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.

 

The Secret Family Of Jesus: Research thread

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I recently watched a UK channel 4 documentary entitled The Secret Family of Jesus by Dr. Robert Beckford. In it he discussed how one of the Church's biggest conspiracies is to deny the existence of Jesus family, primarily his two brothers James and Jude, sisters and others. They were the proponents of the original, so called 'Jewish Christianity', based in Jerusalem before the fall of the temple, and their followers died out after around 300 years to be replaced by the Christianity based in Rome under Constantine, founded by Peter and Paul.

The documentary discusses many interesting points and I would highly reccomend viewing it if you can get hold of a copy.

An interesting document discussed in the program is the Didache. This is one of the earliest known christian documents (c. 50-180AD), only rediscovered in a greek library within the last 150 years. It contains some of the earliest descriptions of Christian teachings and traditions. Particularly interesting is chapter 9 concerning the Eucharist, in which it mentions nothing of transubstantiation, and even more controversially, refers to Jesus as a 'servant' of God rather than as God. Multiple translations are available through the wiki page linked above.

The issues raised in the documentary were also covered in the book The Jesus Dynasty: Stunning New Evidence About the Hidden History of Jesus by James D Tabor. I haven't got a copy yet but will in the near future.

A quick search of the site did not bring up matches for the documentary or the Didache, so I thought it would be a valuable topic to begin to research.

Peace.




posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
My only problem with these kinds of ideas is, why would peter and the other apostles keep quite about it?

I mean, if they thought that jesus was god, wouldn't they, if anything, want to pay close attention to his family? And even if they felt that they had more authority than them, why wouldn't they mention it, if they are true beleivers?

As far as Constantine, he comes into the picture far too late to make a difference either way, I would think. By his time, the bulk of the christian world had accepted the jesus was the son of god, and recognized a core of gospels as legitimate.

As far as the didache, it says that there was some support for it amoung the early church fathers as being legitimate, so perhaps it doesn't contradict the orthodox idea of christ as god then (since the people that accepted it didn't reject christ as god). And now that its been rediscovered, apparently even teh RCC has accepted it as an important Apostolic writting.

As far as transubstantiation and the divinity of jesus, it says on the wiki that the Didache commands people to be baptised in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. It also tells people to say the Our Father three times a day.



[edit on 4-1-2007 by Nygdan]

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Nygdan]

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Nygdan]

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Giordano, there is also a good book related to this subject that you should read. Its called The Jesus Papers by Michael Baigent. He is one of the co-authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. In it he chronicles Jesus' families migrations throughout the middle east area.

As far as the church covering up things, you can count on that. The Bible itself is a combination of selected scriptures, not all of those written at the time. The church is famous for selecting what they want to include and exclude. You never hear about all of the children of Adam and Eve in the bible as well. If it were true that Adam and Ever were the first man and woman (literally), then why didn't the Bible specifically mention how Cane incestually had children with his own sister. Could it be that this was once included and then removed for what the church believed was good for the people? Likely. Its also interesting how the full book of Enoch mentioning the Nyphilum was not all included as well. Its as shame that many of these scriptures will forever be locked away and what we do have access too is certainly not the whole of the lot. That is tucked away in some Vatican safe spot somewhere or was destroyed long ago.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Just scouting for a few initial sources:

Daily Mail Article



According to Monday's programme, Jesus did have a hidden family, but they were not a wife and daughter - rather his brothers and sisters: James, Joses, Simon, Jude ( sometimes referred to as Judas), Salome and young Mary.




For evidence that Mary had other children besides Jesus, he points to the Gospel of Matthew, the first book of the New Testament.

This describes Christ preaching at the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth where the citizens question his claim to be the new Messiah.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joses, Simon and Judas?" they demand. "And are not his sisters here with us?"
- (Matthew 13:55)

at least four different documents written by reputable historians of the time, but not included in the Bible, suggest that Christ wanted his eldest brother James, and not Peter, to lead his church.

This is clear from the writings of Hegesippus, a respected early chronicler of the Christian faith, who is believed to have lived between 110AD and 180AD.

"The succession of the church passed to James, the brother of the Lord," he said.




In the year 62AD, James was stoned to death on the orders of the Jewish High Priest of the temple in Jerusalem, who was jealous of his influence.

Just five years later, the Romans captured Jerusalem and destroyed the great temple itself, robbing James's followers of their headquarters and the focus of their faith.


I'm quoting too much, its all in the article I linked to, just wetting your appetites. I think this is worth a look into.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Oh I agree infinate. I just think this one is particularly relevant. I have no wish to attack anybody's faith but I also wouldnt like to see a huge section of society being willingly misled. I expect maximal opposition to this one, it would take a whole lorryload of evidence for christians to accept this, which is good as the evidence will need to be compelling. Even at the end of the docu Robert Beckford says he still believes Jesus is God because of a personal experience he had.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Interesting. The text apparently also says, for the eucharist

en.wikipedia.org...
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

So thats interesting that it is calling jesus the vine of david, and that the ritual involves wine. I don't think that it saying jesus is the servant of god means that he is explicitly not hte son of god.

Its a little perplexing a to what it means by we've had the vine of david made known to us through Jesus though. Is it saying that the vine is the link to david, and thus jesus being the messiah, and what we know is the benefit of the christian religion? Rather convoluted though, to say 'we came to know jesus through your servant jesus'.

The rest of the wiki section has some interesting quotes concerning the symbolism of the wine.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
so what difference would it make if joseph and mary had their own kids?
it is probably likely that jesus had brothers, the sons of Joseph, whereas Jesus was the son of God. Wouldn't make any difference.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Its a matter of catholic doctrine that jesus had no brothers or sisters and that mary was a virgin throughout her life. If there were other siblings, it would mean she wasn't, and that would have implications for catholicism and other christian sects.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I've been sort of looking at this since Giordano Bruno brought it to my attention in another thread. One explanation I've seen regarding the Holy Vine of David is that it represents God's covenant with David.

I think that fits nicely. See, I'll change the words to read that and it makes perfect sense. If you aren't Catholic.


We thank thee, our Father, for the Covenent of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
The Catholic scholars who believe in the siblings suggest that Joseph may have had a previous marriage and that James, Jude and so on, were Jesus' half brothers. I'll try and find a link but it does sound like a cop out allowing both things to be true.

I'll have some time tonight to do a solid bit of online research. Any help from those that have read "The Jesus Dynasty" or "The Jesus Papers" would be appreciated. I'm gonna check out my local library this weekend. Too poor for buyage!

[edit on 5-1-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
There is a section in the Daily Mail article relating to your question of the 'vine of David' Jewish prophecy fulfillment:



For 2,000 years, the traditional Christmas story has related how Jesus was born in Bethlehem near Jerusalem, after Mary and Joseph travelled there from Nazareth to register for a Roman census.

However, Bethlehem is 90 miles away from Nazareth, and Dr Beckford questions whether a woman who was nine months pregnant could really have undertaken this arduous four-day journey on a donkey.

He points out that there is another town called Bethlehem which is in Galilee. In 1992, building works there revealed the ruins of a 6th-century church - built on top of the kind of natural cave in which many scholars believe Christ was born.

Since this Bethlehem is only four miles from Nazareth, Dr Beckford believes this cave is more likely to have been the genuine site of the Nativity, but that the church fathers had good reason to suggest that Christ's birth took place in its now celebrated namesake instead.

In this, they were fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy which stated that the new Messiah would be a descendant of King David, and this meant he had to be born in the same town as David - in the Bethlehem near Jerusalem.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join