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

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I will remain agnostic (so to speak) in this thread on the issue of Jesus having children and this being kept secret, more or less, by the PTB forever.

The part of this story that has never made a lick of sense is the "Sacred Bloodline" piece.

As the people who understand genealogy and genetics discuss in the Presidential Bloodlines Thread on ATS, if you have European heritage the odds are pretty overwhelming that you are descended from Charlemagne. Some tremendous portion (lets avoid argument & a red herring for this thread and say "more than half") of Europeans and Middle Easterners are descended from Mohamed. If we further consider that Charlemagne is an ancestor of ~80% of Europeans today, a true "bloodline" descended from Jesus must now certainly include something approaching 100% of people with any European and Middle Eastern heritage.

How on earth would the theoretical Priory deal with that? Maybe they just pass on the Official HeirTM like the Kingship; father to son, throw in an oldest daughter when necessary etc. Still the "sacredness" and uniqueness of these folks, who probably at this point would have theoretically as much "Jesus Blood" in them as you, gentle reader, makes the whole project suspect.

The message and secret part is understandably interesting. The “sacred bloodline” piece is a little monarchist and, almost certainly, not a bloodline unique to an heir.




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by raven bombshell
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


I think some people just can't wrap thier head around Jesus having even marital relations with a woman. It is modern society that imposes the weight of "sin" to the sex act. I cant see the logic that it is an act of "molestation" for two grown married people to have intercourse and produce offspring either. I dont see the correlation of the father having sex with his child. It doesnt follow logic. Im not saying that I believe Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married or that this is anything more than a theory. Just for the sake of argument, I agree that it would not be "sin" for him to marry and have kids and if he is the Messiah it would not make Him any less a Messiah.
edited for spelling

[edit on 12-4-2008 by raven bombshell]


It's simple, Jesus Christ = God in the flesh = did not sin = Defeated the dark prince.

Sex with one of his children would be a sin.

Why do you not get that? You make it sound like Jesus was not God in the flesh or something? Why would you degrade the Lord like that?



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join