Talk:Jesus bloodline

Image needed

A perfect article includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks — that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. The Jesus bloodline article therefore needs at least one image that is appropriate, with a succinct caption and acceptable copyright status. I propose we upload and add the following image from Margaret Starbird's website: Church window mosaic of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It has also been used on the website and promotional poster for the film Bloodline. Any objections? --Loremaster (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone work on this while I take a break from this article now that is relatively complete? --Loremaster (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, since you are a WikiFairy, could you work on this for us? --Loremaster (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help but I very rarely upload images and since this doesn't look like it's free, I don't have time to look into the licensing (nor can I think of a fair use rationale, other than using the movie poster to illustrate some comment about the movie in the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Is there a group of Wikipedians that specialize in helping people uploading images? --Loremaster (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Try a brief note at WP:Village Pump. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm afraid that is copyrighted and since this isn't the page about this church window you can't use this under a claim of fair-use. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Bloodline in Kashmir

Hi Lore, I took the liberty of inserting info that I believe updates your page. If you feel there is a better way to present this, by all means make the changes that you feel best suite your page...however, it seems pertinent that readers would want to know there is actually an attempt to check bloodline claims through DNA. All the best to you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Suzanne, this article isn't anyone's page. And you know that as your work is self-published it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I can't believe you deleted that entry! First, the book has an India publisher,not a USA publisher. Second, if the article is about the bloodline, how can you dismiss the latest research? Or the DNA Project? It would seem something that fits in perfectly with this page topic. If you scroll above, you will see that Loremaster and I discussed adding this info a year ago...a whole year has gone by before I returned to Wikipedia and tried to make a helpful contribution. Know what? I cannot go through this with you again. Just delete whatever I posted, what ever gives you your power trips. By the way, I see several other "self-published" books left standing AGAIN..if that is your "beef" with everything I add, then once again you are being hypocritical. Have at it then. I think you have made your intentions clear. It is a personal issue between us. I am saddened by your behavior here. You are not a good and fair editor by any standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.244.120 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Suzanne. I'm not familiar with your history with Dougweller but, in my dealings with him, I've always found him to be a good-intentioned and fair-minded Wikipedian. Regarding your work, can you point us to a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that confirms its notability? --Loremaster (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Loremaster. I have not had good experiences with Dougweller for years. When my pages were hacked repeatedly, all he did was make accusations and demand proofs....even wanted me to post me college degree for proof..He was ridiculous. I am very discouraged .The only pages that ever concerned me here at Wiki are this one, Roza bal, and Yuz Asaf. I have devoted my life to this research. Look what Doug's response is, that my work doesn't belong here. Yet he allows self-published fiction to be promoted on related pages.. same as before with him. But I wont contribute any more...Doug has really upset me..If there is anything of interest, then I suggest that you research it yourself.Go on your own fact-finding search. I fear anything more I contribute will once again be struck down by Doug. I wont waste any more time here. I offered to send you the book last year, as I recall. I'm not going through this again. All the best to you. Sue (I tried. I cant even log in under my full name here). Sorry for the drama.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.244.120 (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I too have had the same trouble with Dougweller. He did not like something I added. He demanded more proof, more verifiable source, and not Christian biased. The topic was a Christian topic based on Revelations, so I can not publish the information. All sources I find are Christian. Definitely not going to find non-Christians publishing the topic or reviewing the topic. I am sure you are not the only ones that have had trouble. He also made false policy violation claims. I honestly do not believe he even understands the Wikipedia policies. I know for a fact he does not understand copyright law, nor the application of fair use. I have come to the conclusion that you are not going to be able to publish anything on Wikipedia where someone with admin powers is going to personally object to the content, their orthodoxy takes prevalence. Ploxhoi (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion Plohoi is misrepresenting was at Talk:Number of the Beast#Bismillah and 666. It wasn't just me objecting to his edits, it was also two experienced editors. I never mentioned Christian bias, nor did the other editors who pointed out the same problem with sources I did. Ploxhoi refuses to acknowledge that we have a policy on copyright that he needs to follow, whatever his understanding of fair use might be (yes, our policy may be different from the policy elsewhere, but it is our policy and we all have to follow it). Suzanne fails to acknowledge that I helped her at times and have tried to prevent vandalism to the articles she mentions. I don't 'allow' any self-published fiction (and she is welcome to remove it). The issue with her was as I recall basically about her desire to use self-published material, but it's an old one and there were a number of other editors involved. The account SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) is not blocked, by the way, there's no reason not to use it except that using several accounts, eg Kashmir, by the same person should be avoided. I think Suzanne's last comment to me before recently was to wish me Happy Valentine's day. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As for fair use, our policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free content and I suggest Plohoi reads it. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the policy and what I posted does not fall under "Unacceptable use". Still you fail to recognize there exceptions in most Wikipedia policies and you fail to get off the first page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use I suggest you read, join, and help out. Ploxhoi (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I already help out on copyright issues. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Suzanne, there is no need to be so melodramtic or defensive. I am sure a smart woman like you understands that Wikipedia must adhere to some guidelines in order to remain a credible source of encyclopedic information. Everyone knows and respects the fact you have invested a lot of time and energy researching a subject you care deeply about. However, in order for your work to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article, we need reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to confirm its notability. For example, if CNN or National Geographic did a story on your work, no one will ever be able to dispute its notability. So have you gotten any attention by a mainstream news organization? If so, let's us know and I will be happy to mention your work in the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think there's anything hypothetical about an actual lineage through decedents based on the assumption (if true) that Mary Magdalene had bore Jesus's children. Moreover this whole article can't be hypothetical going on the above information facilitating he in fact survived the crucifixion and had the time to bare children in the first place. Perhaps these books are perpetuating that it did happen and create the illusion that this scenario is hypothetical. If not, then these works are pure fiction and this article shouldn't exist in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truambitionz (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This Is Pathetic

This article is missing all kinds of stuff. & It's clearly biased against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It reflects what mainstream sources have to say about the subject. If you read WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY you might understand why it is written the way it is. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it says, "According to the vast majority of professional historians and scholars from related fields, there is no historical, biblical, apocryphal, archaeological, genealogical, or genetic evidence which supports this hypothesis." Who are these professionals, and what are their credentials? I know some who are quoted, as having theories supporting Jesus having been married, are Professors and Theologians too. That is an awful big statement, without having their names to back it up.--Craxd (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If this material is to be presented as any kind of scholarly work the it needs a lot more than is being presented. It also needs be more objective. For instance Dougweller states "there is no historical, biblical, apocryphal, archaeological, genealogical, or genetic evidence which supports this hypothesis." In point of fact the same can be said of the man "Jesus" himself. Unless of course you want to view the bible as historically accurate, which as we all know it is not.. There is for instance the "Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth" which although considered by the church to be heretical, is no more improbable then any other gospel. If one is going to consider alternative outcomes to the alleged Crucifixion I don't think you can do so without considering the other heretical books that did not make it into the New Testament. There is some, albeit, scant mention of an early church with close ties to the living apostles, which were supposedly wiped out by the "legitimate" church(As established by The First Nicaean Council),that claimed Jesus did not die but was spirited away for his own protection and that the story of his death was made up so people wouldn't try to hunt him down. Legends abound. What this article needs is more information to flesh out the legend. There is little connective tissue to give this article any legitimacy at all. I would submit the whole thing should be scrapped. You may as well tell the story of the courtship of Zeus and Hera. I mean what are we doing now with Wikipedia? Does any fairy tale merit scholarly examination without any evidence that the person or character in question was even a real person? Can anybody show one piece of evidence that the Jesus bloodline myth was a part of the early church prior to 314 C.E.? Name one sect that had such a tradition prior to the Christionization of Constantine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.118.184 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Claimants section

Is that section for those who have "claimed and still claim" or also for those who have claimed and may then say they made it up? I think that should be clarified. I say that because the Times of India in May 8, 2010 said that Suzzane Olsson had claimed to be the 59th descendant of Jesus in letters she wrote to people in Kashmir. The Times does not say that she then said that she had made those claims up, but she has said that on various Wiki-pages. So anyway, that section should decide if fake/hoax claims should be included. The use of past tense there suggests that fake claims need to be included, retracted or not. History2007 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say that if their claim achieved significant notability, then they should be included along with an indication of their retraction. (That being said, delineating 'fake' claims is an exercise in redundancy - they are all fake.) Agricolae (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was those who "admit" their claims were fake. I thiink Basharat Saleem and Kathleen McGowan never retracted their claims. Suzanne Olson flatly says that she faked it. That is the difference. History2007 (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I don't know if Michel Roger Lafosse has even admitted that he is Michel Roger Lafosse rather than HRH Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart, 7th Count of Albany. Still as I said, if the claim was widely enough reported, that makes it notable independent of subsequent events (which should be mentioned for clarity). Agricolae (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should let you guys discuss Olsson's notability here. I should, however, mention that in the last hour she may have now retracted that the claim was fake, and says that her new research showed it was a mistaken claim... But she does not claim it any more. Anyway, too complicated to handle probably. Her page Suzanne M. Olsson says she claimed it, but there is no WP:RS source for the retraction, except herself... All pretty minor items in the overall view of the history of the planet probably... History2007 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just read THIS PAGE AND WISH TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS SO YOU CAN PRESENT A MORE ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS ABOUT CLAIMANTS.. . . .[BLP violation removed] . . . I remain in constant communications with friends and fellow researchers in Kashmir and pray for the day we can all get the help and support we need to obtain the DNA from these sites. It is very expensive and I cannot do it all on my own. All bloodline claims are wishful thinking until then, as I repeatedly emphasized in my book. If you insist on writing statements about me in these articles, please at least be fair and give a proper accounting. Thank you for your kind efforts on my behalf. Suzanne Olsson SuzanneOlsson (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

History2007 is no longer active on Wikipedia. But can we be clear? You are saying that you do not believe you are a direct descendant of Jesus, but that you may be a descendant of his family - is that it? Paul B (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note This contribution by SuzanneOlsson appears to be a violation of a broad topic ban imposed here [1] which prohibits editing all pages (explicitly imposed to prevent editing Talk pages) with the exclusion of her own Talk page, the Talk page of the article about her (since deleted) and WP:BLPN. User was made aware of the ban two weeks ago, and responded to the notification [2] so she was aware of its imposition. If the editor has objections to the information about her provided on this page, then objections should be raised by her at BLPN, and not here. Agricolae (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I've been sporadically engaging with Ms Olsen since 2008, when she was user:NewYork10021. She has never grasped how Wikipedia works and clearly never will. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My error..yes, I forgot about the ban when I read this bloodline article..you said it should be discussed at BLPN....how precisely do I do that? You are lacking in some pertinent info..that I would be happy to explain again to Paul and others...I thought I did that here but it was all deleted quite quickly. Some more rules and bans I've apparently broken again..Sorry to have troubled you here....Sue. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not rocket science. You go to WP:BLPN, and you discuss it. (See there where it says "To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:"? Do that and it will open a new discussion topic, where you can provide pertinent information to your heart's content.) The topic ban is not confusing and it should be easy to remember. You are allowed to participate in Wikipedia at two places and two places only: your own Talk page, and WP:BLPN (and if an article with you as the subject is ever recreated, you can participate on its Talk page). Any other article or Talk page is off limits to you. That includes this Talk page, even to respond to this message. Failure to voluntarily comply can result in a block - your account will be rendered inoperative. Also please note that when you provide your information on BLPN, you should refrain from accusing anyone of causing another's death, as you did here. Such accusations are a clear violation of the BLP policy, and are subject to immediate deletion. Agricolae (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just on FamilySearch.org following random parentage links on my family tree. I was astonished to see a bunch of British and French coat of arms and then a bunch of random King names that I had never heard of before. As the date for births and deaths got closer and closer to the times of Christ I was amazed at first... only to see the links result in a Jesus and Mary Magdalene pairing. I immediately denied that it could be true and decided it must be a hoax or that someone along the family tree must have lied about who their parents or grandparents were.

Before I say anything else I want to make clear I am not making a claim. I post this more to show how easy to make false claims it is, and also to potentially debunk some of the current French claims such as Suzanne Olsson.

If it was indeed factual, the family tree of Christ drops from a supposed son by the name of "Josephus Rama-Theo Desponsyni" and from him follows through family lines starting with Desposyni to Garthmadrun to Ceredigion to Cornouaille (Brittany / Bretagne) to De Vitre to De Ferrers to Seyton to Metcalf - of which I personally have as a surname. Assuming that those connections the site has shown me are correct then that would make me and any cousins of mine 70th generation grandchildren of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Keyword being assuming as I have severe doubts of this authenticity.

I will say that a quick glance at just the info listed on my tree shows some inconsistencies which I personally believe invalidate any such bloodline claims. And that is even if you accept it as given that there were indeed children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Please note that all of these inconsistencies are just from submitted data and I have not read any dusty old manuscripts to research this. I am simply using logic and common sense to debunk the bloodline.

400?ad King Erbin ap Eudaf of Gwent's title "ap Eudaf" means his father should be named Eudaf yet the parental claim is to Prince Ensig ap Hydwn. So we have a potential case of adoption or bad linkage.

400?ad Iaun Reith of Cornouaille supposedly was born in 397, but the supposed father King Erbin ap Eudaf of Gwent was supposed to have been born in 400. Which is three years later while the mother is never named and supposedly was born even later in 404. At best this means he was adopted and thus is not eligible for being part of the bloodline.

530?ad The next big issue comes a few generations down in which the supposed birth mother Rimo Tymyr verch Rhun de Gwynedd is listed as a 528 birthyear while the son King Alain Judual ap Hoel Fychan de Bretagne is listed as 530 a mere 2 years later making this almost surely a bastard or other form of adopted child. Since the supposed bloodline ran through the father though this is unimportant if a bastard child - yet important if adopted.

870ad But the next chink is even worse. Father of the bloodline Alfrond de Cornouaille dies in 868 yet supposedly his son Ulfret Alesrudon de Cournouaille is born in 870 which is more than 13 months later minimum. Meaning regardless of whether the mother adopted or had a bastard that the line must stop here unless it was a relative of the father who sired the child.

1000?ad A couple generations later it is a wife who is inconsistent. No birth year is listed for Enoguen Berenger de Renne but her child that continues the line was born in 1034. The problem is that her own mother supposedly died in 984 so that would have to have been her own latest birth year... which would have made her a 50 year old woman when that child was born and well after the maximum age of birthing years.

1365ad A bit later a Joan De Longueville has a birth year of 1365 which is 4 years after the death of her supposed father. But since the line ran through her mother not father that is fine although a probable case of bastardry.

1472ad In 1472 the bloodline supposedly merged into my own from the Seytons when James Metcalf was born... however Jane Seyton the bloodline holding mother would have only been 6 years old that year herself, and even his supposed father would have been only 10 years old. I find it far more likely that my ancestor James was adopted or a half-brother who was given the identity of their son to save face.

1519ad Then James supposedly had a son Leonard Brian Metcalf in 1519, however the wife would have been 45 years old that year and well out of childbirth years especially back then.

1591ad Then the grandson Michael Metcalf the 1st is born in 1591 while his own mother would have been 44 years old.

Clearly more than a few children along this line are credited to the wrong mothers (and fathers!) I didn't even cover a few other mothers who were 35 to 40 years old as I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Again all source info has strictly been limited to the FamilySearch user submitted information. All submitted info is only as authentic and valid as the users who input it. I am not the source of any such info. Signed as a Metcalf non-claimant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:845:C100:A740:D1D2:C26C:FA50:CBF0 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

One sided

It seems to me, that the entire topic is one sided, in that names of those who have theories are given, but the names of the so-called professionals who refute it are not. I know, for a fact, that there are several university professors, and theologians, who have theories that agree with Jesus being married, to balance the scale. One can not claim, in print, that a huge number disagree, without giving those names, and giving their professional credentials. That makes the article smack of bias from the start.

At the end, it say "Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, commented that, although there are some historical scholars who claim that it is likely that Jesus was married, the vast majority of New Testament and early Christianity scholars find such a claim to be historically unreliable." Ehrman is not that reliable of a professional, nor did he give the multitude of peoples names who he claims to agree. He critiques the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but does he critique it all? [--Craxd (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that the "other side" would be "everyone else". There are a handful of those who disagree with mainstream consensus (which is why the bloodline theory exists as a notable topic at all) and so we mention them specifically and their specific theories. There's not much point listing (arbitrarily) some of those in the "everyone else". We'll never be able to list them all. We do the same with climate change and 9/11 conspiracies and everywhere else where a small number of people disagree with overwhelming consensus. The "list everyone who forms the mainstream" argument is a tactic used by those who refuse to believe that such a consensus exists, despite being able to find only a handful of people who support their view. I'm not suggesting that's where you're coming from - just trying to provide some context to what seems like a legitimate comment. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the footnote that's given, as proof of this, is Bart D. Ehrman. He is not the many named, and he can not speak for the others, though I'm sure he's made a claim that these others agree with him. I've listened to, and read from, Ehrman, and know many who do not agree with his take on theology, especially his crudity in commenting on authors. If the statement is to be believable, then at least a few prominent un-biased professional names should be listed.--Craxd (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably more a case of adding more references, rather than adding more names. The mainstream typically don't respond to every wild conspiracy theory or pseudo-historical claim made. But there are plenty who have commented when this theory has received mainstream attention (with regard to The Da Vinci Code or the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, for example). I'll happily help to add any relevant references to the article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesus bloodline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320110246/http://latalkradio.com/Rene.php to http://latalkradio.com/Rene.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504023211/http://www.pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=1659 to http://www.pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=1659

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Leap of Logic

Ken Mondschein is mentioned towards the end of the article as debunking the idea. I am not a proponent of any of the bloodline theories but I am a genealogist and one who can trace my ancestry with great reliability back to the Roman Empire. His argument is ludicrous and illogical. He implies that it is not possible for anyone alive 2000 years ago to have descendants today. Everyone alive today is descended from someone who was alive 2000 years ago. Does he honestly think that at some point people spontaneously generated as some ancients believed? It is no more nor less impossible for Jesus to have living descendants than Caesar or Xerxes or Ptolemy. The only thing preventing it is really his death prior to having the opportunity to procreate. Most Christians don't believe he procreated but that does not make it impossible. I think it is unlikely but who am I to say? If he could have managed a few children surviving to adulthood and some of them managed to provide him with grandchildren who also survived to adulthood then it is extremely likely he has living descendants. An encyclopedia should quote from recognized and respected experts but if such people make ludicrous illogical statements then perhaps not. I propose removal of his quote. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:FF00:8E:75F7:9E61:F857:54F3 (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, were we to remove from the article all of the ludicrous illogical statements, we wouldn't have an article, because pretty much all of the bloodline hypotheses are exactly that. Agricolae (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Linear" sequence

The seemingly nonsensical term "linear sequence of descendants" has been re-added after I removed the word "linear". I don't want to edit war, so could someone explain what they imagine a "non-linear" sequence of descendants would be? Brattice (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as the term 'direct descendant' is often used when nobody can tell you what an 'indirect descendant' would be, usage is not always subject to the logical consistency your question would imply. 'Descendant' can also be used for other types of derivative connection over time, e.g. cultural descendants, philosophical descendants, scholarly descendants and of particular relevance here, religious descendants. In this case it is important to stress that we are talking about a specific genealogical line and not a more vague concept of non-genealogical descent. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Direct descendant" is usually used for descent purely through the male line in contexts where that is considered to matter. I can see the point in some contexts of distinguishing an actual biological descendant from some metaphorical extension of the word, but this is not such a context and, more importantly, the word "linear" doesn't do that. "Lineal" is slightly better in that it doesn't make the sentence nonsensical but the sentence would still be better without it.Brattice (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, 'direct descendant' is usually used simply to amplify that it is a descent from the specific person themselves and not a more amorphous 'descent from the family of', but is completely superfluous with a strict modern genealogical definition of 'descendant'. My guess is that it is a holdover from earlier broader uses of descendant, where you can see someone called a descendant of an ancestral uncle from whom their land title derived, or simply used as an amplifier. Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wedding at Cana

Could this article ask whether the Wedding at Cana may have been the marriage of Jesus? I do not know of any published sources arguing this, but the question was put to me at church today (Sunday 3 July 2022). YTKJ (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be outside the scope to go into it in any detail, though it would be legit to incorporate a simple mention if you can find a good secondary source that says one of the bloodline proponents has explicitly made the connection. Agricolae (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, a mention would probably seem like inserting original research into Wikipedia. I did say I had not come across any published sources, so this idea would difficult to defend. The actual Biblical verse from John Two says that Jesus and his mother were guests at the wedding, so it is unlikely the wedding was his. Oops - I seem to have lapsed into discussing the subject, rather than the article - although I guess that will be a problem for as long as there are Wikipedia talk page. YTKJ (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I say this as much for any subsequent reader: Fundamentally, there can be a bloodline descent without that specific marriage playing a role, and that marriage could have taken place without producing a bloodline, so that limits the applicability of marriage-of-Cana speculation on this specific page. Only if a notable bloodline hypothesis incorporated this marriage into their version of events and a secondary source commenting on the their hypothesis thought that the incorporation of the marriage of Cana into their bloodline scheme merited mention. Agricolae (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Relatives to Jesus do exist

I am personally related to the brother of Mary (Jesus's Uncle). That makes me a descendant and a relation (66 Generations) to Jesus. After his Crucifixion members of his family travelled to Wales, Great Britain and some were known as Saints. They married into the Royal Families of Wales of that period. 118.210.54.57 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)