Fringe Theories: The Jesus Bloodline is Get Rich Scam

Fragments from the Jason Calovito fringle blog, Ancient Aliens Reviews where Kal Kat posted. Polished on Freelance Kitty 14.

Kal

01/10/2015 5:25pm

According to the Bible, one of the original sources of Jesus, he wasn't married and didn't have children, and didn't have an affair with Mary Magdeline, because he never sinned. He was married to the church, not to any people. All of the speculation about this bloodline thing comes from the middle ages when the French, or some frenchmen, coopted the idea to make their fraudulent claims sound royal. One of them even put that bs in their museum of history. It is as mythological as the holy grail cup, also from fantasy much later. Jesus wasn't from Europe. He was from Isreal. If someone claims they have a blood connection to Jesus they are nuts, and if someone claims it's spiritual DNA, it sounds like a bad science fiction story. Not all of ya may buy the Bible as literal or anything, but even figuratively there is no record before the middle ages of Jesus shacking up with any women. Then he would have sinned. Now if he had step brothers, which he might have, thone of them could have married, but the kids would have been Joseph's descendants.

Only later in history did they equate Mary Magdeline and the other Mary with the woman caught in adultery. If they're implying she was caught in adultery with Jesus, that would be blasphemous. That is not the case. The actual woman in that story was never named. But there are some later fiction books that claim the story itself was false. This is their way of backing out of it. No, there is no Holy Bloodline.

Kal

01/12/2015 2:44pm

My earlier post was a reply to a four question rant earlier and not connected to the one on the apocrypha, although that is likely where I was going. The other posters addressed the gnostic texts and apocrypha. I didn't need to.

You cannot prove a belief in something, but a belief is not really an opinion. It is my opinion that the bloodline thing is a hoax.

It is my belief that Christ died and was resurrected and did not sin, so did not even marry. It is also not a hoax, as Christianity is not opinion, but a faith, to which there are many followers. It is not self help. It is that Jesus took upon the sins of the world and already saves by grace.

I would not be pretentious enough to ascribe this to you all, since you clearly are somewhere else in your beliefs, and some of you are just trolling, and that is okay.

You can have an opinion that the bloodline is real, but the mainstream, and likely the church, does not think there is anything to it.

'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.' Duluth area nun, 1950s.

Even so, this whole bloodline thing is not a belief or a faith. It is an obvious false hoax. It is a deception. You can argue the rest must be also, but it will not convince actual belief.

Also come now, you expect logic and rationality from a belief, when you could just say believe and then it shall come. Even on the X Files they 'want to believe', but there they meant 'they want it to be true not just an opinion'.

A belief is based on some truth or faith. An opinion is based on some facts but not necessarily proven ones. What we have here is a lot of opinion.

On the Priori of Zion claim post of the week, and the Magdeline post of the same, Kal posted these updates. Jason C. probably didn't mind the trolling.

Kal

01/28/2015 4:26pm

It is all pretty much silly nonsense about this bloodline thing, when one considers that Jesus the Nazerine was from Isreal, not England or France, and didn't look anything like a Roman painting from the Renaissance, but probably would have looked more like an Isreali from Palestine. His bloodline also would defeat the idea of his being divine and unmarried, and all that, but now would be not very shocking. The bloodline thing is also nonsense when it's all tied into other made up stuff garbled from history by fakers and cheats, and people looking to make a buck. Nobody knows what he actually looked like, but in Roman times they guessed he looked like them.

French people guessed he looked like them too. (France was one of the Roman colonies too). Isreal was a Roman colony. They could get away with the rhetoric if they merely said the bloodline was not of Jesus, but of his half brothers. Surely Joseph of Aramathia had other children. It's in there. They would be mortal humans. They would also look nothing like the paintings. But no, these quacks want it to mean something that they're divine. That would be a sign of insanity. Maybe they might want to take some medication for that. But I am not a shrink, so they do not need to listen to me. PT Barnum was right.

This was tied to the Magdeline claim and the finale of America Unearthed. What this has to do with America is debatable. Kal only comments on the Mary parts. Heh, parts.

Kal

01/28/2015 4:38pm

I'd guess it was confusion. In ancient Isreal, Mary was as common a name as Sarah or Brittney is today. Even in the Scriptures, there are three Marys in the New Testament gospels. One of Mary Mother of Jesus, another Mary, of Magedeline (her location in Sumar, the Samaritan story and the Well story, and the 'other Mary' who might have been the woman nearly stoned to death for adultery, but that woman is not said to be her until well after the Canonization and the Mycean council.

The Mary that evangelized does come later, as the all Male oriented early Church post Roman times didn't like women being in charge and figured no woman could be an apostle. It's very posible Magdeline is that apostle, but she is not Jesus' wife. She is likely the wife of one of the other apostles, Paul maybe.

The later Rennaisance painting by da Vinci everyone is or was crowing over is an interpretation of the Last Supper, as though they're all Romans, and is not a factual picture or depiction. It is a guess!

da Vinci didn't know even what they looked like. He took waht he knew and used it.

The table is even wrong, as it's an Italian style table with what appears to be chairs around it, in a full square. In ancient Isreal, in ruins, they found actual tables from the time period, and they were l shaped low tables. You could not sit in chairs at them. You'd have to sit on the floor on a pillow. This whole mysterious leaning John is all in their heads. da Vinci probably was just being poetic and had no special secret meaning in mind.