Kanye to The banner

What if Jesus Christ actually does have a bloodline with living descendants?

7.3K views 195 replies 99 participants last post by  KidAkbar  
#1 ·
The main elements of the theory are that:
Jesus had a child, probably a daughter, with Mary Magdalene, with whom he was married.
The descendants of this child became the Merovingian kings of France.
The Church has suppressed the truth about Mary Magdalene and the Jesus bloodline for 2000 years. This is principally because they fear the power of the sacred feminine, which they have demonized as Satanic.
A secret order protects these royal claimants because they may be the literal descendants of Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene, or, at the very least, of King David and the High Priest Aaron.

This secret society known as Priory of Sion has a long and illustrious history dating back to the First Crusade starting with the creation of the Knights Templar as its military and financial front.

The Priory is led by a Grand Master or Nautonnier. It is devoted to returning the Merovingian dynasty, that ruled the Frankish kingdom from 447 to 751 AD, to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem.

The Roman Catholic Church tried to kill off all remnants of this dynasty and their guardians, the Cathars and the Templars, during the Inquisition, in order to maintain power through the apostolic succession of Peter instead of the hereditary succession of Mary Magdalene.

A variation on the theory is that instead of dying on the cross, Jesus fled to Kashmir where he died in old age, returning to Srinagar where he had originally been influenced by Buddhist teachings.

This theory is lent credence by close comparisons of Jesus' sayings in the Gnostic Gospel of St Thomas, which are seen by some as closely paralleling classical Buddhist Sutras.

The theory also has parallels with other "disciple flight to distant lands" stories, such as the journey of Joseph of Arimathea to England after the death of Jesus taking with him a piece of thorn from the Crown of Thorns, which he later planted in Glastonbury

:khaled:
 
#102 ·
Black Smith said:
This is actually a very common misconception. The Bible actually states that she was possessed by seven demons (in our modern world, this would mean she was severely, drastically mentally ill) and that Jesus healed her of this affliction. It is no wonder at all that she was seriously devoted to him from that point on. I don't necessarily believe she was his wife but it does lead credence to the theory.
What does that have to do with her apparently being a prostitute?
 
#104 ·
drdre said:
What does that have to do with her apparently being a prostitute?
She wasn't.

There's nothing in the actual canonical source texts (or even in the noncanonical texts) that say she was a prostitute. Like I said, that was a misconception. All we know of her is that she was severely mentally ill, which in that time would have meant genuinely ostracized (trust, no man in their right mind would be willing to approach someone like this with sex on the brain), and that Jesus cured her.

It's been argued that Mary Magdalene's being traditionally (but inaccurately) deemed a prostitute was actually a part of a deliberate smear campaign against her by some of the original male-dominated twelve apostles, who wanted to delegitimize her status as being among Jesus' closest disciples (again, lending credence to the marriage theory, although I for one don't believe it's quite as simplistic as all of that).
 
#122 ·
TOWTTG said:
Jesus of Nazareth is a true historical figure. Whether you believe the Christian interpretation or not is your choice...
it hasn't been proven 100%, most historians just think there probably was a person around then but there is zero references to him close to when he was alive in the area, no records, no archeological evidence backing any of it up. the fact that no one even wrote about Jesus until 100+ years after his "death" is pretty suspicious on it's own. there are so many claims made by the gospels that are proven not to have happened. the main reason people conclude there probably was a person is because he was born in Nazareth, and the messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. if there was some rabbi who made it up he would probably want him to fit the criteria of the messiah
 
#123 ·
10wolf said:
it hasn't been proven 100%, most historians just think there probably was a person around then but there is zero references to him close to when he was alive in the area, no records, no archeological evidence backing any of it up. the fact that no one even wrote about Jesus until 100+ years after his "death" is pretty suspicious on it's own. there are so many claims made by the gospels that are proven not to have happened. the main reason people conclude there probably was a person is because he was born in Nazareth, and the messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. if there was some rabbi who made it up he would probably want him to fit the criteria of the messiah
I'm gonna educate you. The oldest gospel was written 30 years after his death. Paul went on his missionary trip throughout Greece not long after his death and we have records to prove that. All four gospels were written before the first century after AD 30 and there are a few more sources outside the bible of Jesus existence.

The reason there aren't a lot of records is because people were illiterate back then and the NT was written in Greek to appeal to the literate class first.

Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" because people back then were referred to their hometown or occupation and didn't have last names. He grew up in Nazareth but it doesn't mean he couldn't have been born in Bethelem. The Gospels tell a story about they were there.
 
#124 ·
WakeUpMr.West said:
I'm gonna educate you. The oldest gospel was written 30 years after his death. Paul went on his missionary trip throughout Greece not long after his death and we have records to prove that. All four gospels were written before the first century after AD 30 and there are a few more sources outside the bible of Jesus existence.

The reason there aren't a lot of records is because people were illiterate back then and the NT was written in Greek to appeal to the literate class first.

Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" because people back then were referred to their hometown or occupation and didn't have last names. He grew up n Nazareth but itbdoesbt mean he couldn't have been born in Bethelem. The Gospels tell a story about they were there.
that is very debatable, there are conflicting sources on it but I think it was between 35-40. I don't see how it could have been written before the destruction of the temple which was 70 AD. the Josephus reference is one of the only references to Jesus there is outside of christian sources and even that was from stuff he heard not eye witness.
 
#125 ·
10wolf said:
that is very debatable, there are conflicting sources on it but I think it was between 35-40. I don't see how it could have been written before the destruction of the temple which was 70 AD
The Gospel of John, the last one to be written doesn't have to conflict with that. The story was purely about Jesus. There were a handful more written after the first century that's not canon but doesn't fit the narrative of the earliest ones unlike the Gospel of John.