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.

 

Are Royal Families really chosen by GOD?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Trying to stay in the same vein.

Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that the theories brought up in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and more famously "The DaVinci Code" were true, and that the bloodline of Jesus Christ, had somehow survived. (again, we don't have to agree... simply for the sake of discussion)

If someone could somehow prove to be a descendant from this line... could they rightfully claim the "divine right to rule".

I bring this up because I have read that some royal lines (mostly european) have claimed this exact justification for their "divine right" to rule.

the Billmeister




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 

was looking in google and this came up, I have faith that the ats crowd has provided more information on it that you will desire to absorb...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I still think that this is the purpose of the data bank of the mormons....
they are so into searching the records, and into the geneology, could they be looking for it?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister
Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that the theories brought up in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and more famously "The DaVinci Code" were true, and that the bloodline of Jesus Christ, had somehow survived...
If someone could somehow prove to be a descendant from this line... could they rightfully claim the "divine right to rule".

I've never understood this idea.
The belief in the divinity of Christ is based on the assumption that he died on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended in heaven. Therefore having no children.
If he "survived" and had descendants, then the reason for believing that he was divine disappears.
If he was not divine, then there is no reason whatsoever why any of his descendants should have any royal rights.
Either way, the concept of "descended from divinity" doesn't apply.


I bring this up because I have read that some royal lines (mostly european) have claimed this exact justification for their "divine right" to rule.

None of the historical European houses could have made this claim, because they were all following the traditional Christian assumption that Jesus died on the cross.



edit on 21-1-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar



Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." The thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them." First Samuel 8:4-7



kind of sounds to me, that the kings existance is the result of man's desire to reject god as the ruler. so, well, kind of refutes the idea of devine right to rule, god would prefer another way, but we just rejected that way.
but, well, back to weather or not they believe it...


God pulled a fast one on them here. He allowed a king of the people but the destroyed that line and set up His own. And He did set up his own line with the House of David. To depute this just to ignore the whole story.

And remember he had told Jacob long before Samule 8:4-7 that many kings would come out of his line. So God saw this comming and made room for it long before He was rejected.


Gen 35:11 And God said to him, "I am God Almighty ; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body.


This was said at least 500 years before Samuel. So these Kings were preordained.
edit on 21-1-2011 by Logarock because: sp



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Yeah I read I just thought it was funny, everyone coul use a little humor.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I still think that this is the purpose of the data bank of the mormons....
they are so into searching the records, and into the geneology, could they be looking for it?



Wow, that was pretty lazy of me... I did not think of doing a simple search right here on ATS!?! (sorry about that)
But, thanks for directing me there, it looks like there is plenty of interesting information to digest in that thread.

Very, very interesting point here as to the Mormon's almost obsessive passion for genealogy... food for thought indeed.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Billmeister
Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that the theories brought up in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and more famously "The DaVinci Code" were true, and that the bloodline of Jesus Christ, had somehow survived...
If someone could somehow prove to be a descendant from this line... could they rightfully claim the "divine right to rule".

I've never understood this idea.
The belief in the divinity of Christ is based on the assumption that he died on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended in heaven. Therefore having no children.
If he "survived" and had descendants, then the reason for believing that he was divine disappears.
If he was not divine, then there is no reason whatsoever why any of his descendants should have any royal rights.
Either way, the concept of "descended from divinity" doesn't apply.


I bring this up because I have read that some royal lines (mostly european) have claimed this exact justification for their "divine right" to rule.

None of the historical European houses could have made this claim, because they were all following the traditional Christian assumption that Jesus died on the cross.



edit on 21-1-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


I tend to agree, and that is why I emphasized the "let's assume" part.

As was pointed out in earlier posts, the fact that a royal family would use this as justification does not make it true, but could have been an effective means of convincing subjects that they should be, well, subjugated.

The theory, introduced in the aforementioned books, was that Jesus Christ would have had impregnated someone (in this case of these books, Mary Magdalene) before being crucified, and it was through these descendants that the bloodline continued. And I emphasize once again, we definitely do not have to believe this, but it make for an interesting addition to the discussion at hand, nonetheless.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Yeah I read I just thought it was funny, everyone coul use a little humor.


Very true... humor is great medicine!

Have a great day.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister
Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that the theories brought up in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and more famously "The DaVinci Code" were true, and that the bloodline of Jesus Christ, had somehow survived...

As was pointed out in earlier posts, the fact that a royal family would use this as justification does not make it true, but could have been an effective means of convincing subjects that they should be, well, subjugated.

I don't know of any evidence, outside that kind of book, that any historic royal houses really were making this claim for themselves



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister
reply to post by Logarock
 


Trying to stay in the same vein.

Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that the theories brought up in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and more famously "The DaVinci Code" were true, and that the bloodline of Jesus Christ, had somehow survived. (again, we don't have to agree... simply for the sake of discussion)

If someone could somehow prove to be a descendant from this line... could they rightfully claim the "divine right to rule".

I bring this up because I have read that some royal lines (mostly european) have claimed this exact justification for their "divine right" to rule.

the Billmeister



Here is the main reason to me anyway that this is a problem. Christ was foretold as the Branch. The word is closer to a shoot or sprout....not a line. A sprout out of the line of David from the stem of Jesse. Jesus is not refered to as a trunk. Not being funny here. David and Jesse are called root, trunk. Jesus a tig or shoot. Branch here is an overtranslation in my HO. His fruit refered to is spiritual fruit not a new bloodline. I can say with almost total certainty that if Christ were to have children and they were to become a line then at some point God would have said something about it and said as much by calling Jesus a more proper word like trunk or root.

There are several other good reasons why Jesus having children that could make a claim are just so problematic that God would never have messed up Christs work in this way.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 
I agree with answer number 3. our ancestors("our" meaning the monarchies of britain, france, and spain many years ago) used this idea of divine right to convince the general public to believe in their authority. since the majority of medeival europe was poor and uneducated, they really didn't know any better.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


your post is treason, no bow to your queen and ask her to spare your life so that you may serve her in work and labour.

i refuse to become a canadian citizen because i will not take the oath to give my life to a queen and become one of her servants.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by albinoblacksheep92
reply to post by Billmeister
 
I agree with answer number 3. our ancestors("our" meaning the monarchies of britain, france, and spain many years ago) used this idea of divine right to convince the general public to believe in their authority. since the majority of medeival europe was poor and uneducated, they really didn't know any better.


Religion has been used as a tool to control people throughout history, so I guess it was just the most convenient one.

I still would have loved to be a fly on the wall, let's say when prince William was a child...
"Daddy, why are those people starving down there, and I get to play with my 24ct diamond encrusted hotwheels?"

Was a "santa claus explanation" used (i.e. a white lie for children, which would later be explained at adulthood)?

e.g. (to the child) "You are very special, in fact our whole family is very special in that GOD has chosen us because we are better than all of them."

(upon adulthood) "I know, but heck, as long as the suckers down there accept it, why not, right?... hey, up for another game of smashing bottles of 1834 Chateau Lafitte?"

I am honestly curious as to what THEY really think. Let's face it, if you are taught, from the day you are born, that you are better than everybody else because GOD wanted it so... well, maybe you will just believe it. Especially when your whole environment keeps confirming it. (in a material scope at least)

the Billmeister

edit on 21-1-2011 by Billmeister because: remove smiley face that snuck in there



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Billmeister
 


your post is treason, no bow to your queen and ask her to spare your life so that you may serve her in work and labour.

i refuse to become a canadian citizen because i will not take the oath to give my life to a queen and become one of her servants.


Eh, were all subject to someone... at least I can outrun her if she tries to come at me with her royal sceptre!
(She's got pretty short legs compared to Obama)

I have never made that oath, because I am a natural born citizen, but you are right immigrants and elected officials do make an oath... to serve and honor Her Majesty the Queen. Funnily enough their oath says nothing of the Canadian citizens. Very archaic really.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Being descended from a Royal Family many times removed, I would have to say no. Like one poster said, a lot of these families came up the ranks on their own merits. Usually by might or by the use of their intelligence. I guess one could argue that god gave these families their attributes, which in turn allowed them to seize power by might or mind. If most people traced back their ancestry far enough they would be related to a Royal Family.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 



Are Royal Families really chosen by GOD?

Maybe, but which god?




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Chosen by god is a crock of BS, I have respect for my elders but that only goes so far as they are respectable, though I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. I have often found myself in trouble for treating people who are allegedly our superiors like everyone else.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Since there is no god, I would go with the milking it for as long as she can option. I mean wouldnt you? She really does nothing anyway.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
HELL NO!!! they are in power because morons let them be and their families have always been since the fkkrs came here....



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join