Thread: Divine lineage?

Originally Posted by Peach_follows

My question is What do you think about this thoery of Christ being a lover, husband, and father?
If, somehow this were proven to be the case, or if there turned outo be substaintial evidence supporting it.... How could that change the face of Christianity, as we know it today?

These were the questions in the thread starter. Never did it say I wanted to debate about weather or not this was real. The purpose was for you to discuss your opinion and then take a "what if" stance and think about howChristianity might be impacted if the theory purposed by The Bloodline was real. Y'know... use your imagination?

The question you asked was answered as being essentially unimportant. The question about the Bloodline Movie being true is what is at issue. Asking about "Christ being a lover, husband, and father" is not the same as asking if the movie the Bloodline is true. You stated it could have bearing but in order to discuss it you need to provide evidence and facts about it. Not only didn't you do so you reacted to anything that contradicted it with "it's not absolute proof so it's believable". No matter what you believe you are arguing for it's truth by discarding out of hand evidence against. Not discussing, discarding. We aren't picking on you we are asking you to actually give some facts that can be used to judge any impact of this movie or reasons it should even be believed other then "it's not disproven yet."

Originally Posted by Peach_follows

Infact I went and wrote you directly in your profile so as to calrify further that I AM NUETRAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I would welcome information that is fact based. I wouldn't hesistate to tell you you're right.... but I have to KNOW you're right first.

There is no comment in my profile in either location. As for evidence consider this; not only is there huge holes in the "evidence" when you come down to it the entire theory tetters on the Priory of Scion being real. Yet the current owner of the original papers that are supposed to prove it's existence had them dated and was told by an expert they were only 40 years old. Think about it.

Oh and as for your three answers?

1. If the scripture discussing the marriage is of Christ he was serving wine throughout the day to all who attended. A man who could afford such extravagances would not have to use a common clay cup for the ceremony itself and to do so would be insulting.
2. Old paper becomes brittle even under the best of circumstances and has to be handled very carefully.
3. You never actually addressed the grammar and quality of handwriting which I actually found several references too due to experts having already made public statements on it.

In other words historical evidence by experts is resoundingly against. Now how about addressing the hard ones such as second burial and their credibility or why we should even bother to give them another thought?

I am willing discuss theory... (however that wasn't really what I was getting at in the thread). If you think the questions I asked are unimportant... then you really didn't have to respond. I didn't intend to disreguard your evidence... I intended to disreguard it AS PROOF. Now theory is entirely different. That I will discuss, but we have to all agree it theory... The minute you start reffering to theory as proof is when It starts to get frustrating. I admited to you already that one site, I found had quite convincing theory's. But they are THEORY none less. I ddn't get defensive untiil you insisted it was proof. My hang up (why I am aruing this so strongly) is not because I am in belief of this film... I am arguing because I don't feel you've shown proof... just evidence. Your evidence negates the film. And it does a fine job of negating... however nothing you've shown really PROVES the film is a hoax.

Oh and I meant psychical's profiile.....

Now, If either of you would like to discuss theory... Iim game... But I really have no strong opinions about theorys... The most I can say with conviction is that I'd imagine it would've been normal for Jesus to desire marriage and children... thusly I wouuldn't be surprised iif he married.

As to weather the film iis TRUE... I really cant say Im convinced of anything.... No one has really bothered to ask... but, Im on the fence. The entire time I watched it I was both excited about the possilities. And... in utter dissbelief. It seemed to good to be true. And I rushed to my internet directly after watching to see if they had actually provided real proof. Since they have not... The film may as well have been fiction as far as I'm concerned. If they did show proof... Id be elated. And if its a proven hoax... I'd be disgusted.

PS... please excuse type-os... I really am having keybord issues.

Originally Posted by Peach_follows

I didn't intend to disreguard your evidence... I intended to disreguard it AS PROOF.

Where the "Priory of Scion" is concerned?

1. The "Secret Files" that are supposed to provide proof were deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale in the 1960's by a Pierre Plantard who was on record as creating make believe secret societies during WWII and afterward was convicted of fraud.
2. In 1956 he created a new one he named for a local mountain "The Priory of Sion".
3. Ten years after that he wrote up a list of grandmasters and filed it as well.
4. There is no evidence of it existing previously.
5. The history cited in parts of his documents did not actually happen.
6. The parchments that were "found" to back it up quotes the Vulgate bible printed in 1889 even though they were supposedly found centuries earlier.
7. The current owner of the parchments had them dated and was told they are "maybe 40 years old".
8. He also has a handwritten signed document by the forger saying how he did it.

I was going to say short of a signed confession from a man who is dead you have the best proof you are going to get but there is one after all. Yes Peach_follows, proof. I am going to use the word and feel perfectly justified.

Now someone is building again on a fabrication and selling it to make money. After all money makes the world go round.

Oh I read all that. In some of those sites and the book previously mentioned.

And I did also say previously, that I knew Plantard was a fraud and a lunitic (In some peoples opinion.) But I wa not aware that we were discussing Plantard or the Priory per say. I thouhgt what we were discussing was the proof of weather or not Jesus married and had kids.

Also, apparently Plantard isn't the only lunatic. Because there IS a Priory of Sion... Weather it be named after a mountain where Plantard grew up... or not. And it has exsisting members. Though who knows how many. And, they believe in a bloodline.... Or at least thats what they want the world to believe.

And I am also well aware of previous fraud that relates to a bloodline. But, because people have falsified parchments and commited fraud... in order to try to convince people that there is a bloodline... I don't know If -I- would say that proves ther ISN'T a bloodline. It just means those people are liars. And what they have done is fraudulent. Even if the film is revealed as a hoax (something that would not surprise me although to my knowledge that has yet to happen). I still dont know that it means Jesus has no decendants. If I told you I could prove there was a God... because he writes me letters everyday. I would be lying... But does that mean there is no God?

Im only concerned with the bottom line. And that is weather or not there is decendants of Jesus... I don't see how that has been proven or disproven. Right now... it is just a belief some people have... and some people don't. I certainly wouldn't find it any harder to believe than alot of stuff I see written in the Bible. Infact to me ... it makes alot of sense that he would reproduce.... But, somehow even proposing that sparked some heated disscussion. Yet, alot of the people who would refute the belief that Jesus married and reproduced... are the same people who believe that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the dead.

Ah, well as I said before that is two separate subjects. The fraud on the one does make any new "evidence" in a similar vein completely unusable to support either view however.

Personally I can believe that he was married but I am skeptical about his having children. Why? Because while if you study the culture at the time you can find evidence of cousins, siblings, parents, and a wife in the scriptures there is absolutely no hint at all of a single child. In fact there is evidence that the wasn't any in the story of Mary and Martha, how else would she have had time to listen? (Speaking as a parent and knowing just how much of your time kids take up.)