Talk:Jesus bloodline/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rex Deus Merge?

Shouldn't there be some real research into the probability of Jesus being married, taking into account the time period, culture and his status in life? I am not an expert, but there must be some acctual investigation of this. There seems to be considerable overlap here with the Rex Deus article. Perhaps they should be merged. Paul B 12:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks Paul, hadn't seen that article. Seems from a casual inspection like there's more places where the phrase "Jesus bloodline" is used that the slightly pompous "Rex Deus", maybe just make Rex Deus a reference to the bloodline? There's a bit if info in the Deus page that isn't in the bloodline page though, for example on comparative religion, the Druze, and the "shadow court", etc. What thinks you my liege? MarkThomas 12:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rex Deus article was merged with the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources

I think more sources should be added to the article, The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, yes are very good sources, but more sources are needed to fully understand the Jesus bloodline, you know, movies and books about the Jesus bloodline theory, one example of a movie is, The Last Tempation of Christ. And yes, with more sources, maybe the article can be expanded, and maybe a genelogy based on the books based on the Jesus bloodline theory can be made, well, I can do it myself, if I knew more about the Jesus bloodline theory.

Good question - which leads to the inevitable answer and conclusion that 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' inspired Margaret Starbird, Laurence Gardner, Timothy Wallace-Murphy, and a host of other authors both in pseudo-history and in fiction (of which Dan Brown is the most famous, but only one out of many other novelists that were inspired by 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'). Everything begins with 1982 when 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' was first published and does not go back any further. When someone out there claims that Sara the servant of Mary was "the daughter of Jesus" that statement does not exist in the medieval legend - it is a modern interpretation of the medieval legend designed to fit-in with the desired belief that Jesus had children. And so on. Wfgh66 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistics and descendants

The quoted source says:

[i]f anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet.

This implies that one of two things is the case:

• A very large number of people living today ("most of us on the planet") is descended from Jesus.
• No one living today is descended from Jesus.

This argument is correctly summarized in the edit that I made:

The notion that a person living millennia ago has a small but nonzero number of descendants living today is statistically improbable.

The text that was previously in the article, which User:Lowell33 wants to reinsert, said:

The notion that a person living today has a small number of ancestors from millennia ago is statistically incorrect.

The problems with User:Lowell33's text are that is not the argument of the source (thus failing WP:V and WP:OR), and that it is not in fact relevant to this topic. It is true that, as we go back millennia, the potential number of ancestors in any given generation increases. However, this fact is not in any way an argument against the Jesus bloodline theory. The Jesus bloodline theory claims only that some people today have Jesus as one of their countless ancestors. For example, say that Jesus is George Bush's ancestor from 100 generations ago. Then Jesus would be only one of a potential 2^100 ancestors of Bush from that generation. But so what? Why does this pose a problem for the theory? And where is this argument made in the quoted source?

Please do not revert again without answering these questions. Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards. It is not "improbable" that a person living millennia ago has a "small but nonzero number of descendants living today." It's impossible. That person either has no descendants or many, many descendants ("most of us on the planet").

The "problem for the theory" in your George Bush example isn't that Bush is one of Jesus' many descendants. The problem is that there's nothing special about that. If Bush is Jesus' descendant, then so is everybody else. There is no "bloodline" that distinguishes Bush from anyone else. That's why I think it's important to phrase it in a way that goes from the purported contemporary descendant to the purported ancient ancestor. (Rather than from the ancient ancestor to the contemporary descendant, as you have phrased it.) That shows that, even if this particular contemporary person is a descendant of this particular ancient ancestor, there's nothing special about that. You could say it about virtually anyone. Lowell33 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lowell, Based on your point above on this talk page, it seems that we basically agree in our understanding of the argument. You say

even if this particular contemporary person is a descendant of this particular ancient ancestor, there's nothing special about that. You could say it about virtually anyone.

I think this is a fine summary of the argument, and I would have no objection to putting something like that in the main article. However, I just don't see how the original wording of

The notion that a person living today has a small number of ancestors from millennia ago is statistically incorrect

expresses that argument. What does the number of ancestors of an arbitrary person living today have to do with number of descendants of Jesus living today? I just don't see the logical connection. (btw, I don't have strong feelings about "improbable" vs. "impossible" -- if you prefer "impossible" I guess that's OK, though it's not strictly impossible, if you imagine an extremely inbred dynasty!) Grover cleveland (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's entirely possible for someone from 2000 years ago to have exactly one living descendant, and it wouldn't require any kind of close inbreeding. If person A and his/her spouse have one child (B), and then B marries some random person from anywhere in the gene pool and they have one child (C) together, and then person C marries some random unrelated person and they have one child (D) together, and so on. Of course, it isn't even necessary for each generation to have just one child--they can have more, so long as those childrens' bloodlines die out completely at some point along the way--which definitely does happen in real life.

I'm not enough of a demographic statistician to be able to calulate the likelihood of person A having exactly one descendant 2000 years later, but it's clearly possible and wouldn't require any more inbreeding than is inherent in the fact that all the people on earth are cousins to some degree.

That said, I think there's a high probability that the Jesus Bloodline story is a load of malarkey.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Claimants - Jesus Bloodline

Kathleen McGowan, Niven Sinclair (and possibly Michel Roger Lafosse) all claim to be of the Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The madness continues... That being said, I agree that we should create a new section for notable claimants. However, we absolutely need to cite sources. --Loremaster (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that Joseph Smith and/or the Mormon priesthood claim to be of the Jesus bloodline. If it's true, they should be included in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Vern G. Swanson's book, Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism's Sacred Bloodline (Cedar Fort; 2006). Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was married though this cannot be traced back to the founder, Joseph Smith jr, and I'm unsure if the idea extended into a bloodline.Wfgh66 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Niven Sinclair hinted that the Sinclairs of Rosslyn were of the Jesus bloodline on an ABC Documentary (he's a serious follower of the books by Laurence Gardner and a friend of Tim Wallace-Murphy of Rex Deus fame), though his blood relationship to the Sinclairs of Rosslyn has to be established; need to read the books by Olsson and Lafosse to obtain solid citations (Olsson's claim existed in an article on her website that's no longer there). Laurence Gardner promoted Lafosse in his book 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' as the descendant of Christ but would need to consult his latest books Forgotten Monarchy and Knights Templar of the Middle East to see how he stands on the matter these days. Here are links on Kathleen McGowan: [1] and [2] Wfgh66 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, let's limit this section to people who have themselves claimed to be of the Jesus bloodline rather than claimed by others to avoid a dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Geza Vermes and a married Jesus

User:Loremaster wrote:

Some prominent scholars involved in the quest for the historical Jesus, such as Géza Vermes, counter that the notion that Jesus was married and had a child or children is not only possible and probable but should not be viewed as "heretical", "blasphemous" or "anti-Christian". However, they are critical of claims made about a hypothetical Jesus bloodline which originate from works of pseudohistory and conspiracy theory.

I found this reference:

Geza Vermes summary is: "Against such a background of first-century AD Jewish opinion, namely that the prophetic destiny entailed amongst other things a life of continence, Jesus' apparent voluntary embrace of celibacy, at any rate from the time of his reception of the holy spirit, becomes historically meaningful." Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, Fortress: 1973, pp.284.

Wfgh66 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of replacing Vermes with some other scholar when I read something similar. --Loremaster (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Meyer cannot be classed as a typical Gnostic scholar, since most Gnostic scholars accept that Gnostics rejected the physical substance of Christ, and that the act of procreation by their Saviour was considered unthinkable. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement I am writing is about the opinion of some mainstream scholars I have read. If Marvin Meyer is not a good reference for this statement, remove him since I am not the one who wanted to cite him. That being said, to avoid an edit war, please refrain from editing this statement until I have provided a reference since we are clearly not talking about the same thing. --Loremaster (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

About the New Age / Devotion section

I do not consider New Age an appropriate title for this section. Also, some of these new religious movements might legitimately reject the label New Age; and 2) we need sources who describe them as being New Age. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age is an umbrella term for all modern alternative religious movements that oppose the established forms of belief. What's the problem? It always has been. New Religious Movement spring up but they model themselves on established religions and usually differ in marginal areas. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if this is true, I don't think it fits as the title of a section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Starbird describes herself as a genuine Roman Catholic. Does that mean that we have to place the Jesus bloodline article under the category of Roman Catholic? I have read the article New Religious Movements and the Jesus bloodline does not really fit into that category since it is about religious movements that have heads and leaders, and movements that are generally organised, something not apparent in relation to Jesus bloodline and those who have chosen it as the focus of their religious faith. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide second or third-party sources for your opinion. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Read Margaret Starbird's books, messages on internet discussion lists, and her comments on her website. Not "my opinion" at all. Also, read how Sandra Miesel poked fun at Starbird in her review of "The Da Vinci Code". Wfgh66 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Please provide sources which explain that Jesus bloodline devotees are "New Age" or "new religious movements". By the way, I hope you realize that messages on internet discussion lists can NOT be considered as reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age is the only terminology that can be used to define the Jesus bloodline as an object of religious devotion. New Age is a terminology that encapsulates all forms of alternative religion. Obviously, those disagreeing with this statement need to subscribe to a few Yahoo Groups devoted to the Jesus and Mary bloodline (there are quite a few), and then to see the various Yahoo IDs and check out the Profiles and Photos. These people can only be considered as classic examples (or caricatures) of New Age stereotypes. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Please provide sources which state the Jesus bloodline as an object of devotion falls under the category of New Age.
2. Describing people who belong to a Yahoo Group as "classic examples (or caricatures) of New Age stereotypes" is an opinion (and a prejudiced one at that) not a fact. Inserting opinions in an article goes against the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've recycled the content from the deleted New Age devotion section for a new section called Religious adherence. After thinking about it, I have come to conclusion that the use of the expression "New Age" is appropriate if properly contextualized. If anyone has problems with this section, please discuss it here for deleting anything. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66, please do not delete the new Religious adherence section without discussing it here otherwise it will create a dispute and edit war that can be easily avoided if everyone acts maturely. --Loremaster (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious Adherence section

Why change something that is concise, simple, easy to understand and to the point???? Your latest wording to the category that I introduced was stodgy and cumbersome like some overweight elephant. Can't we leave the existing description as it is, and not devote too much diffuse explanations of something that does not need that much attention? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply disagree that your contribution was "concise, simple, easy to understand and to the point" since it confuses the Jesus bloodline with the sacred feminine, which are two related yet different concepts. Furthermore, I consider that the new section (that I have improved in light of your criticisms) is far more comprehensive, which a Wikipedia article should always strive for. --Loremaster (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not good enough, it is all rubbish. The believers swoon over the erotic energy between Jesus and Mary in the act of coitus that produces the bloodline. And you cannot merge "liberal Christianity" with "New Age". That's atrocious! Wfgh66 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It ultimately doesn't matter what you think is good enough. That being said, I'm confused: Are you saying that believers do or do not "swoon over the erotic energy between Jesus and Mary in the act of coitus that produces the bloodline"? Regardless of your answer, that's not what I wrote. As for "merging liberal Christianity with New Age" as you call it, it is simply a fact that some New Agers are liberal Christians. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But what you think is good enough has to override others' opinions! Liberal Christianity involves churchgoing and an attempt to radicalise the status quo of the religion. New Age is rebellion against religion and viewing Christianity as some sort of pagan religion that would never incur churchgoing. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt mattter what *I* think is good enough. What matters is whether both of us are following Wikipedia guidelines or, in this particular case, the spirit of Wikipedia which encourages comprehensiveness (not neglecting major facts and details). I completely disagree with your opinion that Liberal Christianity and New Age are inherently antagonistic. However, to avoid a dispute/edit war over such a trivial aspect of the article, I'm willing to let it go. --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the current contribution is good enough. There does not have to be too much explanation involved to something which is easy to understand. Surely???Wfgh66 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The goal should be comprehensiveness: (not neglecting major facts and details). --Loremaster (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that the current edit is satisfactory? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that all conventional and traditional religions reject the bloodline theory without having to read it. Surely that self-evident fact does not have to be put in writing? And there can only ever be one category of people who devote themselves to it. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Not everyone knows that. I know many people who are completely clueless about the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity so we have to write a comprehensive encyclopedic article while operating under the assumption that most readers are unchurched. --Loremaster (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But there is a huge difference between Liberal Christianity and New Age that needs to be addressed. Namely that whatever form of Christianity the New Age devotees accept it will invariably be of such an extreme nature that it will never involve churchgoing, an issue that does not affect Liberal Christianity. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a very rigid understanding of what liberal Christianity is and can be. Regardless, as I said above, to avoid a dispute/edit war over such a trivial aspect of the article, I'm willing to let it go. --Loremaster (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Even Liberal Christians who do not believe in things like the Virgin Birth and the Resurection still go to church. New Age devotees would never consider setting foot in a church. Am I wrong about this? Wfgh66 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have too much of a rigid interpretation of what liberal Christianity is and isn't but it's a moot point. --Loremaster (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After much editing to improve the prose, I'm almost satisfied with the current version of the Religious adherence section. I hope everyone is happy. --Loremaster (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Suzanne Olsson link spamming?

I wish to add a few words here. I have spent past several hours checking various sites at Wikipedia. I noticed that someone keeps inserting the name of Suzanne Olsson with links back to a web site called 'The Refiner's Fire' where Olsson is then attacked. Is there a way to block this person from inserting links at Wikipedia that obviously have a questionable intent? I have been removing them (including from this page) as I find them, which is a random hit and miss endeavor. Please advise. Thanks. R. Tabor. May 13, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Tabor (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Post a description of the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That being said, there is nothing wrong with posting links to the website of a source that is critical of a subject. The issue is whether or not the source is reliable, which they don't seem to be in this case. Therefore, I've restored the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline article and added a "citation needed" tag. --Loremaster (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious calling Susanne Olssen the descendant of Jesus Christ. There is a review of her book by Fida Hassnain on Amazon.com where he calls her "the descendant of Christ." Wfgh66 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person. Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that Suzanne Olsson (or anyone else) claims to be a descendant of Jesus(!). Some self-published website from a non-notable writer doesn't cut it. A review on Amazon.com even less. So please find better. Until then any mention of Olsson in the Claimants section will be deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

R.Tabor, please stop deleting sourced content from the article without discuss it here first. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was Suzanne Olsson deleted from the list of claimants?

Why was Suzanne Olsson deleted from the list of claimants? There was no rational reason for this. She was dragged into an anti-Kathleen McGowan thread on an internet discussion list not long ago presented as the real descendant of Jesus in preference to McGowan. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, Wfgh66, for an independent researcher who, despite his bias and zeal, has an erudite knowledge on a wide range of topics, and an editor who have been contributing to Wikipedia for years now; I am stunned that you do not seem to understand what is and isn't a reliable source! Do you understand that some thread on an Internet discussion list OR a customer review on Amazon.com OR a self-published website by an non-notable writer are NOT reliable sources for an encyclopedic article? You are a smart man so I am sure you do. Therefore, I have to assume that you simply don't care about standards. As Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state, "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Therefore, we need a *reliable* source that reports that Suzanne Olsson herself claims to be a descendant of Jesus. If we can't find one, we can't mention her in the Claimants sections until we do. Is that a rational enough reason for you? --Loremaster (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The "reprinted with persmission" open letter to Kathleen McGowan from Suzanne Olsson, which states she is a descendant of the bloodline of Jesus, is a good enough source. I consider this dispute resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A statement from the horse's mouth on the internet for the entire world's population to see is not good enough? You're getting to be as bad as the goofballs, Loremaster.Wfgh66 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand what I just said? I said it is good enough. So what's your problem? --Loremaster (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise. I misread your statement. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Suzanne Olsson from the list of claimants once again. The source provided does not appear to support her inclusion. Per the biographies of living persons policy, this removal is not subject to the three revert rule. If you believe I am mistaken, please discuss the matter here. CIreland (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In a "reprinted with persmission" Open letter to Kathleen McGowan from Suzanne Olsson, the author, Suzanne Olsson states:

I have a genealogy in my family that goes as far back as a generation or two after Jesus. It is irrefutable and unwaiving. It has nothing to do with Laurence Gardner's books or Dan Brown, or Michael Baigent's claims. Why do you think I followed the trail to India? There is a scroll with the family genealogy on it. There are people there who claim direct descent to Jesus through that scroll and the location where it was found. It is not a "secret" scroll. We were getting ready to make it public.

If one takes into account several sources online which state that Suzanne Olsson is a descendant of Jesus (one source is a colleague of Olsson), can someone explain to me why the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline article keeps getting deleted? I can understand people wanted to remove links to websites that personally attack Olsson but this isn't the issue at hand. --Loremaster (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the quotation above and the open letter in full do not contain a claim by Suzanne Olsson that she is descended from Jesus. CIreland (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an issue of interpretation and context. However, I am willing to wait until we find a better source. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Talk:Suzanne Olsson, in particular that comments by John Vandenberg. I don't see the interpretation that you seem to but, given the use of rhetoric in the letter, clarity is lacking. However, for this kind of extremely controversial (and potentially damaging) claim about an individual I think we need a cast-iron source. CIreland (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's what I was trying to explain to Wfgh66 earlier. --Loremaster (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What has saved you (and it appears Suzanne Olsson, who is now ashamed of her previous claims), is that I did not save the webpage in question that Suzanne Olsson removed from her website, providing a genealogy from the present day to the time of Jesus Christ, together with "legal verification" of the material in question. Otherwise, I would have placed it back online myself. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You can always use the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive to track down old pages of websites... --Loremaster (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Suzanne Olsson here claim to be the descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene? http://web.archive.org/web/20060618031440/jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/GeneaologyA.html Wfgh66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think she does:

The Genealogy (Bloodline from Mary Magdalene) appears below, from Jesus and Mary Magdalena to this author’s family. Prior to that, we follow the bloodline of King David. We are very unique to have these records survive for so many thousands of years.

I'm restoring the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section using this source. --Loremaster (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. However, I think you need to add a clarification that this is someone who has previously claimed to be a descendant. The fact that her webpages are no longer extant, may imply that she no longer claims this (or it may not, it is uncertain). CIreland (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether or not a person at some point in time has made a public claim (which can be found and referenced) regardless of whether they continue to make the claim. --Loremaster (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster and Paul, let me make this very clear once again. The geneology was based (in part) upon a book published by Laurence Gardner, 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' and at all times Olsson clearly stated the proof was lacking...this was all mere speculation. As soon as the Gardner geneology tables were questioned, Olsson removed her geneology and submitted many open letters to the effect that no one can make such claims without solid proof such as DNA. She then set out to obtain DNA, often at great personal risk. Paul and 'Loremaster' seem determined to beat up on Olsson without giving any recognition to the fact that even she disputed these charts and attempted to set the reord straight. At no time and nowhere did she EVER claim she was a decendant.She has repatedly made that clear publically on the internet and in numerous articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir2 is Suzanne Olsson. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No Paul, Kashmir 2 is my grandaughter who cannot be here all day to follow you around and take notes of your irresponsible "editing" and behavior. and asked for my help to undo the damage and harrassment you have been wreaking all over Wikipedia. I know you would prefer to beat up children instead of Olsson, but sorry, you are stuck until she returns.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir2, regardless of the nuances, rationalizations and retractions, an unambiguous claim was made on a notable individual's personal website that can be found and referenced. Although the claim can be better contextualized in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline to avoid misinterpretation, it should not be deleted. Furthermore, although you have a right to remain anonymous, if you are Suzanne Olsson or one of her relatives, you should be aware that there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy that you should read and respect. That being said, I am restoring the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline with a better context. --Loremaster (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lore, who died and made you Grand Master of Wiki edits? Paul, I cannot believe you because you obviously have an agenda here. If I reinserted the links and dug up every verification demanded here, you would still feel compelled to pursue your agenda,. whatever that is. As for the 'Jesus Bloodline' section, I will continue to edit there as well. I have repeatedly made it clear that at I support the DNA evidence only. I have taken great personal risks trying to protect the sites that could contribute to this research. Several of these projects are still very active and ongoing. You are putting years of work at serious potential risk because if you continue to strip me of credibility, there also go the projects that the world so depserately needs now. I am saddened and dissapointed that you go so far and without any thought to the consequences of your actions. I would prefer the Wiki page be deleted forever and if you can do that, it will be the only good thing I can give you credit for. I am saddened for my grandaughter but we must settle these issues now. Please delete the page and never use my name again. Thank you. Suzanne Olsson (on behalf of Kashmir2) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzanne_Olsson" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Paul Smith, I'm not a zealous debunker of the Priory of Sion hoax and its related subjects. I have simply taken an interest in various articles I now maintain on my watchlist. I am willing to collaborate with anyone to make Jesus bloodline a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article. So I don't have an agenda but it is clear that not only do YOU have an agenda but also an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing the Suzanne Olsson article and the Jesus bloodline article. I don't care (nor should I care) that my editing of these articles to reports facts may jeopardize your precious years of "work". The only consequences of my actions I should have a thought for is whether or not the Jesus bloodline article is the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. Nothing more. Nothing less. Now, if you continue to vandalize this article, I will be forced to report you to Wikipedia administrators who will temporarily or, if necessary, permanently block you from contributing to Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the Claimants section of the article to state the following:

Suzanne Olsson, an American author (who retracted her claim, and is actively seeking DNA from several ancient tombs to aid in clarification of such claims).

Can unbiased parties accept this reasonable compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, this information has been banned from being included in the Suzanne Olsson article. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I didn't follow that debate. Although I disagree with this decision, I have no choice but to respect it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson and Co. are claiming that by inserting her name into the list of claimants that this part of a "personal vendetta" by me against her. This is how low they are now prepared to stoop. And they are bringing elements into the argument that have no bearing on Wikipedia whatsoever, just so long as they can have their way so as not to have their name included in the list of claimants. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's outrageous but I'm not going to get involved in rectifying this error. --Loremaster (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Olsson and Hassnain

Olsson and Hassnain's books are universally regarded as being fringe material. The reference to Faber-Kaiser's book was made simply to refer to a claimant of the Jesus bloodline, not to cite any notability of the subject matter in Faber-Kaiser's book. The subject matter itself is fringe material. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both Loremaster and Wfgh66 have completely misunderstood the issues at hand. Olsson researched claims by Gardner about bloodlines, but she also researched claims by Bashrat Shaheen (Saleem) in India. He claims to be decended from Jesus on the India side of the family. Millions of Ahmadi Muslims believe these claims as well. Hassnain and Olsson have produced 3-4 books dealing with the topic of possible bloodlines of Jesus in Asia.The article about Jesus bloodlines is not limited to European claimants is it? To call them 'fringe' is a reflection of ignorance. This topic is not well received among Chrisitians who believe Jesus died on the cross and never went to India. But there are a few billion people on the other side of the world who do not regard this as "fringe" at all. They are entitled to same access to information as European claimants. You are being grossly unfair and not allowing healthy balance of views. Wfgh66 insist this is about Olsson denying bloodlines. No. That does not appear to be the issue at all. It is Olsson who published in-depth accounts of others who claim bloodlines and it is Olsson who asks for DNA as only valid proof for anyones' claims. This is relevent research in anyone's book.

On other Wiki pages in similar topic, they are even allowing mention of UFO's and channeling as a valid source for reference at Wikipedia! Goes to show you how ridiculous these issues get. Please help me to reinstate Hassnain and Olsson books because they are more valuable and valid to this topic than sourcing claiments of UFO's as a "reliable" source (Jmanuel by Jim Deardorf)or fictional self-published books as inclusion of 'Roza Bal Line ' by Shawn Haigins....

I trust we can work together to make Wiki editors appear fair, rational, and sane, even when the topic is not. Thank You.NewYork10021 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's WP Policy on Fringe Material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Wfgh66 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for a few days now, I have been thinking about how to incorporate the Kashmiri version of the Jesus bloodline hypothesis (as long as this fringe theory is not given undue weight) since I agree with you that the article should not be limited to the "eurocentric" versions of this hypothesis. However, we would need evidence before incorporating the statement that there are millions of Ahmadi Muslims who believe in claims reported by Andreas Faber-Kaiser or Suzanne Olsson. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Basharat Saleem was a claimant, and I used Faber-Kaiser's book simply for a citation. Are we removing another claimant from the list? Wfgh66 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about improving and expanding the Thesis section of the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a lengthy post in reply but it doesn't appear. Did I hit the wrong button?NewYork10021 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. However, if you are interested in contributing to the Jesus bloodline article or any Wikipedia article, I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Manual of style pages. Also, when you comment on a talk page, you should only sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages (not the beginning and the end as you are currently doing). --Loremaster (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lore, Thank you for your ongoing help. According to the link you provided,

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia."

"The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view."

So if the theory of a Jesus bloodline in Kashmir has existed for years and appeared in publications worldwide since the mid 1800's, this would constitute verifiablility of theories already published in reliable sources? And if the authors are reviewed and copied and relied upon for further research, and appear regularly in newspapers and magazines and books and films, then the authors are mainstream and not fringe or self-promoting...is this correct?NewYork10021 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but my only concern is the Wikipedia:Undue weight guideline. --Loremaster (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the link you provided. It does seem to get complex when making decisions. If I can help you with anything, I will. I am sure you will make interesting decisions. It is an interesting topic. Thank You.NewYork10021 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you know. --Loremaster (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know too, although apparently I don't know very much. I am a fringe something or other who wrote some aweful non-book about Jesus or aliens or bloodlines or fishing...I can't quite recall now..I feel somewhat brain-dead after an evening's exploration here at Wiki..I feel like a basket case (hmm, but then that's how Moses started out too as I recall) Good luck with your page here. It looks like it's going to be very interesting. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It might take some time before I get around expanding the article to include more information about the Kashmiri Jesus bloodline hypothesis. Others are obvioulsy free to do it. However, I will not tolerate original research especially if it does not respect the Wikipedia manual of style. --Loremaster (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've radically improved the article but I haven't included information about the Kashmiri Jesus bloodline hypothesis or any of the other hypotheses. If anyone wants to work on that, go ahead and I'll tweak your contributions if necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Aho

I don't believe Aho qualifies as a reliable source. watch.pair.com appears to be her own website, which means she is self-published. I don't find any books by her at Amazon, so I don't see that her self-published material meets any of the exception which would allow its use. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll delete the paragraph which cites her as a source and restore it when I find a more reliable one. --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To hell with your useless way of rubbish thinking. You are rubbish. Wfgh66 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph I deleted was reporting a fringe theory from an unreliable source. Can you explain why my thinking on this particular issue is "rubbish" when it is based on Wikipedia guidelines? --Loremaster (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wednesday Next, I've restored that paragraph but rephrased to present the "maintream Christian" view rather than a fringe one for now. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need clarity

I don't understand this sentence in the final section:

"In contrast, the Y-chromosomal Aaron experiments have recently shown that many Europeans of Jewish ancestry do appear to have a shared paternal lineage, traditionally ascribed to the high priest Aaron, as a priest in the Jewish faith must fulfill this criterion.[41]"

Must fulfill what criterion? SlackerMom (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish men must "prove" that they are descendants of high priest Aaron to be able to serve as priests. --Loremaster (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, a further question...what is this point "in contrast" to? We've just made the point that Jesus couldn't have a small number of descendants, he'd have to have a large number, then we say, "In contrast..." Are we then saying that the Aaron experiments do show a small group with shared lineage? Or are we saying that the shared lineage of the Aaron group is large? Because that would not be a contrast to the first point. Wait, we're not trying to say that Jesus could be the "Aaron" who is the shared ancestor, are we? SlackerMom (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point! I'm simply going delete this sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, all-righty then! Your replacement is a much more entertaining quote anyhow! SlackerMom (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Drastic deletion of a half sentence

A drastic deletion, namely of a half sentence that emphasises the supernatural nature and quality of Jesus Christ when introducing the theme to the "Religious Adherence" category. Funny thing is that the half-sentence was claimed as being "superfluous" by the editor who deleted it. I cannot see anything other but fantastic amounts of superfluous passages in Jesus bloodline, Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Not just half sentences. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wfgh66, you wrote in an edit summary of the Jesus bloodline article: "Then do not expect me to provide any more sources if you find succinct accuracy tedious." You know, Paul, I am getting increasingly tired of your juvenile attitude. You added superflous information to a section of the article which was framed in almost evangelical language but, more problematically, was irrelevant to the issues discussed in this section. As a compromise, I edited this information into a more succinct form rather that simply deleting it. Now, you whine that you will no longer provide sources (to the Priory of Sion article I assume) because I find your edits tedious. Putting aside that this kind of threat violates the spirit of teamwork needed to collaborate on contributing to a Wikipedia article, I don't care if you stop providing sources. I or someone else will simply rephrase or delete the unsourced content, which you care more about being here than any of us since you are a zealous Priory of Sion debunker. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly disagree, with the above statements. Especially when there are multitudinous amounts of superfluous paragraphs found in Jesus bloodline, Priory of Sion and Holy Blood and Holy Grail that would greatly improve the said articles if they were permanently deleted. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would disagree. Whether or not something is superfluous is obviously subjective. However, an argument can made that some information is irrelevant to a better understanding of a specific issue. As for the multitudinous amounts of "superflous" paragraphs written by me which can found in the articles you mentioned, I can justify the necessity of their inclusion in these articles; while I would argue that the paragraphs you have written, which I and others have disputed, cannot be. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue deleting half sentences, then. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I won't summarily delete them. If they have relevant information, I will simply edit them into a more succinct form as I always have done. --Loremaster (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And here's me thinking that editing on Wikipedia was a team effort. You just cannot help yourself but to place your personal treatment on other people's edits, whoever they may be. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You want to refer to the "Second Coming" of the Jesus Bloodline but refuse to cite the "Second Coming" as believed in by traditional Christians. That's bias. Not NPOV and against Wikipedia Policy, Wfgh66 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the stuff added by Paul should simply be removed as he claims it comes from obscure French sources but won't footnote or provide page numbers. It is hard to tell what precisely might be in the sources and what is Paul's original synthesis which is not permitted. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should buy Putnam & Wood's book "The Treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau: A Mystery Solved". Even if it contradicts key passages found in "The Da Vinci Code". Wfgh66 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you should simply cite your sources with footnotes which include page numbers, and omit your personal synthesis, opinions, and occasional insertion of emotionally charged terms. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have already been advised by a Wiki Admin to try and find sources for yourself rather than just to randomly place cite tags hoping others will do the work, and Matilda started off the process for you. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it is an unreasonable request, since you added the material along with a list of references from which you claim to have at hand. You've done a great job providing detailed citations on other articles and know what Wikipedia and other editors require on controversial articles, so the fact that you baulk at doing the same thing on other articles makes me suspicious that they contain a lot of synthesis rather than restatement of citable facts. You "read between the lines" way too often to come up with "facts" that may be just as bogus as the material you are trying to debunk. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading Putnam & Wood's book will also sober you up from your intoxicated assumption that I make "emotionally charged" statements. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making further personal attacks. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleging I make "emotionally charged" statements is a personal attacks. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is discussing the problem I find with your writing style. It is not necessary to put the words "hoax" and "fraud" in every paragraph. It is not necessary to refer to researchers as "fringe". I've had to make your language more neutral and less emotional on multiple occasions, but I am not going to search through the damned diffs to find them. I am not making an allegation, I am accurately describing an occasional flaw in your writing style. I won't even get into your research techniques... Wednesday Next (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FIY, it is not only me who uses the words "hoax", "fraud" and "fringe" on Wikipedia. Try out Dougweller. Here is Wikipedia's Policy not to place undue weight on Fringe subject matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE Wfgh66 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a red herring. I am not arguing for giving undue weight to fringe material. I am simply arguing for a neutral presentation based on cited sources. That's required by Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the words "hoax", "fraud" and "fringe" existed on the Wikipedia articles long before I began editing on a frequent basis. They were placed there long before I appeared on the scene. And if the Face on Mars is a hoax and can be cited as a hoax from non-fringe sources then that should be the synthesized conclusion on Wikipedia articles according to its Policy. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaking me. I do not object to the use of the words. I object to the labored overuse of the words. I assure you that the reader "gets it" without the excess repetition and in fact the excess repetition makes the article appear less neutral and therefore less reliable. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thinks this comes from an unfortunate tendency to want to hammer a point in the reader's head... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG! That's what those holes are... :-) Wednesday Next (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I've edited the Religious adherence section in order for it to be more comprehensive and also to include some of the content from the disputed half-sentence written by User:Wfgh66. That being said, I would like to know the nature that of the bias I have been accused of having in an edit summary. --Loremaster (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're still there fingering other people's edits. And you are biased. Deleting the version of the Second Coming as believed in by traditional Christianity and then proceeding on to contributing the version believed in by the New Agers. That's called pure Agenda. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW! You've completely lost it, Paul. As a Wikipedia contributor, I have an absolute right to finger other people's edits as much and as often as I want as long as I respect Wikipedia guidelines, which state: "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly [...], do not submit it." That being said, the reason why I deleted your sentence which included a mention of the Second Coming was because it was irrelevant to the issue of why Christians do not adhere to the Jesus bloodline thesis. In other words, believing in the literal Second Coming of Jesus doesn't and shouldn't prevent you from believing that Jesus was married and had children. However, you gave me the idea that I should expand on the way some New Agers interpret the Second Coming in light of the Jesus bloodline thesis AND THEN mention the traditional Christian understanding of the Second Coming. That being said, I'm not a Christian nor a New Ager. I'm an agnostic secular humanist (and, as I assumed you knew by now, a strong skeptic of the Priory of Sion hoax). On the issue of a Jesus bloodline hypothesis, my POV is informed by various scholars on the quest for the historical Jesus (who have conflicting views). On the other hand, everyone knows that you have an overzealous agenda to debunk anything that is directly or indirectly related the Priory of Sion hoax. Furthermore, I suspect you may be an Anglican Christian which adds another layer of bias to your agenda... --Loremaster (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete and utter rubbish and balderdash from beginning to end. As things currently stand Loremaster is the owner of the Wikipedia articles Priory of Sion, Holy Blood and Holy Grail and Jesus bloodline which is against Wikipedia Policy. Loremaster keeps repeating about his right to edit, but nobody else has that right. My contribution was a succinct and objective description in a half sentence of Christian belief about Jesus Christ. Not an "evangelical crusade". Though it could be interpreted that way by someone with a bias towards The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations that I am possessive of some articles may have some merit since I am human after all. However, I have explained all my reverts and edits. I have offered compromises which include more and more information from the content you wanted to add to the article. That being said, I don't have a bias towards The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. However, I am not blinded by my debunking agenda that I can't write an article from a neutral point of view which requires that the authors of the HBHG have a chance to have their opinions, regardless of how extremely dubious they are, presented within a critical contextualization. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. A blind man with a walking stick could see what you did. Your "defence" lacks credibility. And I must literally "believe" that the Holy Grail is a stone, because that was my earlier edit to the said article. And Wallis Budge must really have believed in Egyptian Magic because he wrote a book about the subject matter. And so on. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside that I don't even understand what you are babbling about now, I don't really care to convince you about anything since anyone who has read the archives of the Priory of Sion article is familiar with your histrionic personality. Since my defense is rock solid, I won't add anything more to this "debate". I will just continue positively contributing to these articles as I've always done. --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, since you pride yourself in being a person of integrity and transparency, will you tell us whether or not you are a Christian and which denomination you belong to? --Loremaster (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I will continue restoring the deletions. Wikipedia is all about teamwork. You have no right to edit other's reasonable contributions to the articles. Like I said before, you seem to want to own Priory of Sion, Holy Blood and Holy Grail and Jesus bloodline, something that is against Wikipedia Policy, and the funny thing is that you have no knowledge of the sources and because you keep mixing-up the citations they no longer match the relevant statements anymore on the said articles. And why should I help you out anymore if you keep on vandalising my contributions because of your stupid and irrational belief that I am a member of a Church? Wfgh66 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing other's reasonable contributions for the purpose of either ensuring that an article is well-written or logically coherent is perfectly legitimate. Find me one Wikipedia administrator who disagrees and then we will talk. That being said, I have knowledge of many sources but I fully admit that there are some that I do not. So I may have added sources in some places that are not appropriate to prevent the sentences from being hastily deleted until I, you or someone else provide the more appropriate ones. As for my suggestion that you belong to a Church (which is possible), I don't really believe that. I just wanted to make you realize how it feels being falsely accused of having an agenda... --Loremaster (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Second Coming" is mentioned twice in the small Religious Adherence section. The first mention of the term has an internal link so there is no need for the second mention to have an internal link as well. The Second Coming and the Last Judgement are two related yet different concepts. Both of these concepts have their own articles. It is misleading to internally link the term "Second Coming" to the article on the Last Judgement. Why are you making an issue of this? --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have radically edited the Religious Adherence section in order to both include more of the content you wanted to added and address some of the concerns you have. --Loremaster (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Although some might legitimately raise a POV issue, I support the restoration of the word "dogmatic" in the first paragraph of Religious adhrence section in the interest of avoiding a needless edit war. If there isn't anything else, I consider this dispute resolved and I hope this section will remain stable. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I have removed the word "dogmatic" since it is clearly POV. Unless we can cite a source that specifically describe these individuals of dogmatism, it's sounds like prejudiced original research. Furthermore, it's not crucial that this is included since for many people "religious" and "dogmatic" are almost synonymous therefore it is redundant to use both words next to each other. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about your "thinking it over". I have restored the word since it was not "POV" because one of the definitions of dogma is the belief in anything that cannot be substantiated. I do not care about your "thinking over" this word because what and how you think is never clear or concise and the way you edit ALL your articles demonstrates this. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not what I think or what you care about. To describe someone as dogmatic is pejorative and therefore can be interpreted as coming from an editor's prejudiced POV. We need a reliable source that describes adherents to the bloodline as dogmatic. Unless you are Christian, you know that most of the beliefs of mainstream Christians cannot be substantiated. So provide us with a source and then restore the word. --Loremaster (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To hell with your useless way of rubbish thinking. You are rubbish.Wfgh66 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

JUST TO OPEN YOUR BLIND REASONING, BOTH POSITIONS ARE DOGMATIC IN NATURE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO DESCRIBE THE TRADITIONALIST CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AS BEING DOGMATIC, THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THE SAME WITH THE NEW AGE BLOODLINE VERSION. ON WIKIPEDIA THAT IS KNOWN AS NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. IF YOU ONLY DESCRIBE ONE OF THE POSITIONS AS BEING DOGMATIC AND NOT THE OTHER, THAT IS BIAS AND POV. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Wfgh66 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that hurling insults and screaming over such a trivial issue makes you seem emotionally unstable, you seem to not have noticed that the article was edited by me days if not weeks ago in a such a way that the traditional Christian position is no longer described as dogmatic so there is no need to describe the New Age position as dogmatic. So it seems that yet again you are the one who doesn't understand anything. Big surprise... --Loremaster (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You be the judge

In order for neutral observers to judge the merits of my merciless editing of other user's contributions, the following text is Wfgh66's original contribution to the Jesus bloodline article:

New Age

The Jesus bloodline also serves as a modern alternative religion, a source of devotion for a variety of New Age believers, those who wish to focus on the feminine aspect of the Godhead.

The following text is a product of my editing and expanding his contribution after nearly a month:

Religious adherence

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 in the New Age movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have adopted a religious devotion to a hypothetical Jesus bloodline. They expect this "holy bloodline" will eventually breed a direct descendant of Jesus who will become a messiah - a sacred king who rules a world government - during an event which they will interpret as the second coming of the Gnostic Christ and the dawn of the Age of Aquarius.

The views of many of these "adherents of the bloodline" are influenced by the writings of academics and laymen who seek to challenge predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs and institutions through a systematic defense of the "sacred feminine". These iconoclasts often portray Mary Magdalene as being the apostle of a Christian feminism, and even the personification of the mother goddess, usually associating her with the Black Madonna. Some, such as Margaret Starbird, wish the ceremony that celebrated the beginning of the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to be viewed as a "holy wedding"; and Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and their alleged daughter, Sarah, to be viewed as a "holy family".

No mainstream Christian denomination has adhered to a Jesus bloodline hypothesis as a doctrine or an object of uncritical devotion since they maintain that Jesus, being God the Son, was perpetually celibate, continent and chaste, and metaphysically married to the Church; he died, was resurrected, ascended to heavean, and will eventually return bodily and visibly to earth, thereby making all Jesus bloodline hypotheses and related messianic expectations impossible.

Many fundamentalist Christians believe the Antichrist, prophesied in the Book of Revelation, plans to present himself as descended from the Davidic line to bolster his false claim that he is the Jewish Messiah. The intention of such propaganda would be to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of Jews and philo-Semites to achieve his Satanic objectives.

Any comments? --Loremaster (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work! I think your efforts have greatly improve the article. Although I am against putting wikilinks in quotations, personally.... Wednesday Next (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Is that a Wikipedia guideline or simply your personal style? --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... I've struck the comment b/c I was simply confused by your use of blockquote to indent on the talk page. But I think the use of wikilinks in quotes is discouraged, especially if they use pipes to redirect. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dogmatic

Dogma lies at the heart of religious belief. Since there is no historical evidence for the existence of a Jesus Bloodline, as outlined in the very first paragraphs of the article, and since the word "dogma" is being used within the context of the category "Religious Adherence" which is all about faith, I do not know why the word "Dogma" is systematically being deleted at every given opportunity, since it flows logically with the argument. Unless, that is, a Wikipedia Editor (or Editors) has/have a tendencious soft spot for the Jesus Bloodline theory and therefore feel that the usage of the word is offensive to his/their feelings. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since liberal religions exist, the notion that dogma lies at the heart of all religious beliefs is demonstrably false. However, if it were true that dogma is at the heart of all religious beliefs it is simply redundant to say "dogmatic religious devotion". That being said, the reason why the word "dogmatic" has and will continue to be deleted is because 1) it is pejorative and 2) it is unsourced. Therefore, this obsession of yours to include this word indicates that you are pushing a prejudiced POV which violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is confused thinking from Loremaster. The term "Religious Adherence" is unsourced. Can you find a citation for it in order for it to be used as the Title for the category? And Loremaster's definition of Liberal Christianity is still creaky. Liberal Christianity on the whole would never accept the thesis of the Jesus Bloodline. Apart from the odd loose cannon, and loose cannons cannot be used to argue for the norm. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you haven't refuted anything I have said, it is clear that you are the one who is confused. That being said, I agree that the word "religious" is unsourced so I am willing to delete it from the title of the section and from its text. Regardless of my definition of term "liberal Christianity" (which you also seem confused about) do you find any mention of liberal Christianity in the Religious adherence section? I was simply explaining to you that liberal religions are not dogmatic therefore the notion that dogma lies at the heart of all religious beliefs is false. --Loremaster (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Title for the category "Religious Adherence" is unsourced and should be replaced with "New Age". New Age encompasses all and any religious beliefs rejected by the Vatican. New Age believers would never set foot in a church on matter of principle. On the other hand Liberal Christians would never consider setting foot OUT of a church. Since there is no historical evidence for the existence of a Jesus Bloodline it means that it is to do with faith, and faith is a dogma. There is absolutely no reason to delete a word that appropriately follows the line of logic in the article. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of the section will be changed from "Religious Adherence" to "Adherence" since you have NEVER rebutted any of my criticisms of using the term "New Age" or "dogmatic" with logical arguments that take into account Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition of faith can be "belief without proof". That is also a Dogma. The word Dogma should not be deleted. Nobody considers removing the word Dogma when dealing with Christian faith. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a neutral use of the word "faith" or even "dogma" in this article. However, the word "dogmatic" can be used pejoratively which is clearly how you are using it and therefore violating the neutral point of view of the article. That being said, we still need a reliable source which states that some individuals have adopted the Jesus bloodline hypothesis as a dogma. That being said, since dogma was never used in your original contribution to this article, why are you so obsessed with wanting to add it now? --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have such a massive objection to one word: Dogma? Mentioned in the context of Jesus Bloodline when no-one would even notice it being used in the context of Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc (to the point of edit warring over it?) Wfgh66 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've explained myself above. What is that you don't understand about what I wrote? --Loremaster (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The word Dogma should be included because the Jesus Bloodline is belief without proof and it has already been explained in the article that there is no historical evidence for it. Objection to the use of the word is therefore unwarranted. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And, as I explained, I have no objection to the neutral use of the word "dogma". I am simply opposed to your POV use of the word "dogmatic". --Loremaster (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How can the word "Dogmatic" be used in a negative way to a subject matter that has already been explained in the article as having no historical evidence? Anyway, the word is being used in the same way to Jesus Bloodline as it is to Christianity in general. The removal of the word is unwarranted. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dogma article states: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation—referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument." It is POV to write that adherents of the bloodline are people of rigid beliefs who are not open to rational argument WITHOUT citing a RELIABLE SOURCE. --Loremaster (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The RELIABLE SOURCES in question being the author's relevant books, the Jesus Bloodline springing up as an air-drawn fabric. That's formulating a dogma. And there are slight variations of meaning to the word to the one you have provided above. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Laughter) You have clearly demonstrated that you are an original researcher who has no understanding of why and how we cite sources. You need a reliable source that explicitly states that adherents of the bloodline are "dogmatic" (or "New Agers" for that matter) because you cannot write in a Wikipedia article that "because the claims in Book X are myths the people who choose to believe these claims are dogmatic" and use Book X as the source for this sentence. You need to cite a critic who explicitly describes these people as dogmatic. Why? Because someone can hold a non-rigid belief in the notion of a Jesus bloodline and still be open to rational argument against such a notion. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe what is being described is more of a catma than a dogma, and must therefore oppose the use of either dogma or dogmatic in this context. Consensus now appears to be against dogma. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "catma" was a tongue-in-cheek term invented by Discordians. ;) Regardless, you are right that the consensus is against using "dogma" and "dogmatic" to describe the beliefs or behaviors of adherents of the bloodline. --Loremaster (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Prostitute

Universal fact is that all believers and adherents to the Jesus Bloodline theory/belief all refuse to identify the wife of Jesus as a Prostitute. Their consistent claim is that the Church tarnished the reputation of the woman alleged to be the wife as part of the Vatican's "cover-up campaign" relating to the Bloodline. They all go to great lengths to demonstrate that Pope Gregory the Great's identification of the wife of Jesus with "the sinner" was part of this process. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of all that but you seem to not understand that there is a difference between a common prostitute and a religious prostitute. Furthermore, there are theorists of the Jesus bloodline (such as Barbara Theiring) who believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene were temple prostitutes. --Loremaster (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the distinction should be emphasised between the believer's rejection of Jesus' wife being the common prostitute Mary Magdalene and acceptance of Jesus' wife being a sacred prostitute. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea despite it coming from such a confused mind. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To avoid making the first unnecessarily long and awkward-sounding, let's simply replace "religious prostitute" with the term "hierodule". --Loremaster (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Questionable tags

User:Wfgh66 had the 3 following tags in this text from the Religious adherence section of the Jesus bloodline article:

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[who?] in the New Age movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have adopted a religious devotion to a hypothetical Jesus bloodline.[16] They expect this "holy bloodline" will eventually breed a direct descendant of Jesus who will become a messiah - a sacred king who rules a world government - during an event which they will interpret as the second coming of the Gnostic Christ and the dawn of the Age of Aquarius[citation needed].[17]

The views of many of these "adherents of the bloodline" are influenced by the writings of academics[who?] and laymen who seek to challenge predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs and institutions through a systematic defense of the "sacred feminine".[18][19][20][21][22][23]

1. Although it is obviously unnecessary to start naming the individuals who have become adherents of the bloodline, I agree that the sources we cite do not describe these individuals as as being part of the New Age movement. I will therefore delete "the New Age movement of" from that paragraph, especially since we know that the term "New Age movement" 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.
2. The Messianic Legacy has been cited as source for that sentence. However, I concede that "and the dawn of the Age of Aquarius" is original research so I will delete it.
3. "[A]cademics" refers to some of the people whose books are cited as sources: Siobhán Houston is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and a doctoral candidate in the study of religion at the University of Exeter. Margaret Starbird is a Roman Catholic scholar and former University instructor, etc.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We've had the New Age Discussion before. New Age is the only appropriate designation for those who believe in the existence of the Jesus Bloodline since they revile and detest traditional Christianity and would never set foot in a church to worship, and no Church would accept their presence, which is not in accordance with the definition of Liberal Christianity, Loremaster's original designation for the believers in the Jesus Bloodline! The term New Age remains in the article to designate the believers in the Jesus Bloodline. As for Margaret Starbird calling herself a "Catholic", well no Catholic would accept her. So what does that make the description of herself? She's already been jeered and heckled over this in books and articles. Her claim, that she "set out to disprove the Jesus Bloodline only to find that it existed", can quite easily be demolished by someone else's "I set out to prove the existence of the Jesus Bloodline, only to find out that no such thing existed". Incidentally, the term "Age of Aquarius" was first coined by Paul Le Cour (in 1936), and his interpretation of that phrase should not be confused by the relatively modern (since the early 1970s) re-interpretation of that phrase used by the various adherents of the New Age. They are two different, and quite incompatible, philosophies. The distinction has been noted several times by various authors but it has never sunk in. One Final Point: a loose cannon academic (like Barbara Thiering) does not suddenly make a lunatic fringe notion "acceptable". Wfgh66 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Erlichda! Wednesday Next (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Whether or not the term "New Age" accurately describes adherents of the bloodline is not the issue. We need a source that clearly states that these individuals are part of the New Age movement (since these individuals may reject that label for legitimate reasons) to avoid the accusation that you and I are engaging in POV-based original research.
2. The New Age article states: "New Age ideas could be described as drawing inspiration from all the major world religions with particularly strong influences from the religions of Spiritualism, Buddhism, Hermeticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sufism, Daoism and Neopaganism, Wicca, and practices like nature worship, ancient animism, deism, monism, Eastern classical pantheism, paganism, shamanism, mayanism, ceremonial magic and New Thought." In light of this, I was simply arguing that the ideas of adherents of the bloodline draw inspiration from liberal Christianity rather than conservative or fundamentalist Christianity.
3. Whether or not Margaret Starbird is a "true Catholic" is not the issue, what was being discussed is whether there are academics who challenge predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs and institutions through a systematic defense of the "sacred feminine". However, I would not be opposed to you adding the word "fringe" since I am fully aware of how these academics and their works are viewed by mainstream scholars (so please stop lecturing me about that fact as if I was ignorant of it!).
4. I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the history of the term "Age of Aquarius" since, in the context of this article, I was referring to the New Age re-interpretation of the term. Isn't that obvious?
5. I KNOW that Barbara Thiering and others are "loose cannon" academics. I never argued in the Jesus bloodline article or in this talk page that lunatic fringe notions are acceptable because they come from academics.
6. So can you please stop assuming that everyone is an idiot and start collaborating on improving Priory of Sion and related articles such as Jesus bloodline in good faith.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Starbird's academic scholarship is not related to Roman Catholicism (surprise, surprise), so that fact should also be thrown in for contextual reasons. And the Wikipedia article on New Age is not that comprehensive, it omits the fact that sections of the New Age Movement accept Margaret Starbird as a Guru. Got it? Wfgh66 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* The Religious adherence section never stated nor implied that Margaret Starbird's academic scholarship was related to her Roman Catholicism so there is no need to throw in or out anything! The fact that the New Age article is not comprehensive or that some factions of the New Age movement accepts Margaret Starbird has a guru is not the issue. My point was simply that some adherents of the bloodline draw inspiration from liberal Christianity rather than conservative or fundamentalist Christianity. Do you disagree with this point? --Loremaster (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge and massive distinction between New Age and Liberal Christianity. Neither faction would ever accept the other. The only sources that New Age would use in the context of Liberal Christianity are the odd loose cannons. It would have to be emphasised that those "Liberal Christians" were untypical. Citations would have to be provided as to specifically who these "Liberal Christians" were and what the titles were of their books. These folk have appeared on documentaries like "There's something about Mary" and it has been pointed out how they twist the meanings to specific words in order to radically change the messages of the various Christian texts. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OF COURSE there is a huge and massive distinction between New Age and Liberal Christianity. There is also a huge and massive distinction between New Age and all the major world religions as well as Spiritualism, Buddhism, Hermeticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sufism, Daoism and Neopaganism, Wicca, and practices like nature worship, ancient animism, deism, monism, Eastern classical pantheism, paganism, shamanism, mayanism, and ceremonial magic. But that huge and massive distinction doesn't change the fact that New Agers are INSPIRED and INFLUENCED by these religions. But all of this is irrelevant since liberal Christianity is NO longer mentioned in the Religious adherence section so why of why are you beating this dead horse? --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

sourced criticism

Keep in mind, any commentary about the article which is not cited to a reliable and independent source can be challenged and removed. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I am aware of this, are you referring to something in particular? --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone discussing cited sources here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the cited sources are not in dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The uncited text in the article is clearly in dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained in the section above that the disputed text (which I assume is "and the dawn of the Age of Aquarius") will be deleted once the article is unlocked while the remaining sentence already cites a source. The authors of The Messianic Legacy claim that a significant number of individuals expect the Jesus bloodline will eventually breed a direct descendant of Jesus who will become a messiah - a sacred king who rules a de facto world government - during an event which they will interpret as a figurative second coming of Christ. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)--Loremaster (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that NONE of this is real. It is all fantasy. And it should be pointed out that none of it is real. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake, man! This has been pointed out everywhere in the article and in others so there is no need to further hammer the point in the head of readers. Is your debunking zeal so strong that it is blinding you to this fact? --Loremaster (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If any assertion or controversial term in the text is unsourced, it can be deleted with little or no discussion (although it helps to be heedful, use the talk page and not be pointy). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've often told User:Wfgh66 to use the talk page to resolve disputes to avoid an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new text to resolve Religious adherence section dispute

Adherence

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. Some expect a direct descendant of Jesus will eventually emerge and become a messiah - a sacred king who rules a world government - during an event which they will interpret as a figurative second coming of Jesus.

The spiritual views of many of these "adherents of the bloodline" are influenced by the writings of fringe academics and laymen who seek to challenge predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs and institutions through a systematic defense of the "sacred feminine". These iconoclasts often portray Mary Magdalene as being the apostle of a Christian feminism, and even the personification of the mother goddess, usually associating her with the Black Madonna. Some, such as Margaret Starbird, wish the ceremony that celebrated the beginning of the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to be viewed as a "holy wedding"; and Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and their alleged daughter, Sarah, to be viewed as a "holy family".

No mainstream Christian denomination has adhered to a Jesus bloodline hypothesis as a dogma or an object of religious devotion since they maintain that Jesus, being God the Son, was perpetually celibate, continent and chaste, and metaphysically married to the Church; he died, was resurrected, ascended to heavean, and will eventually return bodily and visibly to earth, thereby making all Jesus bloodline hypotheses and related messianic expectations impossible.

Many fundamentalist Christians believe the Antichrist, prophesied in the Book of Revelation, plans to present himself as descended from the Davidic line to bolster his false claim that he is the Jewish Messiah. The intention of such propaganda would be to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of Jews and philo-Semites to achieve his Satanic objectives. An increasing number of fringe Christian eschatologists believe the Antichrist may also present himself as descended from the Jesus bloodline to capitalize on the popularity of the hypothesis.

Wfgh66, can you accept this text so that we can resolve this dispute and move on? If not, please provide logical arguments which respect Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have an over-obsession with the fake Jesus Bloodline. The extent of your edits in relation to this historical fiction on Priory of Sion, Holy Blood and Holy Grail and this article, demonstrates this. Your objection to the use of the word dogma is worrying. It strongly suggests a sympathy towards the historical fiction that goes beyond NPOV. It could be possible that you are hiding your belief in the nonsense. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(Laughter) Over-obsession? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Seriously, I'm an *open-minded* skeptic of the Jesus bloodline hypothesis who strongly rejects the wild speculation of authors of books like The Holy Blood and the Holy Blood. I have taken a strong interest in the topic because I don't want people to be taken in as I admit to having briefly been when I first read the book in 1998. That being said, in light of my edits of all articles related to the Priory of Sion and my comments on their respective talk pages, only someone with no personal life would be so obsessed with debunking the Priory of Sion hoax to the point of being blinded by this obvious fact and paranoid enough to believe the contrary. --Loremaster (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if I was so sympathetic toward the Jesus bloodline hypothesis as you delusionaly think I am, why would I add content about the Antichrist manipulating "adherents of the bloodline" since it will probably make some of them think twice before adhering to this hypothesis. Let that sink in for a moment... --Loremaster (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hypothesis or Hypotheses?

Should not the intro be slightly altered to hypotheses? Bearing in mind the differing theories produced by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, Gardner, Thiering, Wallace-Murphy, et al? Wfgh66 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar and the married Jesus

The sentence "There is no historical, biblical, apocryphal, archaeological, genealogical or genetic evidence which conclusively supports or refutes this modern hypothesis." is not based on the opinion of the Jesus Seminar. Several people have said we simply can't know either way. However, I agree that we need to cite a source. --Loremaster (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This website about The Jesus Seminar

http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/liberals/liberal.html

provides a link to this website over the issue, "Was Jesus Married?"

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html

The book The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus is available from Amazon.com from $110.00 but I think it should be possible to obtain a cheaper copy if you look around. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction! Got it wrong, the above website is an attack on the Jesus Seminar. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Laughter) That's what happens when we are too overzealous to make a point or win an argument. ;) By the way, I have a copy of the book at home somewhere in a box. --Loremaster (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The only part of The Acts of Jesus that could possibly refer to marriage is the final chapter "What do we really know about Jesus?". I will try and locate it in a library. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Jesus Seminar didn't claim a married Jesus is "likely" or "factual" or "historically reliable". They simply suggested that it was "possible" which something fundamentalist Christians deny. That's a crucial difference that Ehrman doesn't counter. --Loremaster (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-read The Acts of Jesus and edited the paragraph in the article dealing with the opinion of the Jesus Seminar accordingly. --Loremaster (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)