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.

 

French Bloodline

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Alright given my minimal knowledge I will try to ask some questions....my god this is going to be pathetic:

Wasn't that French guy who claimed to be a modern day descendent of Christ proven to be a fraud? What's the deal with the whole French Bloodline thing? Is there any proof what-so-ever regarding it? In you're opinion could there be a descendent of Jesus Christ?




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Yes, there could be a modern-day living descendant of Christ. And yes Mr. Plantard was proven to be a fraud, but many other details of the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" may still be valid and have not been disproven.


Link to information on the book...

Information on the Merovingians




-- Boat



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Are there any theories as to what the last name might be? As Plantard is a fraud.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
OOps... I thought this was a thread on a French Bread line.


There are alot of hispanics named Jesus ( heysus as they pronounce it) so perhaps his decendants are Latinos.

I'm still thinking about french bread ... Yummmmm



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mental Natural
Alright given my minimal knowledge I will try to ask some questions....my god this is going to be pathetic:

Wasn't that French guy who claimed to be a modern day descendent of Christ proven to be a fraud? What's the deal with the whole French Bloodline thing? Is there any proof what-so-ever regarding it? In you're opinion could there be a descendent of Jesus Christ?


Actually think about it.

Christ has a child.

His child has 5 children.

Those 5 children have on average 5 children each (you had alot of children back then) So lets say every generation more then doubles the past generation. Those original 5 grand daughters and grand sons of christ would have 25 children. 2,000 years? .. About 1 new generation every 20 years. Thats about 100 generation.

So, computing that, and im HORRIBLE at math..

starting with 1 - going to 5 (as a guess)

25 children have 5 children each for 2,000 years or about 100 generations would be like...


Over 39,000,000 people.


There should be quite a bit of decendants of Christ.

In Mongolia it is guessed half the population is decended from Kangas Kahn.

In France it is believed that the majority of French and many many Europeans can even trace in some way back to Charlemain.

6 billion people live in this world now.

2,000 years ago Europes population would have been in the low millions. Every one is in some way distantly related to someone great.


[edit on 1/7/2007 by Rockpuck]

Of course I am not saying 39 million people are decended from him, many would have died, many would have not had children.. and 39million are not souly decended from christ, they would be decended from many other bloodlines to. Someone decended from great kings and Christ could is not at all extraoridinary.

[edit on 1/7/2007 by Rockpuck]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
There are alot of hispanics named Jesus ( heysus as they pronounce it) so perhaps his decendants are Latinos.


Latinos/hispanics are the only people i know who not only name their kids Jesus but also Moses and Angel!!!



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
The whole hispanic/jesus relative concept is just ridiculous....they're just naming their children prolific figures. Although regardless I'm not saying a decendent isn't hispanic.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mental Natural
Wasn't that French guy who claimed to be a modern day descendent of Christ proven to be a fraud?

Pretty much. I think that he claimed to be a descendant of the french throne though, not of christ himself, and that he should be recognized as the leader of France. Later, from what I understand, people started tying up Plantard's priory claims with the idea of jesus not being the son of god and having descendants.


What's the deal with the whole French Bloodline thing?

Most monarchies tended to claim to be descended from biblical figures, and have the special permission of god and jesus to rule as king.

With the french, the claim is that the Merovingians, a frankish (a german tribe that moved into france) barbarian family, married the daughter of jesus. The basis for this is that the merogingians have stories about the franks meeting mermaids, or some such.


Is there any proof what-so-ever regarding it?

Nope.

In you're opinion could there be a descendent of Jesus Christ?

I suppose there could. I don't think we have a single solitary reasonably realiable record of heredity that extends anywhere even near to the time scale that'd be needed to verify that though.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The St. Claire's (or Sinclair's, as we know them) are supposed to be known descendents of the Merovingian line. However, as the senior Sinclair said when interviewed about his alleged royal lineage, "well, the genetics are so diluted now after 2000 years that it hardly matters."
All this brewhaha over Christ having a wife/child was started when author Dan Brown wrote his extremely popular and wildly controversial book entitled, "The DaVinci Code". If you'll look on the first page of the introduction, he clearly states that his book is a work of fiction.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
no, jesus did not have any children, nor was he married. there are much better things that you could waste your time on than this nonsense.

FRENCH BREAD FTMF, hooyah. wal-mart sells french bread for 94 cents per loaf.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
The St. Claire's (or Sinclair's, as we know them) are supposed to be known descendents of the Merovingian line.

According to them, sure.

And, of course, there is no record of who is directly descended from anyone from those times.


However, as the senior Sinclair said when interviewed about his alleged royal lineage, "well, the genetics are so diluted now after 2000 years that it hardly matters."

Sure, that, and that the merovingian line has no claim to anything, anywhere, anyway. They don't even have a claim to the french throne anymore.


All this brewhaha over Christ having a wife/child was started when author Dan Brown wrote his extremely popular and wildly controversial book entitled, "The DaVinci Code". If you'll look on the first page of the introduction, he clearly states that his book is a work of fiction.

FWIW, there are other people, prior to Dan Brown, who proposed the ideas in his book.
What Brown did, and he did a good job of it in my opinion, was to take various disparate conspiracy theories, and weave them together, to make the Davinci Code.


soshootme
no, jesus did not have any children, nor was he married.

While I agree, it hardly serves any purpose to blandly state that without supporting it, or countering the arguements in favour of him having done so. Its just as meaningless, really, as the throngs of people out there that read the Davinci Code and beleive if for, ahem, Gospel Truth.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by soshootme
no, jesus did not have any children, nor was he married. there are much better things that you could waste your time on than this nonsense.

FRENCH BREAD FTMF, hooyah. wal-mart sells french bread for 94 cents per loaf.


Firstly you would have to prove that jesus actually existed and secondly there is no evidence to prove either way if 'jesus' was or was not married or whether or not he had children - on the whole we know very little about the life of 'jesus'. For a young jewish man at the time being unmarried was unheard of.


G



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
For a young jewish man, at the time, claiming to be the son of god and telling people to eat bread because its your flesh, was unheard of too.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Did no one read my post?

It does not make sense that 1 person is the decendant.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
There are thousands of courses of inquiry touched by the comments here so far and there are a few thousand of scholars actively engaged in this kind of serious research as part of (or wholely) their life's work.

The NT stories of Jesus were not, in the opinion of a great many (probably a vast majority) of Christian scholars, intended to be a "history" or the "biography" of the person that they revere as their Messiah. It's pretty much imppossible to try to pick apart or focus in on a few words or lines from the Gospels (even the non-canonical ones) and try to build an accurate history of any person - the writings were never intended to be used in that way. They were delivering a message - not a news account.

It was unusual but not unheard of for Jewish men to remain unmarried - particularly those who had no way to provide for a family and no permanent home or land. The Christian Jesus stories list no home address for Jesus.

Ordinary Jews and the leadership of that day were hoping for, anticipating, expecting, and anxious for the prophesied Messiah who would lead them out of the bondage and persecution of the Roman Empire so, there were quite a few stories of that day circulating about who is/was/could be the Jewish Saviour that they were pretty sure was supposed to be coming just any day. That lead to numerous charlatans as well as many who were probably quite sincere presenting themselves as such and each probably had some kind of following. The story of Jesus, historically accurate or not, is the story of how the Romans dealt with one that grew popular enough to represent a pecieved threat worthy of their notice. Whether the Jewish leaders of the time were somehow involved, as implicated in the Christian Passion story, is as suspect as is every other aspect of the story but, it's certainly plausible if the person in question was not in their favor. But, I digress (just to touch a bit more on the legend aspect).

Sects of Jesusists during the first century believed a variety of stories about the man called Jesus and many of them directly conflicted with each other. We don't have any written record (at least not available to the public at this time) that tells whether this particular Jesus had children and we almost certainly never will. While the speculaton is fun and can lead to an interesting study, there are simply no definitive records.

Written records from any era are kept by the current governing body and, especially in the period up to about 200 years ago (and many would argue that it still happens today) were subject to any kind of editing that might be desired by whomever held the records at the time. I can't recall the specifics but I've read so many historical accounts of some monarch or person of leadership (check out the stuff on the early RCC) having records "doctored" to prove or disprove some lineage to support or refute some claim...all of that just to say that if you had a pristine, perfectly preserved copy of an authentic document of lineage that dated from any time beyond the 1st century, the accuracy of the information would be highly suspect.

The Merovingians, Sinclairs, and countless others may be able to produce convincing stories, legends, widely-held beliefs, or even actual written "official" documents and none of them would be full accepted as the truth by more than a handful of people who really wanted to believe it.

So, it's fun but it ain't history in the strict definition of the word.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I'll try to find some links, i think i may have mentioned this elsewhere but anyways:

There are hundreds and thousands of documents from Jesus' time that are about Jesus. His crucifixion was recorded by roman officials at the time(i'll try to find links), and the Jews as well wrote VERY much about him and recorded things he did.

One of the more compelling arguments is that the Jews recorded and wrote alot about Jesus' acts and miracles. He had become somewhat of their "enemy", threatening to "tear down their church and rebuild it with his own hands" and the such. The Jews that lived during Jesus' time, and that did not convert over to his teachings, NEVER denied the miracles that Jesus had performed. They only doubted that his power came from God, they claimed it came from Beezlebub, or Satan.

All i ever hear is this "the church made all this up to subvert and control the masses" whiney crap. "Its all just a conspiracy".
Add official Roman documents, to Jewish records, plus hundreds of ewitness accounts recorded at the time, and you've got a lot of VERY religious people in on a conspiracy to control people.

You'd be hardpressed to find a well-educated, well-informed, common sensed historian that would deny the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth. I don't see how people can do this.

Its kinda like saying "You can never prove that John Lennon actually existed, and if he did, you still can't prove that he was in the Beatles."

I sense a little anti-christian sentiment. The kind that allows for irrational, come up with any thing to try and disprove them, thinking.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Mmmm..

Actually any honest historian would say that they admit a man lived in the middle east who may have been Jewish and may have been a sect of nazareen (a radical sect, as official documents question whether Nazareth was founded AFTER Jesus died) .. they would admit that this guy was popular, may have been executed and started religion. The Bible was composed long after christ died, so one could question the validity of such accounts, and how well documented and how well note taking was done by the disciples them selves, or if it was hearsay or verbal reminising. The days in which Christianity have been celebrated do NOT match any actual dates. In fact, Christmas was set by an English king a few undred years ago. Easter is actually a peagan holiday. A real historian would also acknowledge that the fables of the bible hold no truths, and of course no originality as almost every civilization before Christianity had some variation of the same stories. A real historian would also recognize that the Bible was butchered miseribly in translation, contorting the meaning behind the words. IMHO



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by soshootme
I'll try to find some links, i think i may have mentioned this elsewhere but anyways:

There are hundreds and thousands of documents from Jesus' time that are about Jesus. His crucifixion was recorded by roman officials at the time(i'll try to find links), and the Jews as well wrote VERY much about him and recorded things he did.
YES links will be required for this one, as far as I'm aware there are only 24 lines of text from non religious texts that even mention a possible christ and even at that not one mention jesus by name except Josephus, which is more than likely a fraudulent addition by christians at a later date.


One of the more compelling arguments is that the Jews recorded and wrote alot about Jesus' acts and miracles. He had become somewhat of their "enemy", threatening to "tear down their church and rebuild it with his own hands" and the such. The Jews that lived during Jesus' time, and that did not convert over to his teachings, NEVER denied the miracles that Jesus had performed. They only doubted that his power came from God, they claimed it came from Beezlebub, or Satan.
Where are you getting this information?????? Do you have access to some sort of christian depository that no-one else has ever seen?????


All i ever hear is this "the church made all this up to subvert and control the masses" whiney crap. "Its all just a conspiracy".
Add official Roman documents, to Jewish records, plus hundreds of ewitness accounts recorded at the time, and you've got a lot of VERY religious people in on a conspiracy to control people.
I must have missed all this evidence in my many years of study


You'd be hardpressed to find a well-educated, well-informed, common sensed historian that would deny the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth. I don't see how people can do this.
WHAT!!!!!! Where do you get your info????


Its kinda like saying "You can never prove that John Lennon actually existed, and if he did, you still can't prove that he was in the Beatles."
Eh no its not!!! We have proof that John Lennon was alive and in the Beatles - jesus, well theres ABSOLUTELY HEEHAW, BUGGER-ALL (Scottish for a polite NOTHING) evidence that proves he existed.


I sense a little anti-christian sentiment. The kind that allows for irrational, come up with any thing to try and disprove them, thinking.
Try sensing some anti-religious sentiment, I dont discriminate between religions. I dont have any 'irrational' thinking to disprove religions, they kind of do that themselves.



G



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
soshootme, hello!

I'm sure you've been told that all these documents exist. Lots of folks have heard about this vast collection of deinitive records and "eyewitness" accounts. So many people believe that so they must be somewhere, right?

I've been told about 100 times about the existence of all this historical documentation that "everyone knows is there" but, so far, I haven't been told where I can actually find any of it outside of the Christian Bible and that one highly controversial passage from Josephus.

Please help me further my education by directing me to where I can find all these records.

Thanks!



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
soshootme, hello!

I'm sure you've been told that all these documents exist. Lots of folks have heard about this vast collection of deinitive records and "eyewitness" accounts. So many people believe that so they must be somewhere, right?

I've been told about 100 times about the existence of all this historical documentation that "everyone knows is there" but, so far, I haven't been told where I can actually find any of it outside of the Christian Bible and that one highly controversial passage from Josephus.

Please help me further my education by directing me to where I can find all these records.

Thanks!

The Vatican archives might be a start! Though you will find it incredibly difficult to get a pass.
Very few get in those doors.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join