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.


Are you related to Jesus?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:07 PM
I mean, if the Da Vinci Code has anything going for it, and the offspring of Jesus ended up in Europe, it's possible that one of your ancestors could be related either through blood or marriage, to Jesus. That's right. You could be walking around with some of Jesus's DNA floating around in you, and you might not even know it. Particularly if you have some ancestors who came from the south of France.

Do you think you have any holy qualities inherited from your great-great-great-great (etc.) granddaddy, Jesus H. Christ?

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:19 PM
The only way its conceivable is if Christ and Magdalene did in actualality have a child. Religious historians will have us believe this never happened, whether it did or not is up to yourself to decide. I would like to believe in the tale, and think that there is a solid blood line that can be traced up to today.

Will we ever know however? No.

This is something that would crush the fundamentals of the daily lives of so many people. A secret this big could never be tossed upon the world. Sometimes the truth is not always the best path.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:40 AM
The Da Vinci Code is pure fiction. Almost nothing in the book is fact.

If you research it, you will discover that great lengths were gone to just to link events (greatly exaggerated events) together for the book to be plausible.

However, we are all related to Jesus in that God created man in His own image and we are children of God. Jesus referred to everyone as brother or sister. He often addressed his mother as "woman".

The first part of my post is fact.

The second part is fact as I see it based on teachings from the Holy Bible and the
Non-Denominational Christian Church.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:39 PM

The Da Vinci Code is pure fiction. Almost nothing in the book is fact.

The descriptions of the Louvre are not fact? What about true accounts of Opus Dei or Secret Societies and their rituals?

DaVinci is a story based on some facts that are left to be interpreted by the reader.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:54 PM
Even if Jesus and Mary Magdalen didn't have children, didn't Jesus have other siblings through Mary that had children?

If so then it is still possible to be related to Jesus.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by chissler
What about true accounts of Opus Dei or Secret Societies and their rituals?

What makes you think Brown's account of the Opus Dei rituals are accurate? Because he says so?

Let's go through some things Brown claims about Opus Dei, what the reality is, and if they mesh.

First, throughout The Da Vinci Code, members of Opus Dei are shown to be monks. That's an element of ritual, I would assume, and Brown claims that all rituals spoken of in the book are true. However, we run into a small hitch here, because Opus Dei has no monks as members. Opus Dei is set up as an organization for everyday Catholics and diocesan priests. There is no Monastic order involved in the organization. Hmm...Maybe that was just a small oversight. Let's move on.

What about Opus Dei's purpose? The Da Vinci Code insinuates that Opus Dei is for Catholics to remove themselves from the secular world in order to know God better (this is, after all, the concept behind becoming a monk). Yet, the purpose of Opus Dei is not removal, but instead,

One of Opus Dei’s central ideas is that lay Christians are called to be fully a part of the modern, secular world, improving it by their Christian witness rather than rejecting and withdrawing from it.


Opus Dei is also spoken of by Brown as a cult or sect of Catholicism, much the same way Lutherans are a sect of Christianity. This, however, is completely false because the Catholic church recognizes and embraces Opus Dei. Doesn't sound like it's a sect at all, but instead an element of the Catholic Church.

According to Brown, as well, when accessing the Opus Dei headquarters in the US, "Men enter the building through the main doors on Lexington Avenue. Women enter through a side street." That's an easily checked fact, let's see what we can find about it...

People, whether male or female, use the doors leading to whichever section of the building they are visiting. The building is divided into separate sections, for the straightforward reason that one section includes a residence for celibate women and another for celibate men. But these sections are not sex-restricted, and it is the women’s not the men’s section that fronts on Lexington Avenue



So Brown blew those facts, why should we trust him when it comes to the "secret" rituals we don't and can't confirm or deny due to the non-existent evidence?

And yes, Jesus had brothers (and possibly sisters), so there ya go. Brown's wrong, but you could still be related

[edit on 5/12/06/12 by junglejake]

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:29 PM
JJ Im not naive enough to believe for a second I could carry myself in a debate over the topic. My knowledge on the topic is limited but Im never scared to offer an opinion.

I was aware that Opus Dei did not have any monks, as I did read that not to long ago. Shame on me for not stating it in my post.

However, we say we can not believe Brown simply because he says something. Well can be believe Opus Dei simply because they say something?

Now I understand its the word of the church against the word of a critic. But (Under the assumption the interviews were authentic) actual accounts of Opus Dei members past and present proclaimed alot of truths to Brown.

Are we to believe that the way the Church portrays itself on the outside is a resemblance of the inside?

However, this thread is supposed to be about the blood line of Jesus.

I have a thread running on Opus Dei here -'

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:30 PM
Apparently 'the world’ needs to have the true account of Jesus' life altered in order for it to be digestible. Although if people would take the time to read and understand the Bible they would find that He led quite a life without these ficticious additions.

Many Bible scholars will argue that Jesus actually had 4 stepbrothers, 2 of which were Joseph's before he took Mary as his wife. These brothers were James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. It is also argued that he had 2 stepsisters, the names of which I have never seen.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by jbondo
Many Bible scholars will argue that Jesus actually had 4 stepbrothers, 2 of which were Joseph's before he took Mary as his wife.

Could you define "many" and name them for us? Reading "many" in that statement gave me the impression of the majority of Biblical scholars, but I know that not to be the case, so I'm wondering what you define as many.

Chissler, my point wasn't just that Brown says it but that doesn't make it true. My point was that there is a lot Brown says that can be fact-checked and proves his initial statement regarding the rituals being factual is false. As such, why should we, when we see the information that we can check is false, assume the information we can't check is true? It's also not just the word of the church against the word of a critic -- it's the word of the church and the 86,000 members (not including the millions that participate in Opus Dei activities) against the word of a few critics. I, personally, have spoken at length with an Opus Dei member about the organization, and have learned a lot. It syncs with some of what Brown says, but in the same way a Mad Magazine movie parody syncs with the actual movie.

(And I'm playing on your thread, too

new topics

top topics


log in