.

To try to stay on the topic of this thread but continuing with what you (Undo) have found in the tinkering, one of the few stories in the New Testament that some people try to use as proof of a marriage of Jesus is the wedding at Canna and the "water to wine" miracle. Many scholars try to use this to prove it was really the wedding of Jesus. Others, whom I find to be more credible, believe that this was another "drop-in" story. Scholars of all stripes find the story to be a rather odd addition that was possibly (and clumsily) inserted in a tampering of sorts.

The most compelling argument that I've heard is that this story was one example of several that was inserted to add more miracles to the life of Jesus. If you study religion long enough, and go back into the religious stories of the major religions that pre-date Christianity by hundreds and even thousands of years, you'll find just about every single one of Jesus' miracle stories. Dionysis was worshipped for a very long time (I don't know how long but it was at least a couple of hundred years) in that region of the world and he turned water into wine on more than one occaision.

For fun and stimulation, pick any of the NT miracles of Jesus and do some research (it may take more than simply Google to find it) and you will almost certainly find the same story attributed to another ancient diety. At lot of them are Egyptian or Greek which makes a great deal of sense.

I think the only one I can't find is the "walking on water" thing. Somebody else here might know the origin of that one but I haven't run across it, yet.

So, I find the wedding at Canna to be unconvincing in terms of being an NT reference to Jesus' marital status. I find it more convincing to believe that Jesus could possibly have been married but that was such an unremarkable condition for a first-century Jew that it just wasn't worth mentioning. That ain't proof, though. Just one of many common speculations that has some merit in my opinion.

Edited to add:
I meant to go back to my previous post in which I referenced the Albigensian Crusades to add this little tidbit that is germaine to the bloodline stories - guess what part of the world in which this crusade was waged...Google it if you don't know, already.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Al,

that was an area I paid specific attention to = the copy cat theories. the walking on water reference you are thinking of, comes from a buddha story. i thoroughly investigated that as well, and here's what I found:

the incident is found only in the "gospel of buddha", which was written way after buddha died, compiled and published in 1894. Lots of additional books were written over the years, and the "Gospel" was created to compile several of the texts together. In other words, their texts were actively being created for a long time after the life of Buddha or Christ.

The best way to see what I mean is to read Wikipedia's entry on the topic of the buddhist texts:
en.wikipedia.org...

Some people think because the papacy attributed events in Jesus' life to pagan holidays, that it's a matter of biblical record: IT IS NOT. Nowhere in the New Testament does it mention Easter, Lent or Christmas. Jesus was most likely born in September, according to hebrew calendar. So really, it isn't a matter of the bible being a copy cat, but rather the Papacy's traditions, which are NOT in the bible. Let me repeat that for clarification: NOT in the bible. Think about that. IF they were tinkering with the text to the extent that you propose, Christmas, Easter and Lent, would be in there, but it ain't.

Also, praying to the dearly departed is not in the bible. Catechism, is not in the bible. "Indulgences" are not in the bible. Church on Sundays, was not in the bible (the sabbath was actually saturday, ask any practicing jew). Repenting to a specific priest instead of to God, is not in the bible. Saying Hail Marys for the remission of sin, is not in the bible. In fact, the bible speaks against having idols, against vain repetition in prayer and against worshipping anyone other than God/Jesus. This list goes on and on. Had the Papacy honestly tinkered with the scripture to the extent you contend, they would've naturally included support for the papal decrees, but they didn't.

Jesus' miracles were for a testament to the people He encountered. If you don't believe Dionysus, Horus, Osiris, etc, existed, then this would be a problem. However, I believe the ancient Egyptian, Hindu, Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greek and Roman gods are based on real beings, and more specificially, real angels , fallen angels, and etc. Jesus would've known this and His display of powers, would've been for the benefit of those who did worship the angels and recognized the authority necessary to display such things.


[edit on 2-4-2006 by undo]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

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.



What about the issue of Him being born from an "immaculate conception"?
Was that issue confronted and accepted from the time of His birth or added to the story later?

In the opening words of the Bible it clearly states that God exist in the form of a Spirit.
Considering the fact that so many people believe that Jesus was delivered as a normal child into this world from an unfertilized seed, doesn't that imply or attempt to show that God exist somewhere outside of our perception in the physical form, specifically in the form of a man?

By simply removing the possibility of an immaculate conception from the religion our children are exposed to, they would have been led to believe and understand that We are responsible for our own actions... instead of hanging onto the an unrealistic scenario that God will one day return as a physical being from 'outer space' and seperate the good from the bad and clean up the disaster we created.

Maybe the immaculate conception was included later to give man an excuse to ignore his own responsibilities.

Would the brainchild created by the confusion and suffering this system has generated be considered a hybrid?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:43 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, 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.


Have you read any Laurence Gardner books? In particular the Blood Line of the Holy Grail and the Magdalene Legacy? These might just explain some the intrepretation that you are either missing or not understanding.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake


Have you read any Laurence Gardner books? In particular the Blood Line of the Holy Grail and the Magdalene Legacy? These might just explain some the intrepretation that you are either missing or not understanding.



he's basing his theory on incomplete understanding of the rest of the scriptures, as I mentioned in the opening post. You can't have a bloodline for salvation that doesn't save gentiles because it isnt scriptural. It was all about the blood of Jesus, remember? If jesus married mary mag, who was a jew as well, both bloodlines would be jewish. if salvation passed to all men/women, physically, that's not gonna be the case if it's specific to the jesus-mary magdalene lineage. for example, the hebrew lineage is all about the genealogy of the hebrews/jews. if it's still about marrying and giving in marriage, the point of having a saviour for gentiles, is lost to the family tree of the jews.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Undo - good work and thanks for the "walking on water" link.

You mention a few things that I'd rather not let slide just because I don't wish to be characterized in that fashion even if I may have given those impressions.

I'm not contending anything at all. I have not drawn conclusions but rather have been considering evidence from all sides. There are some theories and ideas that I find more believable than others but I try not to "take sides" in most of these debates simply because it is not my religion, anyway. I don't have a horse in this race.

I'm not Christian, I'm not anti-Christian - I'm more like a-Christian. I don't have a strong feeling about the spiritual or religious side of it, either way. I like to study the impact of religion on our histories and societies. Many, many people have sacrificed their lives for many different sets of religious beliefs. I use the Albigensian Crusades as a great example for a lot of stuff like this - the Cathars walked willingly into the fire and died rather than denouncing the form of Christianity that they had devoted their entire lives to and the folks tending those fires and killing them all were the agents of the RCC. Each side believed that the other side were heretics and were going to burn in hell for shunning the message of their Christ. It's kinda hard to imagine that both sides were correct, isn't it? Very sad piece of human history.

The only thing I come down pretty firmly on is the idea that people should take the time to do their own research and study all the histories - and I include myths and long-dead religious beliefs among them because many of those were part of the histories that shaped cultures, governments, started wars, formed coalitions and broke them, and entire societies! Every part of that shapes who we all are today so, it is important to people like me who care - I think you probably do, also.

I also have never limited my suspicions of biblical, doctrinal, or dogmatic "tinkering" to only the Papacy. Sure, the RCC is very likely to have been responsible for a lot of it but I would never consider them to be the sole culprits. The other very important point that I did not make is that I strongly believe that some of the so-called "tinkering" was done by very pious and sincere people who felt as though they were doing G-d's will. I can not accept that all of them were correct in their assumptions or that they did a good job of it. I just don't automatically assume any nefarious motives. (BTW - there are some great articles running in major newspapers this weekend about the perspectives that various groups of Christian believers hold regarding formal education for their ministers - that relates to what I'm saying about being "pious, sincere, and wrong")

OK, I lost my original train of thought and ran out of time. I'll come back later and we can continue if you like.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Oh, a subject I can, heheh, RELATE to, since I'm of that bloodline!

NO ONE is descended from Jesus Christ. Jesus never married. His sole purpose was to come here and die for the sins of mankind, and I seriously doubt marriage and family were on His itinerary.

The Merovingians, as they're called, like to believe they're descended from a union with Eve and Satan, as well as Jesus and Mary Magdalene--see, that makes them all big and bad.

I was on a Yahoo group "Merovingian Descendants" and someone e-mailed me a .pdf file that showed that actually, today's royalty is descended from the Trojans, who in turn were descended from Judah and Tamar--but not from David, much less Jesus.

Icke discounts the descent-from-Jesus theory on the grounds that Jesus didn't exist. Icke is wrong there. Jesus DID/DOES exist, but He has no descendants.

The descent from Judah makes sense when one considers the scripture that says that the sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
There is some speculation the Trojans were Celtic. A body of reasearch has grown out of the notion that Homer was misinterpreted and Ithaca was actually in England.



The Author clearly shows that not one of forty characteristics of the City of Troy and the Trojan War plain fit the Mediterranean setting, but they all fit the plains near Cambridge and the Gog Magog Hills, where more than 12 rivers mentioned in Trojan War writings (Iliad) can still be recognised and many hundreds of bronze weapons have been found and dated to the time (c.1200 BC)


link



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
There is some speculation the Trojans were Celtic. A body of reasearch has grown out of the notion that Homer was misinterpreted and Ithaca was actually in England.



The Author clearly shows that not one of forty characteristics of the City of Troy and the Trojan War plain fit the Mediterranean setting, but they all fit the plains near Cambridge and the Gog Magog Hills, where more than 12 rivers mentioned in Trojan War writings (Iliad) can still be recognised and many hundreds of bronze weapons have been found and dated to the time (c.1200 BC)


link


thanks for the link! here's a smiley for you! Fascinating topic.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Contentious

Would the brainchild created by the confusion and suffering this system has generated be considered a hybrid?


Well now there's the rub: If you read the words of Jesus, He advocated peace, love, charity, hope and faith. That we humans don't seem to be very good at following His teachings, has nothing to do with the validity of them. Think about it.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:55 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.


The angelic offspring were alive after the flood in the form of giants like before the flood, the king of OG and Goliath are examples. Wonder if maybe there is some undocumented breeding going on. And how can an angel (spirit being) mate with a flesh and blood human anyway? I understand what God can do (He made everything and the rules of physics do not apply) but the angel can only do what God allows, that goes for the the fallen ones too.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
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.

not necissarily. if you were following someone around for years, would you talk about normal things, or about abnormal things? back then it was custom for young jewish men to be married. to not be married was looked down upon, even. so why mention a marriage if it was so normal?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join