Talk:Jesus bloodline/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

protected

I have protected this page for 2 days. Please discuss edits and controversial citation tags here on the talk page first, rather than putting up questionable tags, or reverting them as vandalism and leaving vandalism warnings on editor talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dogmatic

The use of the word dogmatic in relation to the Jesus Bloodline should be used in the same way that the word is used in relation to Christianity. The objection to the usage of the word can only be made by those who are sympathetic to the Jesus Bloodline as a historical fact. This is quite obvious. The removal of the word is unwarranted. Please do not alter this heading and integrate it into another discussion thread. It will otherwise be reverted. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You know for someone waging a campaign against New Age dogmatism, do you realize you sound dogmatic? Let me repeat myself: Although I am will to entertain the notion that Jesus was married to a woman and had children in theory only, I'm NOT sympathetic to the 2000-years-old Jesus bloodline hypothesis. Regardless, the term "dogmatic" has a strong pejorative connotation because it is almost universally used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument. In light of the fact that there are some "adherents of the bloodline" who are not dogmatic in the sense that they don't hold rigid beliefs about the Jesus bloodline hypothesis and are open to rational argument against such a hypothesis, it is unfair and inaccurate to paint all "adherents of the bloodline" as dogmatic. Furthermore, you need to cite a reliable source that describes some or all "adherents of the bloodline" as dogmatic otherwise you are engaging in prejudiced POV-based original research. That being said, the only reason why you originally wanted to use the word "dogmatic" to describe the devotion of "adherents of the bloodline" is because of my previous use of the word to describe mainstream Christian refusal to adopt the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. However, I've deleted my use of the word in relation to Christianity so why do you insist in still using it in relation to the "adherents of the bloodline"? --Loremaster (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, will the following edit satisfy you: "In reaction to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Da Vinci Code, and other controversial books on the same theme, a significant number of individuals of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have adhered to a Jesus bloodline hypothesis despite its lack of substantiation." --Loremaster (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to resolve this dispute as soon as possible in order to nominate Jesus bloodline as a good article candidate after finding a good image to add to it. --Loremaster (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will oppose the nomination on the grounds of lack of common sense and breaking Wikipedia Policy on the grounds of the article being the work of a sole editor and not being a collaboration. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Since all your arguments lacked any sense, my edits have greatly expanded and improved the article, and I have made numerous compromises, your opposition will not be taken seriously by any reasonable person. --Loremaster (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting all this acrimony aside, is the compromise above acceptable to you? If not, please explain to us why while taking into account everything I've said in this thread. --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've further expanded the first paragraph of the Adherence section to "hammer the point" you wanted to make without using the word "dogmatic". Are you happy now? --Loremaster (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

unprotected

I've unprotected the page. If edit warring starts up again I'll be likely to lock it for a week. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About the terms "New Age", "New Ager" and "New Age movement"

The term "New Age" is a misnomer and is generally used by fundamentalists as a catch-all rubric for any idea, belief, activity or group that is not Trinitarian Christian. By their lights, anything that is not Christian is by definition actively and willfully anti-Christian. The implication is that these independent and sometimes contradictory schools of philosophy and belief are all part of a monolithic whole. This is logically and empirically false, and rationally simplistic. Accordingly I have replaced it with the less controversial and more pertinent term "esoteric Christian". --Loremaster (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorant rubbish. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why "esoteric Christians" is a "colossal inappropriate phrase". --Loremaster (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If there is no reliable, independent source to be had which directly links a term such as New Age with commentary/criticism on Jesus bloodline, the term can be taken out of the article as original research. If there is such a source, use of the term can be limited only to the commentary/criticism linked with that term which is carried by the source Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Common sense thrown out the window. The only category of people that can be defined as accepting the Jesus Bloodline fantasy are the New Age. And if you can think of any other category of people name them. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that she simply asked for a source, you express these rigid beliefs about adherents of the bloodline while being closed to any common-sense argument. Please explain to us 1) why only New Agers would accept the Jesus bloodline hypothesis and 2) what is wrong with "esoteric Christian" as a category to name some of these people. --Loremaster (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you provide us with a good answer to the second question, I'll simply delete the term "esoteric Christian" and not replace it with anything else. --Loremaster (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with the term "New Age" as a category for adherents of the bloodline is that it excludes a large number of people who have adhered to a Jesus bloodline hypothesis, regardless of how uncritical they may be, without embracing the beliefs of the so-called New Age movement. As anecdotal evidence, I've met numerous nominal Catholics and hardcore atheists who, after the reading The Da Vinci Code or seeing the film based on it, said to me: "Even though I read and accept that the link to the Merovingian dynasty is non-sense, I'm willing to buy the idea that a Jesus bloodline existed and may even still exist. It doesn't change my life whether or not it's true or not but it's still a cool idea." Does that automatically make them New Agers? Of course not. --Loremaster (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen. --Loremaster (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are full of rubbish. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize hurling insults without provocation proves my case that you have an histrionic personality, right? --Loremaster (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Christianity

I removed the reference to the Jesus Bloodline being linked to esoteric Christians because it lacked a source. The hyperlink to Esoteric Christianity shows that the Wikipedia article did not refer to the Jesus Bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the Wikipedia article on Esoteric Christianity (which is far from being comprehensive) doesn't need to refer to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis to justify describing some adherents of the bloodline as esoteric Christians. However, I approve of your deletion of the term "esoteric Christians" from the Jesus bloodline only because you are right that it lacked a source. --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen an example of where the Jesus Bloodline theory has ever been linked to esoteric Christianity of the variety explained in the Wikipedia article, which predates the 1970s and goes back centuries when it was to do with metaphysical and not with material concepts. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, the Wikipedia article on Esoteric Christianity is not comprehensive when it comes to its modern forms. However, there are numerous fringe academics and laymen who can legitimately be described as modern Esoteric Christians (or Rosicrucian Christains or Gnostic Christians). The problem is that you seem to have a rigid (if not dogmatic) view of Esoteric Christianity which seeks to limit it to its ancient forms. --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Christianity was about metaphysics not materialism. And Gnosticism considered matter evil. These issues bear no relation to the Jesus Bloodline or genealogies. The modern form is the New Age version where anything goes. And is usually - if not universally - synthesised with the Pagan mystery schools and involving re-interpreting Mary Magdalene with Isis, etc... Wfgh66 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside that you have a rigid understanding of what is and isn't Esoteric Christianty and Gnosticism that many academics would dispute, what you fail to understand is that a modern Esoteric/Gnostic/Rosicrucian Christian who mostly focuses on metaphysics can still adhere to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis especially if he believes a descendant of Jesus will become an Esoteric/Rosicrucian/Gnostic Christ. Even a hardcore atheist who ridicules New Age ideas can adhere to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. I simply find it mind-boggling that someone as erudite as you clearly are is so prejudiced that you refuse to acknowledge these obvious facts. It's sad really... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the modern day Anything Goes variety of Esoteric Christianity where things get synthesised with Paganism, nothing in common with the original version of Esoteric Christianity. Gnosticism was punched out of its original shape by the authors of HBHG who failed to substantiate their arguments by supplying quotations from Gnostic texts. Gnostics were dualists whereby matter was evil and spirit good, that's why they were celibate and procreation was forbidden, by Jesus unthinkable. Exactly the same thing applies to the Cathars who also rejected the bodily substance of Christ. No scholar of Gnosticism would dispute these facts. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some scholars who dispute the claim that all ancient Gnostics were dualists. Furthermore, many scholars think the term "Gnosticism" is as much a misnomer as "New Age" is. Regardless, you have proved my point: There is a diversity of views among modern Esoteric Christians (which you dismiss as having an "anything goes" approach). The Adherence section is not talking about the views of ancient Esoteric Christians or Gnostics. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship accepts that Gnosticism was Dualist in nature based upon the extant texts that have survived. David Noel Freedman once made the astute observation that what divided Christianity and Gnosticism was the relevant focus between faith ("pistis") and knowledge ("gnosis"). Whatever divisions existed between Christianity and Gnosticism, whether historical or philosophical in nature, this distinction of metaphysical philosophy is what seperated the two groups from each other overall. And if there were divisions within Christianity over historical issues, it was united by faith; likewise if there were divisions between Gnostic groups over matters of esoteric philosophy, they were united over the principle of knowledge. The Anything Goes observation in relation to modern day versions of esoteric Christianity is not a dismissal but a description. Commentators have noted that New Age groups have the constitution of runny jelly. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I dispute the first sentence, I generally agree with everything else you have said. However, this "impressive" display of erudition doesn't refute my points in favor of my earlier use of the term "esoteric Christians" in this article nor my opposition to the use of the term "New Age". Furthermore, in the post-Christian world we live in which is characterized by cultural and religious pluralism, there is nothing wrong with the eclectic approach to spirituality of so-called New Age individuals and groups, specifically their syncretic tendencies. Let's not forget that nascent Christianity appears to have incorporated many Jewish and pagan cultural elements. The only problem is when New Agers, like adherents of traditional religions, present claims that are pseudophilosophical, pseudoscientific, and pseudohistorical as if they were philosophical, scientific and historical. I'm not a New Ager nor am I sympathetic to New Ageism but I treat their beliefs with same respect (or disrepect) I treat Christian beliefs. At the end of the day, both Christianity and New Ageism are based on wishful thinking regardless of how solid or fluid their respective constitutions are. That being said, can you please stop avoiding answering the question below so that we can move on? --Loremaster (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus bloodline is based on pseudohistorical wishful thinking, making it fit hand-in glove with New Age contexts. Original Esoteric Christianity (dating from literally millenia ago) was to do with metaphysical speculations and not with materialistic or physical matters. And therefore is the total opposite to the very concept of the (recently manufactured) idea of the Jesus Bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't change the fact that a modern esoteric Christian (or an anti-New Age atheist for that matter) can still adhere to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. You've lost this argument. Give it up. So I'll repeat my question: Can you please stop avoiding answering the question below so that we can move on? --Loremaster (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The modern esoteric Christian who adopts the Jesus Bloodline belief is devoid of all historical pedigree, and would not be accepted by mainstream followers of the tradition. That's a fact. I could start a New Age movement today calling it esoteric Mohammedism claiming to be the direct descendant of the Prophet, but that would not make it credible, and it would be shunned by all other esoteric Islamic groups (if such things exist). Articles about the nature and the history of traditional esoteric Christianity (and accepted interpretations of Gnosticism) can be found all over the internet. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First, adopting a belief and creating a movement based on this belief is not the same thing. Second, a member of a traditional religion can hold an "heretical" belief without expressing it in such a way that it would make his fellow co-religionists shun him. Third, no group has an exclusivity on the meaning of, and use of, a term nor is there such a thing as a "true Christian" or "true Muslim" or "true New Ager". Does the fact that "mainstream" Catholics shun liberation theology Catholics or Sedevacantist Catholics mean that these people have no right to call themselves Catholics? Of course not. It simply means that the majority of Catholics are currently not liberation theologians or Sedevacantists and that any statement about Catholicism should reflect that fact. Therefore, in the context of this article, no one was arguing that ancient esoteric Christians were adherents of the bloodline nor was anyone saying that all modern estoeric Christians are adherents of the bloodline. The article simply suggested that the adherents of the bloodline who expect the Messiah to be a descendant of Jesus are esoteric Christians. Nothing more. Nothing less. So again: Can you please stop avoiding answering the question below so that we can move on? --Loremaster (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Christianity has existed for virtually two thousand years. Any movement adopting the Jesus Bloodline calling itself "Esoteric Christianity" would not be an authentic form of the tradition and would find itself being anathematised by the mainstream version. That's a fact. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity recognized the authoritative primacy of the Roman See and the Pope for virtually 1500 years. Would you argue that any movement calling itself Christian that no longer recognized that tradition is not an "authentic" form of Christianity?!? The problem is that even if you are not a Christian (or esoteric Christian), you seem to have a conservative mindset which offers a hat-tip to any mainstream religionist’s world­view. Regardless, can you please stop avoiding answering the question below so that we can move on? --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Christianity did not, and never has, recognise the authoritative primacy of the Papacy. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I wasn't talking about Esoteric Christianity. I was using Christianity as an analogy to illustrate a point. Didn't you understand that? --Loremaster (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, let's try to avoid this acrimony and focus on the article. Do you approve of the current version of the article which excludes the mention of the word "New Age" and "dogmatic"? I ask because I don't want to see you suddenly adding these words back a few days or weeks from now and possibly provoke an edit war and dispute when everyone assumed this dispute was resolved due to your silence... --Loremaster (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Any adjectives (like new age or dogmatic) unsourced to a discussion of this topic published in a reliable and independent source can be removed. So far as I can tell, most of the discussion in this thread has been original research, which cannot be cited here or in the article. This page is for discussing reliable sources which might be used to support article content, please discuss sources, not editor opinions, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Describing the Jesus Bloodline as being linked to traditionalist "esoteric Christianity" will always exist without a citation and reliable and independent source. If Jesus Bloodline is to be linked to "esoteric Christianity" it needs to be emphasised that it is to an untraditional and modern version of "esoteric Christianity" that has been influenced by Margaret Starbird. And this can be easily done. There are ample internet sites that define traditionalist esoteric Christianity and this needs to be compared against the esoteric Christianity that was inspired by Margaret Starbird. Traditional esoteric Christianity that dates historically back thousands of years to Origen of Alexandria dealt with metaphysical matters. The common interpretation of Gnosticism widely held by maistream scholarship is that it was a dualist nature holding that matter was evil and rejecting the physical substance of Christ. This can be easily substantuated by reliable and independent sources from works published by mainstream scholars. It was the book Holy Blood and Holy Grail that was first responsible for twisting the idea that Gnosticism "believed that Jesus Christ was a human being", and this became uncritically repeated ever since by those who uncritically follow the modern concept of the Jesus Bloodline. Again, it can be very easily verified by citing scholarly books that the Jesus Christ of Gnosticism was not a physical human being. None of the comments here can be described as "Original research". Wfgh66 (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Until you provide sources for your claims about what the majority of mainstream scholars think on any given issue, it is original research. Furthermore, since one can find ample Internet websites to support any claim, you must be able to show that the Internet websites you cite as sources are reliable. That being said, although I have offered a rationale for using the term "esoteric Christians" in this article, I have already explained to you that I am not going to use the term "esoteric Christians" in this article because of the lack of a source so why are you beating this dead horse? Why are you still avoiding answering my question regarding the use of the words "New Age" and "dogmatic" especially in light of a Wikipedia administrator's comments on the issue? --Loremaster (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to make sure you understand me, I'm going to repeat myself as simply as possible: No one is going to use the term "esoteric Christians" in the Jesus bloodline article until we find a reliable source for the claim that some adherents of the bloodline are modern esoteric Christians. So this discussion is over. The horse is dead. Move on. --Loremaster (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Until you provide sources for your claims about what the majority of mainstream scholars think on any given issue, it is original research.

Objectionable comment from Loremaster, implying that my comments are not based on facts and untrustworthy Wfgh66 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to make sure you understand me,

Personal attack from Loremaster. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As Wikipedia administrator Hoary as explained to you, those are not personal attacks. --Loremaster (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What you may be missing here Wfgh66, is we're not talking about truth. We're talking about sources. If your assertions are challenged, you must back them up with sources. If you want to write about your own knowledge and draw from your own expertise on this topic, you can't do that here, that would be original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course when I used the word "truth" I really meant "sourced facts", and of course I possess or have access to the sources. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be startled if you didn't. You must use your expertise and deep understanding of this topic to cite sources which support your assertions. You are not an acceptable source (none of us are), but you are clearly qualified to quickly dig up the sources (having to do with Jesus bloodline only) and cite them. That's the only way we do things here (when disagreements come up). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And since we are NOT talking about the same subject, the sourced facts are irrelevant. --Loremaster (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It has become the same subject matter because of the hippy-dippy new age hippies that have adopted the belief in the Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66, to get to the pith of this, I tend to agree with you. But you must source this, your unsupported opinion (or mine, or Loremaster's) is not enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I've already proven my point on this issue, what exactly do you hope to achieve since neither the words "New Age" or "Esoteric Christians" will be used in this article? --Loremaster (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I've already proven my point on this issue. An opinion, not a verified fact. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly do you think my point is? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An Opinion. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And what is that opinion exactly? Explain it to me. --Loremaster (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An opinion is not a fact. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And then you wonder why I am condescending... My question is: What exactly do you think I believe? What is the content of my opinion that you claim is not a fact? --Loremaster (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Gnosticism. One textbook source for dualist nature.

The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy by Steven Runciman

User:Wfgh66, since no one is planning to report the dualist nature of ancient Gnostics in the Jesus bloodline article, why do you feel the need to cite this source on this talk page since I am not interested in discussing this subject with you. --Loremaster (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we are, quoting Loremaster from about an hour ago: *sigh* Until you provide sources for your claims about what the majority of mainstream scholars think on any given issue, it is original research. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was giving general advice not making a request. I don't need you to provide source for those claims because this entire discussion is pointless since we are not going to mention ancient or modern Esoteric Christianity in the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wfgh66, skive away the needless bickering and all that's left is, please come up with some sources, or please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Starbird identifies 888, the number of Jesus Christ, with the New Age. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless she does this whilst discussing Jesus bloodline, it's more or less meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to make sure we are all on the same page, we must agree on the following premise: The only reliable sources that are needed are for 1) the claim that some or all adherents of the bloodline are "dogmatic"; 2) the claim that some or all adherents of the bloodline are "New Agers"; and 3) the claim that some or all adherents of the bloodline are modern "Esoteric Christians". However, reliable sources for the claim that all mainstream scholars argue that ancient Gnostics were dualists or that "Gnosticism" is the appropriate term for all the ancient sects commonly referred to as Gnostic might win a minor academic argument in a tangential debate on this talk page but it doesn't refute in any way the claim that some adherents of the bloodline are modern Esoteric Christians or their right to call themselves "Esoteric Christians". --Loremaster (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The modern Esoteric Christians that accept the modern Jesus Bloodline claim would be no older than Margaret Starbird's books. Unless you can produce a source. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no older than The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as the Jesus bloodline article clearly explains. --Loremaster (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to basics here, any unsourced assertions in this article can be removed. Here at Wikipedia "rationale building" is called cite spanning or construction. I now strongly suggest you both take at least a 24 hour break from this and think about sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really need to take a break to think about sourcing since my contribution to this article is relatively complete. I only want to make sure that User:Wfgh66 agrees to not add the words "New Age" and "dogmatic" again until he has a source for them. Can you get him to do that since I have given up? --Loremaster (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote: http://www.dancingbadger.com/davincicode.html For a sympathetic and even-handed representative of the New Age view of Mary Magdalene, read Margaret Starbird's excellent The Woman with the Albaster Jar. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First, this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Second, a New Age view of Mary Magdalene is not necessarily the same thing as a New Age view of the Jesus bloodline. Third, there are many New Age views of Mary Magdalene with some that include the Jesus bloodline hypothesis and some that exclude the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. Finally, just because Margaret Starbird is a New Ager, it doesn't mean that all adherents of the bloodline are New Agers. That's an obvious fact. Like I said before, an anti-New Age atheist can be an adherent of the bloodline. I've met enough of them to know. --Loremaster (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even when the comment is a direct signpost to Woman with the Alabaster Jar? Wfgh66 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even. --Loremaster (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dancingbadger.com/davincicode.html For a sympathetic and even-handed representative of the New Age view of Mary Magdalene, read Margaret Starbird's excellent The Woman with the Albaster Jar.Wfgh66 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be condescending but have you read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page? "Anything goes" on a personal debunking website but Wikipedia has standards. Some unnotable person's opinion on a self-published website doesn't cut it. I find it troubling that you can be extremely dismissive of the credentials of academics who promote a Jesus bloodline hypothesis but you are not when it comes to the credentials of people who support your views of the Jesus bloodline. Can you explain that? --Loremaster (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to start deleting links to personal websites found in Wikipedia articles? There are a few found on this article, not to mention on Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Are you going to inject a bit of consistency? Wfgh66 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the External links sections? I may be corrected if I am wrong but those sections can include a link to a personal web page written by a "recognized authority". However, personal websites cannot be cited as reliable sources for the content of an article. There is a difference. That being said, if it was up to me the entire External links section of all those articles would be deleted but I don't want to provoke an edit war with the people who added some of those links. I've been through it often enough to know better. That being said, I will delete personal webpages from unrecognized authorities. --Loremaster (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you criticizing me for the personal web pages that you (or someone else) cited as sources?!? I'm not sure you might like the consequences of me being more "consistent"... --Loremaster (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene many New Age faiths, venerate Mary Magdalene as the Bride of Christ Wfgh66 (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the claim in that article is unsourced. Second, a Wikipedia article can't be used as source for another Wikipedia article. Third, I don't deny that some New Agers venerate Mary Magdalen as the Bride of Christ. The issue is your claim that only New Agers can be adherents of the bloodline. --Loremaster (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A source has been provided. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a source, Wfgh66, that's a Wikipedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What source? I am referring to the unsourced sentence in the Mary Magdalene article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

If User:Wfgh66 can provide us with a reliable source, the only use of the term New Age I would support would be in the following new text:

The eclectic spiritual views of many of these "adherents of the bloodline" are influenced by the writings of New Age authors who seek to challenge predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs and institutions through a systematic defense of Christian heresies.

Would this resolve this dispute once and for all? Yes or No? --Loremaster (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a wholly uninvolved admin I can only say, aside from the way over Latinized, mind-numbing, codswallop wording, the New Age bit (as believable and highly likely as it may be) must be sourced if challenged. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've simplified that sentence in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

About ancient heresies

No one is suggesting that ancient heresies incorporated a Jesus bloodline hypothesis. However, the views of "adherents of the bloodline" are influenced by ancient heresies that suggested, for example, Jesus was only a mortal human being. Several authors (especially Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln) defended ancient heresies in their works and accused Paul and/or the early Roman Catholic Church of being the real heretics. Although these authors use their defense of these ancient heresies to support their modern hypotheses, they are seperate things. In other words, someone could read their books and reject the Jesus bloodline hypothesis as being a fantasy but still embrace their defense of Arianism or Gnosticism. --Loremaster (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As for modern Christian heresies, I'm obviously referring to the next sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation has already been provided for that sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the passage needs to be balanced against the established views of scholarship relating to ancient heresies Wfgh66 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are complicating what is a simple sentence since we do not mention "ancient". --Loremaster (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from established scholarship need to be provided to balance the allegations of the likes of Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh and Starbird, etc. if you are going to mention the idea of heresies. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for such quotations (which I don't have so you would have to provide them) in light of the fact that we state the mainstream Christian position as a rebuttal. I'm all for comprehensiveness but there is no need to take to extremes. --Loremaster (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Through a defence of Christian heresy

This sentence needs to be removed if it is not going to be clarified. The passage needs to enshrine the position of academic scholarship against the claims made by Fringe authors like Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided a legitimate reason why this sentence should be removed. Beyond the fact that we cite a source, the sentence informs readers about what influences the views of adherents of the bloodline. If you want to "enshrine" the position of academic scholarship against claims, feel free to do so. But your temporary or permanent failure to do so is a legitimate reason to remove that sentence. There is no guideline in Wikipedia that says that all claims must be rebutted. --Loremaster (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a legitimate reason. And the use of the word heresy is loaded to say the least. You have provided a link to an article that does not refer to the Jesus bloodline and not surprising since no heresy mentioned the idea of a Jesus bloodline. Furthermore, the article in question repeats the accepted scholarly definitions, that Gnosticism was dualistic in nature and that matter was evil, therefore being the opposite of the Jesus bloodline theory. Fring authors have reinterpreted the basic beliefs of Gnosticism to fit-in with the modern bloodline theory and this is being repeated in this article. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have now clarified that sentence to dissipate the cloud of confusion you seem to be under. Second, you cannot delete a sourced sentence from an article simply because it lacks a rebuttal. You must provide a rebuttal. If you can't do so, the sentence will remain in the article unrebutted. Third, you seem unable to understand that not every single letter, word, sentence, paragraph or link in an article has an absolutely direct relationship relationship with the subject of the article. NO ONE has suggested that the Christian heresy article refers to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. Does the Adam and Eve article refer to the Jesus bloodline? No. Does the Adam and Eve article need to refer to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis to be linked to in the Jesus bloodline article? OF COURSE NOT. As explained above, the views of "adherents of the bloodline" are influenced by the defense of Christian heresies by fringe authors. Obviously, an "adherent of the bloodline" can hold more than one idea in his head beyond the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. What I am trying to get to are the *other* beliefs they hold such as the humanity of Jesus (regardless of whether or not he had a bloodline). Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations required

Citation required: that Gnostics regarded Jesus Christ as just another mortal human being. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood one of my earlier edit. I was talking about two different things. One heresy focusing on the humanity and one heresy focusing on gnosis. I deleted the mention of gnosis to avoid any confusion.

Citation required. That Arianism was Gnosticism. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* 1) There is no longer any of mention of Gnosticism in this article. 2) There has never been (and never will be) any mention that Arianism was Gnosticism. The fact that you would interpret any thing I wrote to suggest that patently absurd notion boggles the mind... Now can you please relax. --Loremaster (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing things up like Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh and all the other Fringe authors.Wfgh66 (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You are the one who is mixing things up. --Loremaster (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing things up by placing a link to an article that has nothing to do with the Jesus bloodline, by refusing to use the words "revised versions of Christian heresies", and so on. You are so sympathetic to the idea of the Jesus Bloodline that you are even unwilling to see the balancing of certain passages with established scholarly views. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record: I've been a lifelong agnostic secular humanist. When I first read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail back in 1998, I didn't really care about whether or not the Priory of Sion existed but I confess that I embraced the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. But, as time passed, I lost interest and when I started reading the works of scholars on the quest for the historical Jesus, as well as debunking articles and books about the Priory of Sion hoax, I became skeptical and eventually rejected both the Priory of Sion conspiracy theory and the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. However, I am still open-minded to the *possibility* that Jesus was married and had children but until reliable historical evidence is presented to me it the notion will remain nothing more than an unproven possibility. That being said, none of my personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) have anything to do with my current (or previous) edits of this article. As I said before, if you feel that any section of this article needs to be "balanced" with scholarly rebuttals, feel free to add them. However, do NOT delete any sourced sentence before you do. Furthermore, before you add any scholarly rebuttals, please put your debunking zeal aside long enough to understand the content of a particular sentence before mangling it with hasty attempts to rebut something that probably doesn't need to be rebutted. --Loremaster (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if I am so sympathetic to the Jesus bloodline hypothesis, why did I edit the article in such a way that it ended with a quote from historian Ken Mondschein which ridicules it? Think about that for a second... --Loremaster (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe writers have revised the accepted scholarly position on heresies and I have clarified this and included citations. I can provide more citations if needed. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-write this sentence since you are mangling it. --Loremaster (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

7 citations for the Magdalene sentence not required

Wfgh66, as it was explained to us during the failed featured article candidacy process of the Priory of Sion article, citing too many sources for one sentence or paragraph goes against the style guidelines of Wikipedia. Therefore, can you please choose the one source (among the the 7 that are there) which you feel is the most comprehensive for the following sentence and delete the others:

They also create new controversies by portraying Mary Magdalene as being the apostle of a Christian feminism, and even the personification of the mother goddess or sacred feminine, usually associating her with the Black Madonna.

I am asking you to do this to avoid you misinterpreting my deletion of these sources as some kind of "anti-New-Age agenda". ;) --Loremaster (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to work on this to avoid another needless dispute and edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no response from Wfgh66, I have moved some citations and deleted redundant ones. --Loremaster (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice - Loremaster against Wikipedia Policy

Wikipedia articles are meant to be a collaborative effort. At this moment in time, Loremaster owns several Wikipedia articles, this one, Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. If any other editor wishes to make an addition, deletion or alteration it has to meet the subjective criteria of Loremaster, and it very rarely does. Everything currently existing on Jesus bloodline, Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the sole ownership of Loremaster. He has written everything himself and re-written all additions to meet his subjective criteria and standards. Nobody is allowed to get a look-in to independently contribute to these articles without everything ultimately becoming revised by Loremaster. This is against Wikipedia Policy. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* As I have said before, accusations that I am possessive of some of the articles I have taken an interest into may have merit since I am only human. However, I have always explained my edits and reverts which were always guided by Wikipedia policy rather than personal whim. My "obsession" is that I want these articles to be well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet good article critirea and even featured article critirea. My track record proves that this exactly what I have been doing. I have proposed and accepted numerous compromises in order to settle disputes over the most trivial of issues. That being said, Wfgh66 seems to be among the minority of Wikipedia contributors who believe that the material they contribute should remain unedited for posterity. However, they should be reminded of a Wikipedia guideline which states: "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly [...], do not submit it." --Loremaster (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For those new to this dispute, let me give you some background: User:Wfgh66 is Paul Smith, a well-known debunker of the Priory of Sion hoax. Although he is a very erudite researcher whose contributions to have been invaluable to many of the articles related to the Priory of Sion, he is not only a grumpy curmudgeon unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo but he is extremely overzealous. However, I could tolerate this personal flaw if it wasn't for the fact that he is always compelled to needlessly hammer his point in the head of his potential readers. Ultimately, he needs to relax and realize that I have been helping "his" project, not hurting it. --Loremaster (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lovegrove's opinion

In the article, we quote Chris Lovegrove as saying:

"If there really is a Jesus dynasty - so what? This, I fear, will be the reaction of many of those prepared to accept the authors' thesis as possible, and the book does not really satisfy one's curiosity in this crucial area."

I have a few problems with the inclusion of this quote:

1. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Chris Lovegrove is notable enough to be quoted, this is a very subjective opinion rather than a statement of fact. Since the article suggests that the Jesus bloodline hypothesis can and does serve as the foundation of a modern alternative religion (i.e. an object of devotion for a variety of "New Age" believers) it contradicts Lovegrove's claim and leaves it open to rebuttal.
2. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail actually acknowledge that many of those prepared to accept their thesis as possible might say "so what?" but they then go on to provide an answer to that very question

(i.e that many people might be willing to believe that direct descendants of Jesus are the rightful successors of Jesus rather than Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox bishops and priests or Protestant pastors). Obviously, whether or not this answer satisfies someone is subjective. But the problem is that it further leaves Lovegrove's claim open to rebuttal.

If I don't get any comments defending the inclusion of this quote, I will delete it. --Loremaster (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Loremaster here is taking seriously the rather insane consideration that a descendant of Jesus Christ "is worth something". If so, that means he takes the fantasy bloodline seriously. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your obsession with the fantasy bloodline is making you more and more extreme. Take a break. Go outside and take a breath of fresh air. Try your best to return to the world of reality and common sense, otherwise you will become completely insane. Wfgh66 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than indulging in personal attacks that further reveal your histrionic personality, can you please offer us a logically coherent rebuttal to my arguments for once? --Loremaster (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Implications of the bloodline

Someone needs to give Loremaster a reality check.

Two points:

1. - There are those who seriously believe that Jesus Christ got married and had offspring. No proof required. They believe it. As for what Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh claim in their book and what they claimed immediately following its publication, these are two different things. Film footage shows Henry Lincoln defending the existence of the bloodline ("clusters of descendants have been identified to have existed in the South of France", words to that effect), and what they wrote to their cronies in correspondence ("we await one fragment of information to contradict our theory").
2. - "Implications" of the so-called bloodline. If there really are Jesus descendants amongst us today, it does not matter. Relax. There is no logical need to seriously think about it. It is the end of Christianity. Not the beginning of a Jesus Dynasty whereby some jerk becomes the King of Western Civilisation. Those who seriously consider this as a possiblility need to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. When Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire it did so on the conditions of religious belief that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, performed miracles, died by Crucifixion and was raised from the dead on the Third Day and then Ascended to Heaven. Nobody knew about the existence of Jesus' marriage, offspring and a dynasty. There is not a single heresy in existence that believed in such issues. These issues first appeared during the 1970s. Let's go back in time. If it transpired that there was a Jesus dynasty during the period of Constantine, Christianity would never have become the State Religion of the Roman Empire. It really is that simple. If there is today a direct descendant of Jesus Christ there really is no reason to make that person the King of Western Civilisation. It is that simple. Wfgh66 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Laughter) I'm not sure how this rant is supposed to be give a me a reality check when it it seems that your grasp on the reality of this dispute is tenuous at best.

1. No one is disputing that there are some people who seriously believe that the historical Jesus got married and had offspring without any proof being required. (As I assume you know by now from everything I have written on this talk page, I'm not among those people) So what's your point?
2. I strongly disagree. If there really are Jesus descendants amongst us today it may not matter to you or me but it will matter to some people. The fact that some people have created alternative religions based on the mere hypothesis of a Jesus bloodline proves it. Although I agree with you that people who seriously believe that a direct descendant of Jesus will become "Emperor of Europe" need to see a psychiatrist, the revelation that there actually are descendants of Jesus would not bring about the end of Christianity. There will always be fundamentalist Christians who will continue believing what they want to believe. Furthermore, Christianity would simply adapt by deleting the belief that Jesus was a perpetual celibate since there are some Jesus bloodline hypotheses that do not necessarily contradict the notion that Jesus "was born of a Virgin, performed miracles, died by Crucifixion and was raised from the dead on the Third Day and then Ascended to Heaven". Also, the existence of a Jesus bloodline would not have prevented Christianity from becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire if these descendants were powerless and marginalized. Ultimately, there doesn't need to be a reason to make a direct descendant of Jesus the Emperor of Europe. The point is that if enough people wanted him to become Emperor of Europe, they could try to make it happen.

That being said, what does any of this have to do with the inclusion of Lovegrove's quote in the article?!? --Loremaster (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you think someone who truly believes Jesus "was born of a Virgin, performed miracles, died by Crucifixion and was raised from the dead on the Third Day and then Ascended to Heaven" is a rational person? --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

About 'So what?'

From p.434-435 of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail:

So far as we personally are concerned, Jesus' lineal descendant would not be any more divine, any more intrinsically miraculous, than the rest of us. This attitude would undoubtedly be shared by a great many people today. We suspect it is shared by the Prieuré de Sion as well. Moreover the revelation of an individual, or group of individuals, descended from Jesus would not shake the world in the way it might have done as recently as a century or two ago. Even if there were 'incontrovertible proof' of such a lineage, many people would simply shrug or ask , "So what?" As a result there would seem to be little point in the Prieuré de Sion's elaborate designs - unless those designs are in some crucial way linked with politics. Whatever the theological repercussions of our conclusions, there would seem quite clearly, to be other repercussions with a potentially enormous impact, affecting the thinking, the values, the institutions of the contemporary world in which we live.

From p.447-449 of The Messianic Legacy:

Aided by the techniques of modern public relations, modern advertising and modern political packaging, the Prieuré could thus present to the modern world a figure who, by the strictest scriptural definition of the term, could claim to be a biblical Messiah. It may seem preposterous. But is it more preposterous, surely, than the conviction of tens of thousands of Americans who are prepared to be 'raptured' upwards from their cars at various points on the freeway between Pasadena and Los Angeles. [...] [but] a pedigree cannot be used as a stepping-stone to power. Rather, it is a trump card which can be played only to consolidate power once power has already been obtained. A man cannot say 'Look who I am', and expect on that basis to be elected or promoted pope, president, king or emperor. But if he were already pope, president, king or emperor, and more or less securely installed as such, he could then say 'Look who I am', and thereby not only consolidate his position, but also invest it with a new aura, a new credibility, a new and more resonant significance.

In light of this argument, I ask all interested parties whether we should either 1) delete Lovegrove's subjective and uninformative opinion or 2) counter it with a rebuttal based on the quote above. --Loremaster (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is Chris Lovegrove even a notable person? Who is he? What does he do? --Loremaster (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

User:Wfgh66 added the following text to the Criticism section:

(without apparently considering that the relationship could have been of a spiritual nature and therefore completely platonic). The liberal Christian nature of the Jesus Seminar has been cited as being responsible for inspiring controversial Christians such as Bishop Spong and Marcus Borg, and the development of a modern view of Christianity described as "a syncretism of New Age religion: part pagan, part gnostic and part Christian" which itself paved the way for the writing of novels like Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

Putting aside the fact that the opinion of the Jesus Seminar, as it is currently written, was used to undermine (rather than support) the Jesus bloodline hypothesis (a fact that only an overzealous debunker might have missed), this "criticism" of the Jesus Seminar is not pertinent in the Jesus bloodline article. If valuable, it should be moved to the criticism section of the Jesus Seminar article or The Da Vinci Code. --Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Jesus Seminar considered and concluded that the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene was only that of a sage/disciple until proven otherwise. They simply took seriously the possibility that there might have been more to the relationship but concluded that there is not enough evidence to determine whether there was. That's a perfectly uncontroversial conclusion that doesn't need to rebutted. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, let's not forget that most of the criticisms of the Jesus Seminar comes from conservative and fundamentalist Christians who are obviously extremely biased. Although the Jesus Seminar may come to some conclusions that are dubious (such as their claim that Jesus was not an apocalyptic prophet or that the Gospel of Thomas contains authentic material), let's not forget that their critics are people who believe that the historical Jesus is God incarnate and that the Bible is a divinely-inspired book of literal history... which no established secular historian can seriously believe! --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

According to the scholarly opinion of the Jesus Seminar:

1. Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
2. His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
3. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
4. Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
5. Jesus practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
6. He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine, or raise Lazarus from the dead.
7. Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
8. He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
9. The empty tomb is a fiction - Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead.
10. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary.

Unless the position of a critic of the Jesus Seminar is simply to say "We just can't know what Jesus said or did one way or the other", the only alternative position is believing that the New Testament is a historically accurate account of the words and acts of Jesus.... which no rational secular person can do. So I am curious to know what exactly is User:Wfgh66's position: Is it the one of the absolute skeptic or the conservative Christian? I only ask because even if he isn't a conservative Christian, his criticisms of the Jesus Seminar (and Liberal Christianity) seem to unintentionally or intentionally offer a hat-tip to the conservative Christian world­view. --Loremaster (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

footenote: why doesn't the owner of this article (Loremaster) delete entirely this massive endless ranting by Loremaster aand Wfgh66 , who seem to be two hugely, self satisfied agnostics who only rave and vent, and ALL their thoughts are of no interest, at all, & entirely to any Christian and to any person interested in the subject of this article , that Jesus had descendants and a bloodline.... and so these endless entirely silly & quite stupid quibblings by you two are worthless and should all be deleted as also much of the article in the same vein... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.73.11 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Bloodline

Well the only real Jesus Bloodline you could follow would be if any of his Siblings married and although I have not looked into it they might have married in which case they would all spring really from Mary and Joseph.

Mary and Joseph been married in whatever way they did it then would have had kids and Jesus does refer to His Brother James.

There could never be other than Spiritual descendants from Jesus Himself which is through believing in Him and accepting His Teaching and folowing Him then we can be Born again ( Baptism of water and Spirit ) and one of His Bloodline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthsuma (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Darthsuma. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus bloodline article. Did you have any comments in that regard? --Loremaster (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainty of the Bloodline

And while there does not exist today a video of Jesus having sex in a video tape and further video tape of that lady having a child (- as most bizarre, non-thinking, such ravers would demand to establish such a bloodline from Jesus) , there is this , which most thoughtful Christians would believe PROVES THE BLOODLINE TO A CERTAINTY... and that is, the prophecies in the Bible in Isaiah etc that then are the word of God (the Bible) predicting the bloodline and that makes it a certainty for most or all Christians who believe the Bible and its words as certainty; and those prophecies are in Isaiah 52:13 and Isaiah 53:12 - "And He (Christ) shall see His (Christ's) seed" ... "And he shall sprinkle many nations" (with His seed, that is descendants). And all then babble of this entire jabbering, weak, ranting , raving article does not in any way, at all, diminish in the slightest, those prophetic words. ! /s/ Terapin Joanz Jr 76.195.73.11 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This dubious re-interpretation of Isaiah 53 does NOT prove the Jesus bloodline hypothesis even if it was accurate. Regardless, you need to cite a reliable source for any person making this claim otherwise it cannot be included in the Jesus bloodline article because it would be original research which is unacceptable. --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

entire article is a rant , a rave

The entire article, in all that it says, is so one sided and biased and staccato like, same sided bias that it amounts to just a rave, a ranting of one side of a complicated issue. And toward the end cites supposed experts making such massively ridiculous statements, that entirely proves the artricle is about worthless in its bias. ("inbred marriages" and "flippers" proving an entirely ignorant understanding of royals across all Europe (by that person making such a ridiculous statement) and of how were all mostly cousins but all distant cousins and only very rarely marrying to any cousin close enough to produce any genetic issues). /s/ Terapin Joanz Jr 76.195.73.11 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC

Your entire comment is a rant. The Jesus bloodline article is relatively well-written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, and stable. All the statements that you dispute cite reliable sources regardless of whether or not you think they are untrue. --Loremaster (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New Age Gnosticism?

User:Wfgh66 added the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph Adherence section:

and have been described as being New Age Gnosticism.

Well, well, well. After being lectured that the dualist nature of ancient Gnosticism makes it impossible for any modern Gnostic to embrace the Jesus bloodline hypothesis, it seems that we have a scholar who not only argues that adherents of the bloodline can be Gnostic but actually believes that New Agiesm and Gnosticism can be and have been syncretized by some people. What a surprise! ;) By the way, can someone provide here a quote to confirm that Ben Witherington III actually used the expression "New Age Gnosticism"? --Loremaster (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Well, Well, Ben Witherington II was describing those who accepted the fringe theory of the Jesus Bloodline and those who accepted the NEW "FACT" that Gnostics "believed in a mortal AND HUMAN BEING Jesus" as New Age Gnostics. The Gnostics of historical reality of over a millennia ago (and the Medieval Manichees and Cathars) did not believe in such things because they were dualists and rejected the physical substance of Christ because they viewed matter as Evil. The Gnostic Bridal Chamber involved not procreation and reproduction but the merging together of the opposite sexes in order to regenerate the original and Prototype hermaphrodite being that was going to be returned to Eden and Paradise: the rectification of the Fall of Adam. This is the total opposite of the Jesus Bloodline. Read The Gospel of Philip. It's all there about the Gnostics' retirn to Paradise and the creation of Prototype Man as originally created by God and the termination of Evil and Matter. And the Gospel of Philip depicts Mary Magdalene as the personification of Fallen Wisdom and as being barren in nature. Just before the part where the kissing is described. So if the Jesus Christ of the Gospel of Philip did impregnate the Mary Magdalene of the Gospel of Philip it would not have yielded much of a result, bearing in mind the nature of barren metaphysical beings that are being described in that particular "gospel".Wfgh66 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. How does this contradict anything I have ever said? Furthermore, don't you realize that this contradicts one of your main arguments?!? You said that it is totally inappropriate to refer to people who accept the Jesus bloodline hypothesis as a fact as "modern Gnostics". Yet your own source uses the term "modern Gnostics" or, more precisely, "New Age Gnostics" to refer to them. That's what I have been saying all along! By the way, since your word is not trustworthy, please provide us with a complete quote of the text Witherington wrote so we can all confirm that he actually used the expression "New Age Gnostics" or wrote something that clearly implied it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

When Ben Witherington II referred to New Age Gnosticism he was referring to NEW AGE and to GNOSTICISM merged together, signifying the MODERN VERSION of revisionist alternative lunatic fringe history that accepted Jesus Christ as a mere mortal human being who impregnated Mary Magdalene in order to conceive a child. There is no known ancient heresy or Christian sect that believed in such a thing. This is a modern invention. Gnosticism was a Dualist religion adhering to the philosophy that Matter was Evil, that this world was Death, and that's why the physical substance of Jesus Christ was rejected by the Gnostics, who believed in extreme celibacy and in the illumination of knowledge in order to escape from this existence of physical matter. The authentic version of original Gnosticism (ie, not New Age Gnosticism) considered the Bridal Chamber to be the re-integration of male and female to re-form the prototype Androgyne that existed in Paradise before the Fall in order to correct the mistake of the creation of matter and reproduction. I do not know how many more times this has to be repeated in order for Loremaster to understand it. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But what you seem unable to wrap your mind around is that I have always understood this. Nothing you have said here informs me of something that I didn't know or disagreed with. Nothing you have said here contradicts anything I have written on this talk page or in the article itself. Lets recap: You initially claimed that no modern Gnostic can embrace the Jesus bloodline hypothesis. Now you say that only "New Age Gnostics" can embrace it. My point is that New Age Gnosticism is a form of modern Gnosticism regardless of whether or not it is consistent with ancient Gnosticism in the same way that Mormonism is a form of modern Christianity regardless of whether or not it is consistent with early Christianity. That being said, why are we debating this? Since the article contains the mention of "New Age" you wanted, what's the problem? --Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is no such thing as an "authentic version" of a religion. Most if not all religions from their births to their deaths have various versions that all claim authenticity. Ultimately, the name, beliefs and practices of a religion are ultimately what adherents decide to make of it. Within the limits of reason, no one has a right to judge who is and isn't an "authentic" Jew, Muslim, Christian or Gnostic especially when they are not themselves Jew, Muslim, Christian or Gnostic... --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If a quote can be provided here (since it doesn't need to be added to the article itself), I will consider this whole dispute about the use of the term "New Age" resolved. And as long as neither the word "dogmatic" nor the irrelevant criticism of the Jesus Seminar is added back, I consider this article to be relatively comprehensive and stable. --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Using caution when citing Christian apologists as sources

After reading some books by authors whose works have been cited in the Jesus bloodline articles for statements of criticism, I have come to the conclusion that it is intellectually dishonest to portray evangelical Christian scholars like Ben Witherington III as representatives of (objective) "established scholarship on early Christianity" when it fact it would be more accurate to describe them as scholarly (yet extremely biased) Christian apologists. I've edited the article accordingly. --Loremaster (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For those needing examples: I read Ben Witherington III's book What Have They Done with Jesus?: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History--Why We Can Trust the Bible. Although there are some arguments I found quite insightful (especially those dealing ancient Gnosticism and modern Gnostic scholars), I was stunned by the logical fallacies of this book which can almost all be explained as being products of a conservative Christian bias. The following are two examples that best illustrated my point, which I will briefly comment on:

The earliest gospels are our best historical sources; its because they were written by honest, believing persons who were themselves eyewitnesses or who heard direct eyewitness testimony about Jesus and his first followers.

Riiiiight. And how do we know these persons were honest believers? How do you know these persons were not deceiving themselves? Are we supposed to treat every urban legends as historically-accurate accounts simply because we assume they were based on the direct eyewitness testimony of honest, believing persons? Give us a break.

Some modern scholars, including historians, simply assume that miracles cannot happen and therefore do not happen. This is a faith assumption actually, since no human being has exhaustive knowledge of present reality never mind in the past. Such folks seem to assume that the rest of human experience is identical to their own: if they themselves have not experienced a miracle neither has anyone else. This is called solipsism, or making the mistake of generalizing from the part to the whole. Even some contemporary bible scholars assume that miracles must be left out of the account if we are going to do "scholarly" work like "other critical historians." This is a carryover from the anti-supernatural bias of many Enlightenment historians, but it seems a very odd pressuposition to hold since our postmodern world is experiencing a new openess to miracles, magic, the supernatural, the spiritual [...] Perhaps current science is giving us a wakeup call. We hear scientist after another professing Christian faith or Jewish faith and arguing that the empirical date we have about the space-time continuum cannot rule out the possibility of miracles. [...]

This is the most embarrassingly anti-intellectual and/or antiscience argument I have read in a long time. I would have expected something like it from your average Christian layman but not a scholar! --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wfgh66's dispute

Relationship between JC and MM

Is the possible relationship between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene as being platonic and spiritual in nature to be dismissed? Was the relationship between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene merely limited to two possibilities? Namely either a matrimonial or romantic relationship? Limiting the possibility to the last two options betrayes a marked bias. Is everything to be confined to the limited deliberations of the liberal-minded Jesus Seminar or are other possibilities also to be explored? The possibility that the relationship between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene as being platonic and spiritual in nature is given in many books as well as being aired on several documentaries.Wfgh66 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm stunned at your tendency to misinterpret the simplest of sentences. The Jesus Seminar simply said there is no evidence that Jesus and Mary were married or in a romantic relationship. This logically means that they only had a platonic sage/disciple relationship until new evidence proves the contrary. Why is this so hard for you to understand? --Loremaster (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why delete the sentence that gives the reader the option to consider that very possibility: that Mary Magdalene's relationship with Jesus was spiritual and platonic in nature? Why can't that sentence be left in and not deleted? Let's make it explicit as opposed to implicit. What's wrong with that? Wfgh66 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you are misleading readers about what the Jesus Seminar did or did not consider and conclude. Specifically, the Jesus Seminar did consider that Mary Magdalene could have been just another disciple whereby her relationship would have been spiritual and platonic in nature. And that's exactly what they concluded as the entire paragraph clearly explains. Do you understand? If you do, this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Loremaster Own This article?

Loremaster used the words "I will consider". Does Loremaster own this article? Wfgh66 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't own this article but I am the main contributor who has demonstrated his interest in improving it to reach good article criteria. --Loremaster (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The clarity of knowledge is limited, as can be plainly identified. For example, real Gnostics were dualists who would never have considered the bllodline. Today's new-version Gnosticism which adheres to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail has to believe in its starting point that Jesus Christ was a mortal human being in order to impregnate Mary Magdalene. These are two incompatible and different things. The original historical Gnostics believed that this world, and this existence, was Evil and Death because it was matter: it was only through the initiation into transcendental gnosis and believing in things like the Pleroma and Barbelo and in extreme celibacy that Man could return to the Pristine state of Paradise. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So? What does this have to do with your accusation that I act as if I own this page? How does this contradict anything I have ever written on this talk page or in the article? You are beating dead horses again... --Loremaster (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Article NPOV?

By placing a fantasy consideration involving a fantasy bloodline as given in Holy Blood and Holy Grail (OR Messianic Legacy) in the Criticism section of the article plainly does not make it "NPOV". Wfgh66 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Even a fringe theorist has a right to respond to criticism especially when the entire article is about his fringe theory. Just read the Criticism section of other articles on fringe theorists and/or fringe theories. This does not in any way violate NPOV. --Loremaster (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I remind you that even the consideration is a fantasy since the idea of the bloodline is a fantasy and fits into WP:Fringe category. And even if there is a direct descendant, it is totally meaningless. A direct descendant of Jesus Christ does not have any historical implication. It is all a load of hooey from the get-go devised by people whose knowledge of Christianity (and the history of the world in general) was quite non-existent. The consideration is worthless if the existence of a bloodline cannot be established. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are utterly confused, I'll let an administrator explain how things work around here in terms you can understand... --Loremaster (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And I will remind you that Chris Lovegrove's conclusion took into consideration the advance response given in Messianic Legacy. The raison d'etre of the authors' logic is dependant of something being factual, but the fact has not become established by the authors, who merely pile one inconsistent assumption upon another constructing a tower of hypotheses devoid of corroborated facts. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Until you provide evidence for your claims that Lovegrove took into consideration the advance response given in Messianic Legacy, I do not believe you. --Loremaster (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Lovegrove again: If there really is a Jesus dynasty - so what? This, I fear, will be the reaction of many of those prepared to accept the authors' thesis as possible, and the book does not really satisfy one's curiosity in this crucial area.

This at a stroke dispells the whole edifice of the author's (il)logic. The thesis of the Jesus Bloodline needs historical facts to sustain it. Not fantasy considerations based upon hypotheses based on historical ignorance. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. First, Lovegrove is simply saying that no one would care or that it wouldn't matter even if there were Jesus descendants and that the authors failed to convince readers that they should care or that it does matter. However, this is simply not true since we know that there a lot of people who do care and think it matters as you know.

It does not matter what people think if their opinions are based on flaws in logic and historical ignorance. Christianity would never have become the state religion of the Roman Empire on the basis of a Jewish Royal Genealogy. It became the Religion of the Royal Empire based on the version of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament and as believed by churchgoers. Simple as that. If anything contrary to that existed then Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire would have become terminated and the bloodline (the fantasy bloodline as theorised by silly authors as it exists in reality) would have been overlooked as being "anything special". People who believe that a direct descendant of Jesus "matters" are plain insane. No person in their right mind would contemplate such blatant illogic rubbish.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Are you satisfied with the current content of the article? Yes or No? --Loremaster (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Second, this quote does NOT show that Lovegrove took into consideration the advance response given in Messianic Legacy. It is clearly intellectually dishonest to argue that it does. Third, as I showed in an earlier thread (which I archived since you failed to comment in it), the authors themselves acknowledged this criticism.

From p.434-435 of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail:

So far as we personally are concerned, Jesus' lineal descendant would not be any more divine, any more intrinsically miraculous, than the rest of us. This attitude would undoubtedly be shared by a great many people today. We suspect it is shared by the Prieuré de Sion as well. Moreover the revelation of an individual, or group of individuals, descended from Jesus would not shake the world in the way it might have done as recently as a century or two ago. Even if there were 'incontrovertible proof' of such a lineage, many people would simply shrug or ask , "So what?" As a result there would seem to be little point in the Prieuré de Sion's elaborate designs - unless those designs are in some crucial way linked with politics. Whatever the theological repercussions of our conclusions, there would seem quite clearly, to be other repercussions with a potentially enormous impact, affecting the thinking, the values, the institutions of the contemporary world in which we live.

From p.447-449 of The Messianic Legacy:

Aided by the techniques of modern public relations, modern advertising and modern political packaging, the Prieuré could thus present to the modern world a figure who, by the strictest scriptural definition of the term, could claim to be a biblical Messiah. It may seem preposterous. But is it more preposterous, surely, than the conviction of tens of thousands of Americans who are prepared to be 'raptured' upwards from their cars at various points on the freeway between Pasadena and Los Angeles. [...] [but] a pedigree cannot be used as a stepping-stone to power. Rather, it is a trump card which can be played only to consolidate power once power has already been obtained. A man cannot say 'Look who I am', and expect on that basis to be elected or promoted pope, president, king or emperor. But if he were already pope, president, king or emperor, and more or less securely installed as such, he could then say 'Look who I am', and thereby not only consolidate his position, but also invest it with a new aura, a new credibility, a new and more resonant significance.

This is not just historical ignorance. This is ignorance of plain common sense. Quoting rubbish from Messianic Legacy. The comments in any case are redundant. The authors cannot produce any evidence to substantiate their theory (they have no basis) and the evidence has to be produced first before any considerations can be made. Clearly alternative history books are being published on the basis of a total lack of peer review. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Are you satisfied with the current content of the article? Yes or No? --Loremaster (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So whether or not the Jesus bloodline hypothesis rests on historical facts is irrelevant (we know it doesn't), what is important is whether or not some people are willing to care and think it matters that there are Jesus descendants since, for example, all (conservative) Christians believe in dogmas that do not rest on historical facts but it hasn't prevented their religion from having a monumental impact on the history of the world. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That being said, to avoid wasting my time trying to resolve this dispute with a person that doesn't seem reasonable, I am willing to let this issue go: Lovegrove's opinion will remain in the article without a rebuttal. I therefore consider this element of the dispute settled. --Loremaster (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster

Loremaster is blind to the fact that a Jewish bloodline does not matter. It is meaningless. Loremaster does not even know who the last (in 586 BC) King of the Jews of the Line of David was. Loremaster does not even know that both genealogies in the New Testament are works of historical fiction based on theological hope of the reign of Tiberius and his occupation of Judea. The historical survival of the line of David from 586 BC to 6 AD is every bit as preposterous of the survival of a bloodline from 33 AD to 2008 AD. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this rant? If you are satisfied with the current content of the article, we no longer have a dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

Please read WP:TALK. In particular the parts that make it clear that there are very few times when deletion of comments is acceptable (and the recent major deletion was not one of those) and the bits about editing one's own comments which I reproduce below: Own comments

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:

Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text. use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered. Strike-through is typed like this and ends up like this. A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]".

I know I find it very confusing when editors go back and reword what they have written, and at least once my reply no longer made sense after the comment I was replying to had been changed. Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a bad habit I have so I will try my best to refrain in indulging in it. --Loremaster (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'Other' Fantasy Bloodline of Jesus

Dear Lore, with Gwen Gail's help, we have restored the page to my Wiki sandbox and now need the suggestions of several editors such as yourself and Doug to make it as great as possible so it can be fully restored, hopefully in the next few days. Would you be so kind as to visit the page and ooffer suggestions for improvements? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox Thank you and kindest best wishes,SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can now see, I've done some work in your sandbox. I leave the rest of the work that needs to be done to anyone else interested who hopefully doesn't have a conflict of interest... --Loremaster (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Warnings from editors who have broken WP:NPA

I will not tolerate receiving warnings from editors who themselves have been blocked for breaking WP:NPA. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Six months ago, once? At least I learn from my mistakes, unlike some people. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to this talk page. Please use this talk page only for discussing the content of the Jesus bloodline article. Friday (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? Wednesday Next's Guardian Angel? Wfgh66 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you took the time to read Friday's user page, you would know that he is a Wikipedia administrator. If you continue violating talk page guidelines, I will strongly recommend that he indefinitely bans you from Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Tag

I have placed a conflict of interest tag to this article since the main contributor (Loremaster) is sympathetic towards the Fringe Theory of the Jesus Bloodline. See WP:Fringe. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of what a conflict of interest and a fringe theory consist of as to how it applies to this particular is absurdly flawed as any informed observer would explain to you. I have therefore removed the tag. --Loremaster (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV tag until this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was removed by User:Wednesday Next. --Loremaster (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

Wfgh66, rather than wasting time fighting each other, can we please try to resolve this current dispute in a polite, rational and productive manner.

1. The mention of "New Age Gnosticism" cites a reliable source and therefore should remain in the article.
2. The paragraph about the Jesus Seminar will remain as it currently is unless a copyeditor feels the need to improve it.
3. Lovegrove's opinion will remain in the article without a rebuttal.

If you can accept this compromise on my part, this dispute is resolved and we can both move on to improving the quality of the Jesus bloodline article or better yet more important things in our respective lives. OK? --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the topic of 'Jesus Bloodline' fits into the category of WP:Fringe. It is on the same par as the Bermuda Triangle, Loch Ness Monster, Atlantis, Crystal Skulls, etc, and therefore needs categorising. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that that Jesus bloodline article is already in Category:Pseudohistory; there is no "Category:Fringe theory" or "Category:Fringe theories" to put the article in while Category:Fringe science would obviously not be appropriate since the Jesus bloodline hypothesis has been presented as an historical claim not a scientific claim. The only existing category in which the Bermuda Triangle, the Loch Ness Monster, Atlantis, and crystal skulls are almost all in is Category:Mysteries. Would this satisfy you? --Loremaster (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, as you yourself argued in the past, the Jesus bloodline is not a mystery. It's simply an hypothesis. Therefore, we should not put the Jesus bloodline article in Category:Mysteries. And, as I explained above, there is no Category:Fringe theory page so this entire debate is pointless. --Loremaster (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Different categories, different subject matters

Loremaster continues to display her/his shortcomings. Gnosticism is not defined as apocrypha, there are heresies in existence that are not gnostic in nature, and apocryphal material is different to both gnosticism and heresies. These are all different and distinct categories. Loremaster needs to do a little more research on Christianity because this individual displays considerable ignorance in this field. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And, as usual, Wfgh66, you are displaying not only your complete lack of simple logic but respect for Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. One doesn't say "there is no Communist evidence for the JKF assassination". One says "there is no historical evidence supporting Communist involvement in the JFK assassination." In other words, there is no such thing as "Christian evidence" or "heretical evidence" for or against a belief or claim! Regardless of the religious dimensions, evidence for or against a Jesus bloodline hypothesis can only be in the form of historical records, biblical texts, apocryphal texts, archaeological artifacts, genealogical charts or genetic profiles. If you read the New Testament apocrypha article, you will find a Gnostic Christian texts section. Therefore, the term "apocryphal evidence" encompasses the Gnostic Christian texts (as well as the heretical ones) you are presumably referring to. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Q: What do you mean by "heretical evidence" or "gnostic evidence"?

A: Heretical or gnostic individuals and groups living in ancient times who, according only to modern fringe theorists, held a belief in a Jesus bloodline.

Q: On what do these modern fringe theorists base their claims for this belief in a Jesus bloodline that these heretical or gnostic individuals and groups allegedly had?

A: The ancient scriptural texts written by these heretical or gnostic individuals and groups which have been found.

Q: Are these ancient scriptural texts inside the Judeo-Christian biblical canon?

A: No.

Q: What is the term that describes any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon?

A: Apocrypha.

Q: Doesn't the Apocrypha article state that the Gnostic tradition was a prolific source of apocryphal gospels?

A:Yes.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF BOOKS out there that have claimed that there is both heretical and gnostic "evidence" for a Jesus Bloodline, all beginning with The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Likewise, there are LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF BOOKS out there that have countered this nonsense. The fact the Loremaster, who has decided to engage in a subject matter they know little about other than what is written in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grauil, reveals that person to trust rubbish like "the Gnostics believed that Jesus Christ was a mortal human being", etc. which Baigent Lincoln and Leigh failed to substantiate with any corroborative evidence. There is a big difference between the categories biblical, apocryphal, heretical, etc......... Wfgh66 (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, then all you have to do is cite a source that specifically states what you wish to report. Wednesday Next (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you are missing the point: In what form does one find this so-called heretical or gnostic evidence? Scriptural texts. --Loremaster (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And New Testament Apocrypha and Gnostic Christian texts are two completely different categories of writing stemming from two completely different (and opposing) sources of Christianity. The Wikipedia article in question should make that abundantly clear. Assuming there is a link between them is a wholly mistaken claim. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I have learned that trying to have a rational discussion with you to resolve a dispute is pointless, I am not going to say anything more beyond the fact everyone knows that different categories can and often do overlap and that I will revert your edits if you try to restore them. --Loremaster (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heretical and Gnostic

Heretical and Gnostic are two of the biggest MacGuffins used by those who promote the theory of the Jesus bloodline and so therefore must be included in the list. I have provided sources. I can provide more books and documentaries that have tackled the subject matters of Heretical and Gnostic as being major MacGuffins and have concluded that they are indeed just red herrings. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact that many fringe theorists misintepret the scriptural texts of ancient heretical and gnostic individuals and groups to support their Jesus bloodline hypothesis. However, as I've already explained, 1) it would be bad phrasing to include the words "heretical" and "gnostic" in the sentence in question; 2) it would lack proper contextualization; and 3) the expression "apocryphal evidence" was always intended to emcompass both so-called heretical and gnostic evidence. --Loremaster (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That being said, anyone can feel free to incorporate a paragraph about the topic in both the History of the hyopthesis and the Criticism sections of the article. As usual, I'll edit any addition of content if it needs improvement. --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

About Paul Smith being banned from Wikipedia

Through one of your sockpuppets, you wrote:

[I have] been stabbed in the back. I hope that pleases you. [I] was only the major supplier of both information and citations, without [my] assistance you would not have much to write about.

First, you were not stabbed in the back. You have systematically violated Wikipedia talk page guidelines by, among other things, not being polite, refusing to assume good faith, and resorting to personal attacks. You were fully aware of the consequences of your actions yet your stubbornness and pride prevented you from respecting these simple guidelines, heeding the numerous warnings you have received from me and others as well as making minimal compromises to resolve the numerous disputes you provoked.

Second, I have always acknowledged and been grateful that you were the major supplier of both information and citations for all the Wikipedia articles related to the Jesus Bloodline Hypothesis. It is true that we wouldn't have had as much to write about without your erudite assistance. However, the feeling of smug moral superiority you derived from this fact led to your undoing. What would please me is if you saw your indefinite blocking from Wikipedia as an opportunity to take a step back and meditate on how your devotion to debunking the Jesus Bloodline Hypothesis has turned you into the mirror image of the very crank you crusade against in the same way that the zeal of an atheist campaigning against the irrationality and intolerance of fundamentalist Christians can himself become equally irrational and intolerant...

Wishing you continued success with your Priory of Sion debunking website,

Paul Smith is back through a new sockpuppet named Solar eclipse17. I've automatically undone his edits. --Loremaster (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

--Loremaster (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Deleted

I didn't like my comment so I removed it, it does NOT express the true situation because I over simplified it and feel it can only cause misunderstandings. - It would take to much space and time to rewrite correctly, and has insufficient importance and level of proof to raise it above the level of speculation. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lucien86 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source for the (false) claim that Adolf Hitler was a descendant of Jesus, this wild speculation cannot be included in the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bloodline in Kashmir

Hello Loremaster, and Happy Valentine's Day... The new book co-authored with myself and Fida Hassnain has been released. It deals extensively with the bloodline of Jesus in Kashmir and efforts to obtain DNA from the alleged tomb of Jesus known as Roza Bal. After some discussions with Doug about including one of the books on the 'Roza Bal' page, we came to an understanding that the book(s) could be valuable resources on the pages providing I did not link to amazon. The contribution now looks like this: *'Roza Bal, The Tomb of Jesus' by Fida Hassnain and Suzanne Olsson, Booksurge in USA, Gulshan Pub. in India (2008)ISBN 9781419697586 (The ISBN link is then inserted). Because the efforts to obtain DNA are still very active, and since this relates directly to the topic of your page about Jesus Bloodlines, I hope you will include this valuable resource for the benefit of your readers. I will leave the decision to you and I will continue to help in any way I can with additional information as required. I know this is an important addition to your extensive list of sources. It is self-published in America, but it is published by a reputable educational publisher in India. The book was just released and is quite new. I hope this update is useful for you. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm currently busy, I will think about if and how best to include this information in the coming days or weeks. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of an old hacker?

Hi Loremaster, I just left this same information on Dougweller's discussion page. I know you had trouble with this in the past so I thought you should be made aware that a sock puppet of WFgh66 (Paul Smith) has returned. I traced this ISP to a location in the New York area, but because Smith has and is involved in serious legal problems on the internet, he is adept at hiding his true ISP. He just edited the new page on Fida Hassnain. The ISP is 24.39.124.4I. I reverted the edit and asked Dougweller if we should now protect it. Watch your bloodline page for changes!He wont be able to resist your page for long. All the best, Suzanne Olsson (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Loremaster (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy Grail

This controversy apparently existed as early as the 15th century.

Thomas Malory has Guenever utter:

"Sir Launcelot is come but of the eighth degree from our Lord Jesu Christ, and Sir Galahad is of the ninth degree from our Lord Jesu Christ, therefore I dare say they be the greatest gentlemen of the world."

The timeline of Le Morte d'Arthur encompasses that of the Merovingian dynasty.

As far as I know there is no reason to believe these ideas came from the works of Chrétien de Troyes, upon which Malory's works were purportedly based.

Interesting that an Englishman wrote about French descendants of Jesus many centuries before Hollywood would be envisioned.

Then again, he did write from prison.

We would need independent confirmation of this. --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean:"independent confirmation of this?" independent confirmation of what?

BLUECHALICE (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have at least one reliable source that confirms this passage can be interpreted as supporting the notion of a Jesus bloodline? --Loremaster (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

historical background for jesus bloodline

The current article is extremely biased towards the Roman Catholic view. The belief that Jesus was married was throughout christian history a fact, both Cathar and Templar studies make this very clear and do not just date from the 20th century. Other religions claim this to be an important part of their beliefs. Below are a few quotes from Mormon leaders in the 19th century.

LDS APOSTLE ORSON HYDE:

"Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana and Galilee" (J. of D., Vol. II, p. 82) and "Before the Savior died, He looked upon His own natural children, as we look upon ours" (J. of D., Vol. II, p. 82)!

"Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, are allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do... Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified." --Journal of Discourses 2:82, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854

"I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children." --Journal of Discourses 2:210, Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it." -- Journal of Discourses 4:259, Orson Hyde

LDS APOSTLE ORSON PRATT SAID

"If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women (Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene) were His wives" (The Seer, p. 159). Pratt further said: "We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of His Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable wives were to be married" (Ibid., p. 172).

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married." -- The Seer, p. 172, Orson Pratt

WILFORD WOODRUFF:

"Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married." -- Wilford Woodruff's Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883

The above make the statement in the article about Jesus bloodline that it was first proposed in 1973 simply untrue.

Here is a link :[1] That makes it clear mormons in the 19th century believed Joseph Smith Jr. to have been a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. Throughout the 20th century this was often taught by mormon missionaries, but since Gordon B. Hinckley was president of the ULDS church the teaching has been discredited as "never an official" teaching of the church. However, Brigham Young taught this as definite doctrine while being president of the UTAH LDS church.

The belief in Jesus' descendants is rife in 19th century discourses all over Europe and the States. It is clear this was a precept that is often seen as self evident by free-masons.

To postulate that this is a recent theory is just a denial of historic fact. BLUECHALICE (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that this article was written primarly by me from a secular rational humanist yet neutral perspective, I've always suspected that the Jesus bloodline is an old hypothesis but I never had the reliable sources to confirm this until now. However, even if it this hypothesis dates back from the Dark Ages, I hope you realize that it would still remain a hypothesis if not a myth. --Loremaster (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not with what I might or might not believe, but with the correct presentation of historicity in any wikipedia article. I don't think anybody is ever fully "neutral" on any subject. We might tell ourselves that we are and strive for neutrality, but this is by no means an easy task. The opinion or belief that Jesus had offspring (and even a twin brother) is as old as christianity itself. Therefore, I would suggest that you remove prhrases such as "was first postulated by" with for instance: "was brought to the attention of the general public in the 20th century by:"

It would take a lot of work perhaps to trace the history of this point of view, but the article now upholds the opinion that this is a new idea, which it is obviously not.BLUECHALICE (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that being neutral is not an easy task, if you had witnessed the evolution of this article ever since it was created, you would know that I was the person responsible for ensuring that this article was as neutral as possible in light of the extremists on both of sides of this hypothesis who wanted this article to reflect their point of view. That being said, twin-brother hypothesis aside, I haven't seen any reliable sources that confirm the "belief that Jesus had offspring is as old as Christianity itself". Regardless, I will make the corrections you suggested. --Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Loremaster, thank you for your efforts in this. What would you consider a "reliable" source? I marvel a bit at your reluctance to read the Arturian quote as a clear testimony that this is what certain people then already believed. How else would you interpret this? Myself, I am finding the evidence in all the literature about the gnostic writings of the first centuries to be overwhelming on this subject. I'm studying theology now and find this to be a given, both the dualism as the belief in Magdalene offspring and the Thomas legends are evident. St Thomas's name (the Dydymus) means "twin". His books were all burnt as heretical because too gnostic before they realised they were authentic from the Saint. Several depictions in Mary Magdalene churches in FR show Jesus and Thomas looking identical and Mary Magdalen with child arriving there by boat. Those depictions were not created yesterday. I grew up in a Catholic country and this idea was quite well known and pointed to in conjunction with the many arturian legends which in old Dutch and French and middle English have different renderings. If you are still looking for a non-copyrighted picture by the way, I can give you one of the Madonna with the Inkwell. An odd and celebrated statuette of a crowned madonna holding a crowned child and in one hand an inkwell, with the Jesus child holding a plume in his hand. It is in fact a gnostic statuette showing Jesus "having dipped his pen" in the Lady's ink. The Virgin was never depicted holding a jar, this is one of the attributes of the Magdalene. The Flemish statuette dates from the medieval day.BLUECHALICE (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines pages. That being said, I don't know how to interpret the Arthurian quote but I've learned over the years that it's often easy to misinterpret things when we take them at face value without any awareness of what the author originally meant. However, I know that so-called evidence of the Jesus bloodline hypothesis in Gnostic scriptures has been refuted by many scholars, many of whom are not Roman Catholics, years ago. As for the image you have to offer, feel free to upload it. --Loremaster (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' heirs

The most that can be said on the matter is a 'Scots Not Proven' verdict.

Given that the gospels were written several decades after the events described the information might not have been readily available (anybody know offhand how many children Harry Truman or Anthony Eden had?). It would have made 'more sense' for Jesus' widow to 'disappear into the local population' than go to another part of the Roman domains/Empire - or for her to go to the Magi (after all they had provided Jesus with gifts).

Even if Jesus fathered several children they would have been fairly young when he died: and the disciples would have been more of a threat to the establishment.

There is marginally more of a case for a 'British Jesus bloodline' than the French - the Glastonbury stories (unless reptilians are involved). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Jesus bloodline article so it shouldn't be used to simply express our opinions about the merits of the Jesus bloodline hypothesis itself. --Loremaster (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes discussing or noting the merits or otherwise of a particular proposition can lead to the improvement of the article. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

True but you are seriously not discussing nor noting anything the article doesn't already address. In other words, tell us something we don't know. P.S. Most people don't know offhand how many children Harry Truman or Anthony Eden had but the difference is that we can find out quite easily. --Loremaster (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making was that 'not mentioning a fact' is not the same as 'suppressing the fact' - the writers of the New Testament and other texts might well have been #protecting# Jesus' family, or the information had 'fallen out of the collective memory.' (And 'they didn't have Wikipedia in those days.')

Anyone wishing to discuss the subject further, is welcome to decamp/contribute to [2]. 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But what you still don't understand, Jack, is that we (editors of Wikipedia) don't care and should not care about your speculation since, correct me if I am wrong, it isn't based on any peer-reviewed academic research you have actually done on the subject of the Jesus bloodline. The Jesus bloodline article can only contain arguments in favor of the Jesus bloddline hypothesis that are found in by reliable sources. Your (so-not original) opinion about what the writers of the New Testament may or may not done doesn't matter. By the way, even if everything you believe about the Jesus bloodline is true, I seriously wonder why people like you think it is important in 2010. In my humble opinion, I think it is far more important to find out what Jesus actually said and did rather than obsessing about his children who never did anything worth remembering. I therefore recommend you look into the work of the Jesus Seminar for a great place to start. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments were based on 'readily accessible' materials - not being into religious research to any great extent.

As the Jesus bloodline system appears to be a phenomenon of particular note from about the mid-20th century (as distinct from the 'Jesus in history' interpretations starting in the 19th century) it is a subject worthy of investigation/noting on WP - and I put the English connection on the talk page as a comment on a path capable of potential development (that has not been).

My interets are historical rather than promoting the Jesus bloodline. I think we are both in agreement that the significant line of descent is in those he influenced in 'philosophical and other aspects' rather than any family he did have: the statement can be applied to most other 'figures of influence' (which was the point I was trying to make with Eden and Truman).

Shall we say that there is room for speculation/discussion/research on the possibilities - but that on WP there should merely be links to the relevant pages elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, instead of wasting each other's time, I suggest you read the Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability policy pages and get back to us. --Loremaster (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes talk pages are useful for 'passing queries/speculations' to see whether one is reinventing the wheel and similar non-useful pursuits. There is no real disagreement between us - beyond saying at which point the discussion should decamp to the page above linked (g). Anybody wishing to put their halfpenny's worth (when they have run out of round tuits) is welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was a bit rough with you, Jack. I blame it on the fact that the Jesus blooline hypothesis (and its related subjects) often attract cranks who want to convince the world that the Jesus bloodline does exist. So you can imagine how tiresome it must be to deal with people like that on a regular basis. So I encourage you to use this talk page to offer queries and speculations that could improve to the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shall we say that (a) the 'Not proven' verdict stands, (b) there are more versions possible than those listed (of which some could be delegated to Althistory wiki), (c) 'the significant line of descent is through Jesus' followers rather than his family (siblings mentioned in the Bible/children), (d) a reworking of John Locke's Two Treatises, (e) investigating 'common knowledge and displaced decontextualised and constructed history' can yield interesting research, (f) 'deliberate stupidity' and related phenomena cannot be cured. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

uh, unless you are making a concrete suggestion on how to improve the article, I'm not really interested in saying anything else... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I wished to do was make the original comments - and we are in broad agreement anyway, even if looking at the topic from slightly different angles. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Judah, son of Jesus

I recently watched the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus on the Discovery Channel, which was about the Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries. One of the ossuaries was labeled "Judah, son of Jesus." The other ossuaries were labeled "Jesus son of Joseph," "Miriam," "Joseph," "Mariamne," and "Matthew." Another ossuary was missing and found labeled "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Many claim Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and Mariamne maybe Mary Magdalene. Was this the tomb of Jesus and if so did Jesus and Mary Magdalene have a son Judah? Ploxhoi (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're going to hate me for this. :-) Ploxhoi, this is an inappropriate use of this talk page. Talk pages are not forums for general discussion of a subject, not even the subject of the article. I'm sure you can find a forum to discuss this, I'm even willing to help you. But not here. And WP:OR also applies to talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller is right so instead of answering your question, I recommend you read criticism of The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary. --Loremaster (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I was only bring up the topic if someone wanted to add this to the Bloodline topic, in order to make an improvement. Since its theological in nature and we have admins that are very objective about certain theological content and removing the material, I was only mentioning the idea if someone else wanted to take the time to add it, not creating discussion. I was not going to waste my time actually adding the material to the Bloodline. Ploxhoi (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the Jesus bloodline article, you would know that we already mention the The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary in the last paragraph of the History of the hypothesis section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)