EC Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 I have lots and lots of royal blood. I am related to practically the entire British and French monarchies as well as several Roman emperors. Okay...I'm a straight descendent of the last king of Atlantis, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Main difference being that Britain, France, and Rome actually existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Yeah, but I have a feeling that I can track my blood-line back to the Atlantisian king with as much accuracy as you can track your supposed "royal" blood-line. Where you joking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 No, I wasn't joking at all. If you find out that you're related to British royalty, the rest is really quite easy. There are no better kept familial records in existence than those of the British royal family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherSchlegel Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 To what extent is Biblical geneology historically accurate? There is a different geneology for Jesus in every gospel. Actually there are only geneological listings in Matthew & Luke. Matthew goes back to Abraham, while Luke goes all the way back to Adam (& of course God). Yes, they are different. Furthermore, they each claim to be the bloodline descendants of Joseph, who was not supposedly Jesus' biological father. They should have been doing Mary's if they were attempting to establish Jesus' geneology. This page has info on this issue in which the Catholic church acknowledges the problem & tries to reconcile the "difficulties": http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJanis Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 No historical evidence for Jesus? How about Josephus? Of all the characters in the Bible, the one whose existence I doubt the least is Jesus Christ. I haven't read this book, but I saw a presentation by the author at the American Atheists national convention two years ago. It presents the results of a study of ancient Hebrew texts looking for references to Jesus. There weren't any found in texts written anywhere near Jesus's "birth." https://lightning.he.net/~atheists/catalogu...op/prod7026.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 No, I wasn't joking at all. If you find out that you're related to British royalty, the rest is really quite easy. There are no better kept familial records in existence than those of the British royal family. I think also considering how incredibly inbred much of Europe's monarchies are, you find yourself related to one, you kind of get an automatic pass on the rest. After all, monarchies are mostly based on the idea of a divine blood line so you want to make sure there are as few branches on the family tree as possible between you (the royal) and God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Yeah, there does seem to be quite a bit of inbreeding in my ancestry. Thankfully, my family has been incest-free for several centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) Moose, forgive me if I still sound suspicious. It's quite possible that you are related to the British or French royals, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how you would trace your family back to Roman emperors. What records are you relying on for the period of the Dak Ages, in which the monarchies of Europe were not yet established and even the most blue blooded aristocrats were illiterate? The ancestors of the great houses of Europe (Anjou, Saxe-Coburg, Hohenzollern, etc.) were barbaric chieftains (if they had even attained that rank at so early a date) still migrating through the continent. I don't see how you can make the connection between them and any Roman emperor. Granted, Theodoric married into the family of Augustus Romulus (and I am sure such was the custom of other barbarian kings), but given the lack of evidence for that era it confounds me that you can trace your ancestry so far back. Edited March 31, 2005 by Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Well, my dad did all of the work. He hasn't worked on it in years and I only recently started looking this stuff up, so I don't know what sources he used. I know that, at one point, he actually hired a geneologist to look stuff up for him. Constantine is somewhere in my line, and Marcus Aurelius was his ancestor. So, don't ask me how my dad got back to Constantine but, if it's true, then I am also a descendant of Marcus Aurelius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Yeah, there does seem to be quite a bit of inbreeding in my ancestry. Thankfully, my family has been incest-free for several centuries. No bid deal; I'm from the rural South where we don't have family trees, we have family wreaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tortured one Posted April 4, 2005 Report Share Posted April 4, 2005 My opinion of the Bible is that it is a book of tall tales. I believe that it is possible that at one point in time a man named Johnie Appleseed existed. However, I doubt he planted every apple tree in America. I believe that a man named George Washington existed, however, I doubt that he chopped down the cherry tree or skipped a silver dollar across the potomac (forgive me if my knowledge of tall tales are a bit rusty) In the same way, I believe that at one point in time, there was a massive flooding of the ancient land of canaan (there have been geological studies to suggest it happened) but I doubt that it covered the entire world and the only man and animals that survived were Noah and the animals in his boat. In the same way, I feel that there had to be an originator of the idea of Jesus, son of Josef, but I doubt he went around healing lepers and turning water into wine. In other words, take what the Bible says with a pinch of salt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted April 4, 2005 Report Share Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) To take a contrary opinion to everyone else, I think the ancient Jews were probably reasonably accurate record keepers. I see no reason why the geneologies they kept couldn't be quite accurate. On the other hand, they could be totally made up. That all comes down to what you believe. I think that the development of Judaism would have taken long enough that the geneologies could possibly be genuine. In the end I think I'd vote that the geneologies are false--but there seems to be no rational way to prove, for sure, whether they are or not. If you want to believe they're real, go for it, I certainly won't oppose you. Edited April 4, 2005 by valjean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted April 4, 2005 Report Share Posted April 4, 2005 To take a contrary opinion to everyone else, I think the ancient Jews were probably reasonably accurate record keepers. I see no reason why the geneologies they kept couldn't be quite accurate. On the other hand, they could be totally made up. That all comes down to what you believe. I think that the development of Judaism would have taken long enough that the geneologies could possibly be genuine. In the end I think I'd vote that the geneologies are false--but there seems to be no rational way to prove, for sure, whether they are or not. If you want to believe they're real, go for it, I certainly won't oppose you. To claim that the are accurate with no corraborating evidence is completely arbitrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted April 4, 2005 Report Share Posted April 4, 2005 To claim that the are accurate with no corraborating evidence is completely arbitrary. I'm not claiming they're accurate--and I'm not advocating that one does so. I am saying that they could be accurate, and one could say that there is a certain chance of the Bible geneologies being valid. In the end I think this is all that can be said about this topic. We are all here because we believe in objective proof and there is no objective proof in favor or in opposition to the validity of Bible geneologies. (I maintain that my educated guess is that there is little accuracy there.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted April 4, 2005 Report Share Posted April 4, 2005 There is so much objective proof that virtually everything written in the bible is false that to think otherwise is implies one simply chose not to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 For the debaters, there is an informative website about the Jesus-myth here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 But, but, how do you explain the Shroud of Turin? /bible-thumper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.