Author Topic: Descendants of Christ?  (Read 103096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #15 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.


Moonlight_Densetsu

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #16 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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Moonlight_Densetsu »

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #17 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)

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #18 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.


helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #19 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  :).

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2005, 09:06:28 AM »
What about Jesus' mother, Mary. Is she on the painting?  

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #21 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.

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #22 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"

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #23 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...

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #24 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.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #25 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.

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #26 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 ;)

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2005, 12:03:27 PM »
Quote
While alive = family disapproval
After death = "how can we cash in?"
= human nature ;)


Ouch!!  :o  ;)

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #28 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?


Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: Descendants of Christ?
« Reply #29 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.