Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Stuarts of Scotland => Topic started by: Alicky1872 on February 03, 2005, 05:41:14 PM

Title: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Alicky1872 on February 03, 2005, 05:41:14 PM
I just finished watching a fascinating documentary about the search for the Holy Grail, and the theory that it may not have been a grail at all, but a bloodline. Some people believe that Jesus and Mary Magdeline were married and had a child. I remember reading somewhere that the Stewarts believed they were descended from Christ. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 03, 2005, 05:44:45 PM
Did you read 'The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail'?...It's quite convincing but not convincing enough IMO. The Scottish Chapel, (Rosslyn?) may hold some mysteries but I don't think they're really to do with Christ's descendants. It's all to do with the Templars (I live near a Templar estate!!) & the treasures they found in Jerusalem. It's a bit sensationalist IMO.  
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Mandie, the Gothic Empress on February 03, 2005, 05:47:54 PM
Quote
I just finished watching a fascinating documentary about the search for the Holy Grail, and the theory that it may not have been a grail at all, but a bloodline. Some people believe that Jesus and Mary Magdeline were married and had a child. I remember reading somewhere that the Stewarts believed they were descended from Christ. Can anyone shed some light on this?


That really cool, I have seen it to. The Child's name was Sarah....
with means Princess, I think?
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 06:01:57 PM
This theory has been around for a long time, and has recently been brought into the mainstream by The Da Vinci Code... It's interesting, but I seriously doubt it  ;).
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 03, 2005, 06:02:43 PM
I agree with you AGAIN, Helen!
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 06:37:32 PM
Also, I heard somewhere that it wasn't just the Stuarts, but it was all European royalty supposedly descended from Christ (according to the Holy Grail theory). I think that this was the justification as to why they were put on this earth to be rulers or something like that...
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 03, 2005, 06:45:22 PM
Well, there you go...absolutely convincing ;D
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Alicky1872 on February 03, 2005, 06:56:42 PM
The documentary (shown here in the UK on channel 4) was actually called The Real DaVinci Code. It basically disprooved ALL the myths. The host, Tony Robinson believes that there is no Holy Grail because it was the invention of a French novel writer in the Middle Ages. Then he talked about the legend that Mary Magdeline came to France with her child, supposedly a little girl named Sarah (Hebrew for Princess) but even that theory was disproved. Two women by the name of Mary DID arrive in France around that crucial time, but Mary Magdeline was not one of them, and Sarah was actually their servant girl.

The book 'The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail' was discussed a lot, but it turns out that the bulk of theories the book was based on, are a load of rubbish, invented by a French con-artist.

The one thing that REALLY got me, was the actual painting of the Last Supper by DaVinci. Look closely at "John", the "man" sitting Christ's right side. Looks awfully like a woman to me....could it be Mary Magdeline?  ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 03, 2005, 06:59:25 PM
No...it's not! I've seen that too! Many da Vinci paintings are similar...besides which da Vinci was centuries after Christ! And the Sang Real (Real blood etc.) I'm absolutely convinced...after reading all that and Rennes le Chateaux etc...that's it's all trying to put a slant onto something that isn't there.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 03, 2005, 07:34:52 PM
It was the practice in the very early days of "divine right"  for the royals of most countries to have manufactured genealogies taking their lineage back to the Old Testament.  David was a favourite, but even earlier prophets & priest as well. Some of the more creative included the Egyptian pharoes and Roman Caesars.  Of course these were all fallacy-propaganda to shore up their various claims and they could NOT claim a descent from Christ himself without incurring heresy charges from the Church.
Much as the Japanese monarchy claims descent from the goddess Amateratsu, a unique communion "with the Gods".
Today, the Islamic monarchies with the most respect claim direct descent from the Prophet Mohammed and can generally prove it. [not that such claims give them any more stability on their thrones]
So, some fiction of a descent from Christ would not really be surprising and the go-along mysticism and dramatics [interpretations of various arcane images] is nothing at all new.
Cheers !
Robert
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Georgiy on February 03, 2005, 08:31:22 PM
Absolutely no way. No descendents, no blood line, unless, of course you count all of us who partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ through Holy Communion.

Da Vinci's style of painting is of course very good, but the reason why John looks maybe feminine (apart from stylistic reasons), is that Apostle John was a young man, and has thus traditionally portrayed beardless.
But Renaissance and post-renaissance religious painting, beautiful as much of it is, is quite different from Iconography, esp. as models are used - so a painting of the Madonna is really rather a painting of So-and-so posing as the Madonna, whereas traditional iconography uses traditional images passed down for centuries.

Annointing of the Sovereign is an ancient tradition, and if memory serves me right is found in the Old Testament. In the Christian Church it is a bit like a Mystery (the Orthodox term for what the western churches would call a Sacrament) - and is like a blessing from God for the sovereign to be the ruler. The Tsar was annointed; Queen Elisabeth was too.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 03, 2005, 08:36:11 PM
I have the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".  While I don't necessarily believe all that is says.  Basically it chronicles the Meroviginian Dynasty of Ancient France, & the Priory Of Sion.  The Prieure de Sion is a fraternal organization whose sole aim is to see the descendants of Christ...RESTORED to their thrones in Europe, this would include the sovereigns of France, the current monarchs of England, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden,  and the deposed monarchies of Germany, Italy, Roumania, etc...all monarchies who share the descendancy of Queen Victoria to Mary Stuart, and back to Charlemagne, and the Meroviginian Dynasty, and of course the search for the Holy Grail.... All going back to the idea that Mary Magdalene bore the child of Jesus Christ, and left the Holy Land in fear of persecution and landed in France by boat.  

NOTE: This is just a theory.  NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE.
Yes these descendants would include Alexandra Feodorvna.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 08:37:13 PM
Yes, it makes sense...
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 11:13:41 AM
Quote
This theory has been around for a long time, and has recently been brought into the mainstream by The Da Vinci Code... It's interesting, but I seriously doubt it  ;).


Yes,  PBS had a very interesting program about the Da Vinci Code.

And, in the Holy Blood, Holy Grail, it shows a genealogy chart showing how Queen Victoria's lineage that goes way back ....

I don't have the book here so someone else will have to tell us the "top line", which I think is the House of David.

Isn't it great when new books which are fictional or non-fiction can cause a new stir in something old but interesting?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: TJ Jones on February 13, 2005, 12:12:07 AM
I think I heard somewhere that the Imperial Family of Ethiopia were descendants of Christ.


TJ
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 13, 2005, 08:18:26 AM
Quote
I think I heard somewhere that the Imperial Family of Ethiopia were descendants of Christ.

It seems that many royal families claim to be the descendants of Christ, in the meantime chances are, Chris had no descendants.

Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: TJ Jones on February 13, 2005, 01:03:51 PM
Well actually I just found out it wasn't Jesus their descendant from, its the biblical King David.I just found this great website on them.So its not Denmark with the oldest monarchy its Japan and Ethiopia.


TJ
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 13, 2005, 09:34:20 PM
Quote
Well actually I just found out it wasn't Jesus their descendant from, its the biblical King David.I just found this great website on them.So its not Denmark with the oldest monarchy its Japan and Ethiopia.


Well, historically, we are not even 100% sure that King David ever existed, so it's hard to say...  8)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 13, 2005, 09:48:54 PM
Quote
The one thing that REALLY got me, was the actual painting of the Last Supper by DaVinci. Look closely at "John", the "man" sitting Christ's right side. Looks awfully like a woman to me....could it be Mary Magdeline?  ;)


Maybe!  If not, it certainly *should* be, as that would have been her place, next to Jesus.

Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 09:04:30 AM
Quote
The one thing that REALLY got me, was the actual painting of the Last Supper by DaVinci. Look closely at "John", the "man" sitting Christ's right side. Looks awfully like a woman to me....could it be Mary Magdeline?  ;)


Well, it could have been MM in DaVinci's mind, but this still doesn't mean that this was the way it really was. After all, this is a painting and not a photograph  ;).

BTW, did DaVinci ever portray, within that same theme, any men without beards before? If this is the first time a man was painted by him without a beard in that theme and time period, then maybe that confirms that DaVinci meant it to be a woman...
But again, that doesn't mean that it real life this is how it went.
IMHO, in reality, in all probability there would have been women at the "last supper" table, as this was the Passover Seder in which women would most definitely be taking part (if there were any women with them). What we have seen in DaVinci's paintings, and many others, are artists' renditions of what they thought the last supper looked like, what it really looked like was probably something completely different, based on history and tradition, that is  :).
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 14, 2005, 09:06:28 AM
What about Jesus' mother, Mary. Is she on the painting?  
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 11:05:10 AM
Quote
What about Jesus' mother, Mary. Is she on the painting?  


Do you mean The Last Supper by DaVinci? As far as I know the only person that's being questioned in this painting is possibly Mary Magdalene.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 11:06:30 AM
Quote
What about Jesus' mother, Mary. Is she on the painting?  


Not according to anything I've ever read, either traditional art history or speculative.

Which would make sense, since Mary, mother of Jesus was not a big fan of what her son was doing during his "ministry."  It was only after his death that his family climbed aboard the bandwagon of the "Jesus movement"
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 11:31:45 AM
Quote

Which would make sense, since Mary, mother of Jesus was not a big fan of what her son was doing during his "ministry."  It was only after his death that his family climbed aboard the bandwagon of the "Jesus movement"


Yes, that's right. From what I understand, Jesus's family, including I think his mother, were not too thrilled with what he was doing, in fact I think they even thought he was slightly "touched in the head" for his preachings. Mary, his mother, didn't make it a habit of hanging out with him and his desciples therefore, so I doubt she would have been at the Seder that night. After Jesus's death, I think there may have been a lot of embellishment of his family's involvement with his group, but in reality I think it was pretty minimal...
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 11:45:52 AM
Quote

Yes, that's right. From what I understand, Jesus's family, including I think his mother, were not too thrilled with what he was doing, in fact I think they even thought he was slightly "touched in the head" for his preachings. Mary, his mother, didn't make it a habit of hanging out with him and his desciples therefore, so I doubt she would have been at the Seder that night. After Jesus's death, I think there may have been a lot of embellishment of his family's involvement with his group, but in reality I think it was pretty minimal...


Yes, apparently they were concerned that he was frankly embarrassing the family and wanted him to stop.  There is evidence his family attempted to (in first century CE terms, mind you) have him committed.

No doubt there were embellishments, but there is little question that Jesus' brother James became the leader of the group of followers after Jesus' death.  Even Peter was at times more than a little intimidated by James, who of course saw himself as the natural successor, while Paul felt no qualms whatsoever confronting and even challenging James and his "posse."  It seems the two did try to keep their distance from one another, though.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 11:49:04 AM
Quote

No doubt there were embellishments, but there is little question that Jesus' brother James became the leader of the group of followers after Jesus' death.  


Yes, but I think this may have been after Jesus's death, I am not sure how involved James was with Jesus's group while Jesus was still alive.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 12:02:07 PM
Quote

Yes, but I think this may have been after Jesus's death, I am not sure how involved James was with Jesus's group while Jesus was still alive.


Well, if you read my posts you'll see that is precisely what I was talking about.
While alive = family disapproval
After death = "how can we cash in?"
= human nature ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 12:03:27 PM
Quote
While alive = family disapproval
After death = "how can we cash in?"
= human nature ;)


Ouch!!  :o  ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 14, 2005, 12:32:10 PM
Quote

Not according to anything I've ever read, either traditional art history or speculative.

Which would make sense, since Mary, mother of Jesus was not a big fan of what her son was doing during his "ministry."  It was only after his death that his family climbed aboard the bandwagon of the "Jesus movement"


What evidence do you claim for this statement?
If it is the ONE episode in the Gospel where His family come looking for Jesus & the one line which follows about fearing He was out of His mind, I could cite many many other examples from the Gospels which show Mary at His side.
You might say the Gospels were propaganda in which case why include that line?

Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 01:22:41 PM
Quote

What evidence do you claim for this statement?
If it is the ONE episode in the Gospel where His family come looking for Jesus & the one line which follows about fearing He was out of His mind, I could cite many many other examples from the Gospels which show Mary at His side.
You might say the Gospels were propaganda in which case why include that line?



Don't have time to go look it up, but my guess is that line is from Mark, which is the earliest of the "gospels" and the most blunt and direct.  "Mark" was writing in about 70 CE, which is *after* Paul was already writing and reporting how James and company had formed the "Jesus movement".  The other two synoptic gospels are quite obviously tidied up and embellished upon versions of Mark (and Mark's source: J) (Matthew = legalistic, genealogic, Mark = fairy tale)

Have you ever taken the three synoptic gospels and compared line by line? Well worth the effort and answers the sorts of questions you've asked.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 14, 2005, 01:36:20 PM
Yes, I have compared & studied the synoptic Gospels & I know of the history of how they were written, their sources etc.
I am aware of the big rows between Peter & Paul & James and so on.
But I simply do not think there is any evidence to suggest that Mary was not supportive of Jesus throughout His life.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 01:54:50 PM
Quote
Yes, I have compared & studied the synoptic Gospels & I know of the history of how they were written, their sources etc.
I am aware of the big rows between Peter & Paul & James and so on.
But I simply do not think there is any evidence to suggest that Mary was not supportive of Jesus throughout His life.


There is in the non-canonical texts.  Ever wonder *why* they are NON-canonical?
In order to have such a discussion though you absolutely must leave *faith* out of it.  I respect that you are a religious person, but because of that factor I don't think we can really engage in any serious dialogue on this subject.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 14, 2005, 01:57:03 PM
Quote


In order to have such a discussion though you absolutely must leave *faith* out of it.  I respect that you are a religious person, but because of that factor I don't think we can really engage in any serious dialogue on this subject.


I think that is a very reasonable answer  :)
I agree.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 02:37:37 PM
Interesting thread.  I have read HB HG after reading the Davinci Code.  Good read, although the Priory of Sion was a total hoax.  I had forgotten the connection to MQOS....Will have to dig out my books and join you....

And Dashkova is right.  This needs to be discussed on a purely academic level.  By bringing in faith it makes it difficult to bring forth an argument without offending someone.  And I have copies of the non-canonical scriptures if we need them for quotes....
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 14, 2005, 04:52:37 PM
I think I should stay well away from this thread & you will be pleased to know I will neither read nor reaspond to it! :) :)
UNLESS by any chance, anyone uncovers anymore of the mystery of Rennes Le Chateaux which is all connected ...Shepherds in Arcadia etc....??
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 05:54:29 PM
Quote
I think I should stay well away from this thread & you will be pleased to know I will neither read nor reaspond to it! :) :)
UNLESS by any chance, anyone uncovers anymore of the mystery of Rennes Le Chateaux which is all connected ...Shepherds in Arcadia etc....??


Don't you DARE stay away!!  :)

And what is the story with Rennes le Chateau?  Other than HB HG I can find very little on it.  It may all well  be a very mundane story at heart, but all the arcane meaning people tend to give it makes it irresistable to me!!
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 14, 2005, 06:01:10 PM
Quote

Don't you DARE stay away!!  :)

And what is the story with Rennes le Chateau?  Other than HB HG I can find very little on it.  It may all well  be a very mundane story at heart, but all the arcane meaning people tend to give it makes it irresistable to me!!


I really feel I should. You & Dashkova are quite right - FAITH makes it impossible to share this discussion without it becoming too emotive. (It isn't that I doubt either my faith or learning - it's something else, I can't put into words. I feel it too deeply. Truly.)

Rennes le Chateau/chateaux (can't quite remember) is a mystery however that is intriguing....
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 07:01:23 PM
Quote

I really feel I should. You & Dashkova are quite right - FAITH makes it impossible to share this discussion without it becoming too emotive. (It isn't that I doubt either my faith or learning - it's something else, I can't put into words. I feel it too deeply. Truly.)




I have faith.  However, I always feel that the more I know about Jesus the man and the time he lived and struggle over which books to become canon the better.  All these things help me to see more about who Jesus was and what his message truly meant.  I like to learn all sides of a story and as I process it I can discern the truth of the matter.  For myself, I need to find proof of Jesus the man to make his sacrifice and salvation as Lord so incredibly meaningful.  

And the discussion can be emotive--just realize that nothing is a personal attack and understand that others have a different way of acknowledging faith (or whatever beliefs they have--we are a very eclectic online community of spititual beliefs and nationalities).

Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: rskkiya on February 14, 2005, 08:33:33 PM
    So sorry to be the real toad in the imaginary garden but I fear that all the "Holy blood Holy Grail/ Da Vinci code" chatter is just a lot of sillyness...
   HBHG was concocted by some individuals who were rather "occult conspiracy" oriented  and had been duped by a french con man {The Priory of Zion}. "The Da Vinci Code" is in my poor opinion, a rather dreadful spy/fantasy work--I was deeply disapointed by the steriotypical characters and the very predictable 'plot twists'! :-[ :-X
    When people long for simple answers to complex ethical questions - it's not too surprising that these sort of books - tapping into western societies vein of quasi-mysticism and occult conspiracy- that end up attracting attention.
Secret Societies? Ancient Bloodlines? Hidden Images?

Cha Ching!

mean old rskkiya 8)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 08:41:41 PM
Quote
   So sorry to be the real toad in the imaginary garden but I fear that all the "Holy blood Holy Grail/ Da Vinci code" chatter is just a lot of sillyness...
    HBHG was concocted by some individuals who were rather "occult conspiracy" oriented  and had been duped by a french con man {The Priory of Zion}. "The Da Vinci Code" is in my poor opinion, a rather dreadful spy/fantasy work--I was deeply disapointed by the steriotypical characters and the very predictable 'plot twists'! :-[ :-X
     When people long for simple answers to complex ethical questions - it's not too surprising that these sort of books - tapping into western societies vein of quasi-mysticism and occult conspiracy- that end up attracting attention.
Secret Societies? Ancient Bloodlines? Hidden Images?

Cha Ching!

mean old rskkiya 8)


LOL! I agree completely Comrade R :)  I was VERY disappointed with the DaVinci Code (and even the very title is pathetic as nobody called Leonardo "DaVinci", ever!)

And yes, Denise, studying the historical aspects of the *possible* life of Jesus definitely changes one's perspective.  I was never in my life entirely convinced by the church (despite my parent's best efforts), but learning the history, particularly the non-canonical books and the fact of the matter that Jesus was one of a *number* of similarly-styled "sons of God" "sons of Man" (he actually went by *both*  :-/) that were running around that part of the Roman Empire in those days -- certainly understandable as such people were a reaction to the hated Roman rule.
Jesus, if he even was an individual, is just the one who got all the press, most of which I doubt very much he would have wanted (including the building of a religion around him).
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: rskkiya on February 14, 2005, 08:48:19 PM
Hello Comrade Dashkova  :-*

I have also read that the gentleman we refer to as Jesus (Joshua?) may well have been a composite figure based on a number of Prophetic/Messianic figures wandering about Isreal at that time.

rskkiya
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 14, 2005, 08:49:31 PM
No big surprise that I am in with the both of you. I got so tired of listening to my own "crowd" running on about the blasted thing that I bought the unabridged cassette version. Listened to all 13+ hours of it and still do not see wat all the excitement was about.  I guess it may make a good movie, but that is about it. Now I am supposed to read the prequel ?? Not much of a chance of that, I tell you. I feel for the StarWars  epic, that will be enough of pre-post an just plain "quels" for me. [ok, I did LOVE Lord of the Rings, but it was in sequence].
The Jesus story, oh, I have been through THAT fire before as well, from BOTH in inside and outside of the Church.
Good luck !

Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 08:57:59 PM
Quote
   So sorry to be the real toad in the imaginary garden but I fear that all the "Holy blood Holy Grail/ Da Vinci code" chatter is just a lot of sillyness...
    HBHG was concocted by some individuals who were rather "occult conspiracy" oriented  and had been duped by a french con man {The Priory of Zion}. "The Da Vinci Code" is in my poor opinion, a rather dreadful spy/fantasy work--I was deeply disapointed by the steriotypical characters and the very predictable 'plot twists'! :-[ :-X
    


I agree!!  The whole priory of sion stuff was crap.  I did enjoy the historical overview about the cathars, Knights templar etc, but you need to filter out the Sion stuff.  

And as far as Jesus as a figure goes, there is a book called "One Jesus Many Christs" that talks about how the figure of Jesus and his life was filtered through the Greek hero/God stories and took on aspects of those myths in order to appeal to  the gentiles and Romans so that the religion did not die out.  Very interesting stuff.

As far as the DaVinci Code--I enjoyed reading it, and it really led me to read a lot more of the Gnostic history and scripture.  I can't be sorry about that.  
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 09:00:36 PM
Quote
Hello Comrade Dashkova  :-*

I have also read that the gentleman we refer to as Jesus (Joshua?) may well have been a composite figure based on a number of Prophetic/Messianic figures wandering about Isreal at that time.

rskkiya


Yeshua may well have been a composite, we don't know for sure, though it is entirely reasonable that an individual with that name and doing those sorts of things did exist.  Certainly there were plenty of his type, as you said, wandering around Galilee and even into Jerusalem.  Yeshua was a follower of another of his type, the man we know as "John the Baptist".
We'll probably never know for sure, which is too bad, as it is such a fascinating topic
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 09:05:54 PM
Quote

I agree!!  The whole priory of sion stuff was crap.  I did enjoy the historical overview about the cathars, Knights templar etc, but you need to filter out the Sion stuff.  

And as far as Jesus as a figure goes, there is a book called "One Jesus Many Christs" that talks about how the figure of Jesus and his life was filtered through the Greek hero/God stories and took on aspects of those myths in order to appeal to  the gentiles and Romans so that the religion did not die out.  Very interesting stuff.

As far as the DaVinci Code--I enjoyed reading it, and it really led me to read a lot more of the Gnostic history and scripture.  I can't be sorry about that.  


I had high hopes when I bought the book last summer to take to the beach. I was rather let down.  As light, fluffy, beach reading it's fine and dandy, at times even a page turner, I guess, but sheesh...the guy doesn't know squat about art history (again, even the title is wrong), and there was one section that annoyed me a great deal (taking more than a dozen pages to get to the point -- as though it were a huge revelation -- that "sophia" means "Wisdom".  Well...duuuhh.  The author apparently has not much respect for the educational background of the reading public as he seemed to think he was being *very* clever with the sophia bit).
The book suffered from plenty of "cheese" factor as well, and the ahem..."ceremony" was kind of..well, it's been done to death in other literary incarnations, hasn't it.
The ending was weak, too. Eh....I gave my copy away to a relative, who died a week later...I would say it might have been the book but I *did* also give her a copy of "Girl With a Pearl Earring", which is quite nice (though the only decent book by that author, imo).
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 14, 2005, 09:24:37 PM
ohhhh, what a tacky terminal read !
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 09:37:51 PM
I listened to the DaVinci Code on book-on-tape while commuting in my car, and initially had high hopes for it too, because several people ranted to me about how good it was. I was very dissapointed as well. There was nothing new in it, the plot was so predictable, and in general I found the book quite boring  :(. It was almost as bad as The Romanov Prophecy (but not quite  ;)).
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 14, 2005, 10:34:12 PM
That is why I listened to it. I knew I could never finish actually READING a thing like that.  [out the window  real fast!]
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 10:49:55 PM
LOL...seems we have a consensus here. :)

One other thing that *really* bugged me was how once this book became **so** hyped and "popular" ALL these books popped out of the woodwork, claiming to explain the significance of the DaVinci Code.  Some titles that were *kind* of related are good, scholarly works (I confess to enjoying Elaine Pagels) that I had read before, but now that early Xianity is a "hot" topic, well...it just put me off completely.  I have always loathed whatever is "popular."

These days I'm reading lots about Hinduism and other Eastern faiths. A nice change!  I'll go back to MaryM and Yeshua and the gang after the hysteria dies down ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 14, 2005, 10:58:43 PM
Having gone so many of the others, I have been  into studying Islam for several years, long before it became of interest politically.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 15, 2005, 10:40:40 AM
Quote

I have faith.  However, I always feel that the more I know about Jesus the man and the time he lived and struggle over which books to become canon the better.  All these things help me to see more about who Jesus was and what his message truly meant.  I like to learn all sides of a story and as I process it I can discern the truth of the matter.  For myself, I need to find proof of Jesus the man to make his sacrifice and salvation as Lord so incredibly meaningful.  

And the discussion can be emotive--just realize that nothing is a personal attack and understand that others have a different way of acknowledging faith (or whatever beliefs they have--we are a very eclectic online community of spititual beliefs and nationalities).



I'm not getting involved again, don't worry! I just want to respond to Denise :)
I know you're right & it IS good to learn as much as we can. I studied theology for my degree (as I said before) & I found the first 3 years of it completely disillusioning which led me into all kinds of bother (in every area of my life) in the end.
It took a great deal to restore it & much of the restoration of it came through personal experience not through  learning. In retrospect the learning WAS very useful & I do still like to learn more. But I find it hard to discuss without it becoming too emotive.
So now I will stay away - I'll probably read it but I promise not to 'but in.'  ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Denise on February 15, 2005, 02:26:46 PM
Quote


I know you're right & it IS good to learn as much as we can. I studied theology for my degree (as I said before) & I found the first 3 years of it completely disillusioning which led me into all kinds of bother (in every area of my life) in the end.
It took a great deal to restore it & much of the restoration of it came through personal experience not through  learning. In retrospect the learning WAS very useful & I do still like to learn more. But I find it hard to discuss without it becoming too emotive.



I COMPLETELY understand.  I'll see you in the funny papers (or at least on another thread!!  ;))
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on February 15, 2005, 04:27:24 PM
Quote

I COMPLETELY understand.  I'll see you in the funny papers (or at least on another thread!!  ;))


Thanks ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on June 30, 2005, 09:29:59 PM
I still think the most reliable source on the Holy Grail is Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or even Spamalot.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on July 01, 2005, 05:35:04 AM
Quote
I still think the most reliable source on the Holy Grail is Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or even Spamalot.


Oh absolutely!! The holy rabbit of Antioch  ;D ;D far more realistic than the Descendants of of Christ!
(Btw. 'Your father was a hamster & your mother smelt of elderberries!")
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 01, 2005, 09:13:22 AM
Well I blow my nose at you, you silly English knights!

I'm going for Spamalot now because it has dance numbers. :)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: bluetoria on July 02, 2005, 06:34:50 AM
Quote
Well I blow my nose at you, you silly English knights!



Hmph!!!

"It's a busy life in Camelot,
I have to push a pram a lot!!
Bravely Sir Robin rode forth, o brave, brave, brave Sir Robin...."
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 02, 2005, 10:20:31 AM
Ohhhhhhhhhhh my god I can give you the lyrics to the whoooooooooooooooole show if I so desired...

His...name...is...Lancelot
And in tight pants a lot
He likes to dance a lot...
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on January 28, 2010, 06:49:33 PM
I have the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".  While I don't necessarily believe all that is says.  Basically it chronicles the Meroviginian Dynasty of Ancient France, & the Priory Of Sion.  The Prieure de Sion is a fraternal organization whose sole aim is to see the descendants of Christ...RESTORED to their thrones in Europe, this would include the sovereigns of France, the current monarchs of England, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden,  and the deposed monarchies of Germany, Italy, Roumania, etc...all monarchies who share the descendancy of Queen Victoria to Mary Stuart, and back to Charlemagne, and the Meroviginian Dynasty,

My biggest annoyance with the recent Holy Grail hype wasn't all the conspiracy theories themselves, but the fact that the authors and commentators did not eleborate on how exactly any bloodline of Mary Magdalene and Jesus got into the Merovingian dynasty (the legend that their ancestor Merovech was the product of a queen and a sea-monster fits somewhat, but not quite, least of all with regard to the sexes) or, just as crucially, what the link between the Merovingians and Carolingians was! As far as I can see some speculative links have been deduced from genealogies trying to glorify the ancestry of the Carolingians, but the truth is that it wasn't very spectacular and any blood link with their predecessors the Merovingians is rather dubious.

It seems that the Holy Grail people just throw out the term "Merovingian" like some magic spell that suddenly links everything, when in fact the Merovingians went extinct, at least in the proven, official line. This lack of a link actually made me appreciate the theory that the Carolingians formed an alliance with Papacy: They got the throne of their former employers, the "sacred Jesus descendants" Merovingians and the crown of the empire that executed Jesus, while the Papacy got the threatening, proto-feminist, anti-authoritarian form of Christianity represented by the Jesus-Mary Magdalene union banned as a heresy, Mary Magdalene branded as a whore and replaced with the Virgin Mary.

Either way there is no Jesus bloodline to modern royalty. His descendants must be either some Occitant ex-Cathar peasants in the south of France (the whole subject's ties with Occitan nationalism is extremely interesting, I think) or some illegitimate descendants of the Merovingians. And they could be anyone. (Just like anyone in Europe can be a descendant of Charlemagne.)

In my opinion the whole matter in most aspects primarily concerns France, "the eldest daughter of the Church" and the very land of Madeleine. (What exactly was it that Proust remembered when he dipped that madeleine cookie in his tea.....?) And it concerns the regicide that is one of the defining moments in French history: If Louis XVI was a descendant of Jesus, isn't that kind of heretic? I mean, not executing him, but his very being. The idea that Jesus, our dear humble carpenter-god, had descendants who became less than humble kings and emperors of the empire that executed the Son of God, is just wrong! That would make Christianity no better than all kinds of pagan religions where gods were the ancestors of the powers that be. (I wouldn't really have any theological problems with Jesus and Mary Magdalene being a couple and having children, as long as those children were not divine, but just ordinary carpenter's kids.)

If, on the other hand, Louis XVI was a descendant of a bloodline that had ousted the true descendants of Christ by making a diabolical deal with the power-hungry Whore of Babylon (i.e. the Pope), well that would also justify putting an end to the treacherous Carolingian-Capetian line. (Then comes the issue of exactly how genealogically linked to the Carolingians the Capetians were. And whether the fact that Louis XVI was "the locksmith on the throne" is an illusion to Jesus, artisan and King of Jews.) The whole regicide theme could also be extended to Charles I of Britain and NAOTMAA, as they also were descended from Charlemagne.

It's an entertaining, mostly fictional synoptical rebus of our whole occidental heritage, I think: Just like the linguistic rebus at the heart of the subject: Is it san-greal or sang-real...
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: DonnaSue on June 23, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
LOL Interesting, hadn't heard the descended from Jesus story before. ah well, like my mother has always said... we can't be sure of much. Who's to say who someone really 'was' other than to take it at face value. Only DNA could prove that, and we don't know if descendent x, y or z was actually a product of a stable boy and passed off as otherwise. ;)
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: DonnaSue on June 23, 2010, 04:04:26 PM
I meant to say ancestor, not descendant. argh
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Mandie, the Gothic Empress on June 25, 2010, 04:39:51 PM
Even though I'm Christian

 but hey he was in 30s when he was Crucified so I see why not if he had descendants.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Velasco on September 16, 2010, 06:54:46 AM
I believe the early Capets married descendants of the Merovingians, so that would be the link, but obviously proving Merovingians were descendants of Jesus Christ's secret love child is a bit more complicated. God-on-Earth having kids to rule the thrones (the very thrones he himself refused because an earthly kingdom wasn't what he was about), I dunno, doesn't ring true for some reason.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: capttrips on November 29, 2010, 09:06:36 PM
I hate to be pushy, mean, or authoritative, but,

It is an Article of Faith Jesus was the only Child of a Virgin Birth, and, Mary remained a Virgin ever afterwards!

He did however, have cousins, one of whom (Saint Jude Thadeus) had heirs who are the Hereditary Patriarchs of the Catholic Church in India [NB Herediary Patriarch means at least one priest must marry!  But no priest of the Latin Rite may marry, and no other married priest may attain the rank of Bishop!

Did you know, there are basically 7 Popes, all in communion with one and another?  Giving Primacy in the Papal Claims to the Bishop of Rome, to arbitrate!

http://prinzheinrichreuss.org/home.html

Prinz Heinrich von Reuss can surely tell you about it.  How did such heresy ever start?  Some bastard king no doubt!

[Edit]  There are seven Churches founded by the Apostles, and together form the Catholic or "Universal" Church--Each has a Patriarch, which means Pope.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Kalafrana on November 30, 2010, 08:24:59 AM
Having read 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' I can confidently say that it is tripe!

Medieval dynasties routinely claimed descent from gods. All the anglo-Saxon dynasties except that of Essex claimed to be descended from the pagan god Woden (the Essex dynasty claimed descent from the otherwise unknown god Seaxnot). Following their conversion to Christianity, the dynasty of Wessex tacked on an Old Testament descent for Woden and traced their lineage back to Noah.

Incidentally, the Ethiopean dynasty claim descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

Ann
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: capttrips on December 01, 2010, 11:01:54 PM
Not all bold claims are heresy:  Just anything to do with descent from Jesus and his mother.  I hear all kinds of crazy things about my Kuhns--most crazy of which is Paul had a disciple who wove tents, and that is how the Church in Rome first made its money.

I believe nothing but what the Church tells me to believe.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Mandie, the Gothic Empress on March 08, 2011, 04:25:10 PM
^ Its better to follow your heart and senses to believe then what someone tells you to believe in.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 08, 2011, 05:09:36 PM
I believe the early Capets married descendants of the Merovingians, so that would be the link
No, they married descendants of the Carolingians. Nobody has been able to prove that the Merovingians didn't go extinct.

Quote
God-on-Earth having kids to rule the thrones (the very thrones he himself refused because an earthly kingdom wasn't what he was about), I dunno, doesn't ring true for some reason.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Descendants of Christ?
Post by: Mariel on November 24, 2011, 12:48:40 AM
There were actually two versions of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" the book.  The first one had a detailed genealogy, but my copy was destroyed in the Los Alamos fire of 2000.  I wanted to reread it while I was studying Stuart genealogy, and so I bought another copy, which was a total rewrite and had no complete genealogy in it.  I lost the second copy in a move, and was not sorry to lose it, as it was an inferior rewrite, and I thought at the time it was written to accommodate two theories, one the new Da Vinci Code theory, and the other theory that a certain man from the continent was the actual pretender to the Stuart throne (the latter having later been shown to be a complete fraud). 

I feel there probably are people living (many) who are descendants of Jesus' family.  Roman Catholics believe Mary had no more children after Jesus, but Protestants believe there were several brothers and at least two sisters, since the gospels refer to his "sisters" plural.  Catholics think these are cousins rather than sisters.  The most prominent brother was James, who became head of the church at Jerusalem, and who apparently was not a follower of Jesus before His resurrection.  If these were brothers and sisters rather than cousins, it seems very likely there were descendants, at least a few, although the church was persecuted in the time of James, and James himself was killed.

So I think that even if Jesus had no children, He probably had nephews and nieces.  So there you have a "bloodline" of sorts.

I do not think it negates Jesus' divinity if He married and had children.  The big problem would be, in my thinking, that there would be children
who were not holy at all, and who would use their descendancy to lord it over everyone, which God could not have allowed.  So if He had children, this would have been top secret.  And never have leaked out in such second-rate versions as the Da Vinci Code.  His children would not be holy in the sense that He was, not being divine, but just human.  Jesus had both a divine and a human nature, but these children would have only human natures, even if they had noble natures.

Concerning the descent of the British royals from ancient Israel, it is traced through an Irish queen who was one of two daughters of Zedekiah who escaped slaughter when the sons of Zedekiah were murdered by the invader.  The legend is that the Prophet Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch
took the girls away.  They went to Egypt first, where one of them married another Jewish royal person--they being both descended from Judah,
and the princess being descended from King David.  This prince whom she married took her back to Ireland, where there was already a Jewish
community of long standing, and there they ruled from "Tara".  This legend states that Jeremiah is buried there in northern Ireland, and I have an
on-line Christian acquaintance who states that he has visited the grave of Jeremiah, which is available for all to see. 

The second daughter of Zedekiah to escape from Israel is said to have settled in Spain and married there.  The names of these girls have been given variously, so I am not sure which is the correct form.  "Tia Tephi" is mentioned, but also "Zara", which is the name of Princess Ann's daughter---did Ann choose  this name remembering a legend? 

Eleven per cent of Irish people in Ireland are said to have Haplogroup J1c on their mitochondrial descent, linking them to both Jews and Arabs of ancient times, underlying the overarching non-royal story that there was a group of Jews who migrated early to Ireland.    My maternal haplotype is J1C2b, which I found out through a genetic study done by a Stanford-related group.  My mother was Irish, and was a part of this particular
group.  This is not a royal descent, no claim there.

The Stuart family came to Scotland through England (Shropshire) where they lived for a couple of generations after crossing the channel--they had been "prime ministers" of Dol in France.  Then they moved on to Scotland, being forced out of England by politics and warfare in the fight
over the succession of  William the Conqueror.  Were they originally of that group which came through Ireland?  I think it is possible.  But there were other families in Scotland, including the Stuarts, who signed the Treaty of Abroath in the l4th century and claimed they had arrived in Scotland through the migration from Scythia to the Holy Land, to Spain, to Ireland, and on to Scotland.  Complex, with many families involved.  But that is some of the background of how the Stuarts claim descent from King David of Judah.  They many have a slightly different version, but
that is the outline.