Does Jesus have living relatives

Jesus, his physical descendants and the keepers of the Grail: But if the pot now has a hole


Read on one side

But the thought did not let them go, they continued to research, searched and researched, found all sorts of peculiarities that repeatedly pointed to the Knights Templar, the Order of the Holy Grail and that mystical vessel in which Joseph of Arimathia had caught Christ's blood and French and German poetry revolved around it in the Middle Ages. Could, indeed should the Holy Grail, which actually means "royal blood", have been here in southern France, where legend has it that Mary Magdalene, the sinner and penitent, spent her later life as a hermit in a cave near Sainte-Baume?

The English television author Henry Lincoln, the American literary professor Richard Leigh and the New Zealand psychologist and photographer Michael Baigent go far in their "careful research" - they say themselves. And they put a lot of things in their big Grail pot to touch their potion and finally to filter out what was important to them from the beginning: that the Merovingians, the "kings with the long hair", had allied themselves with descendants of Jesus. That is why the Merovingians were favored by the Church as Christ's descendants. Later, with the conquest of Jerusalem, the crusader Gottfried von Bouillon, a descendant of the Merovingians, restored that kingdom to which Jesus, as the heir of King David, had a legitimate claim.

In all of this, there is constant talk of "research" and "science" and "scientific evidence" while garnishing everything with an abundance of insignificant details and covering up the simple pattern of the "chain of evidence". Time and again the authors start from the "thinkable" or the "probable". It is likely, they think, that Jesus was married: Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher; "on this assumption it was not only improbable, but practically impossible, that Jesus would remain unmarried; for the Jewish law of the Mishnah clearly states: 'An unmarried man cannot be a teacher."

The wedding in Cana was probably Jesus' own wedding; why else did Maria, his mother, cause him to bring some wine ?! Mary and Jesus were the hosts. And further in the chain of evidence: "Assuming that Jesus was actually married", then his wife Mary Magdalene may have been who was present at the crucifixion. And then to the next piece of evidence: "If we assume that Jesus was indeed married to Mary Magdalene - could this marriage be some kind of dynastic alliance full of political implications and effects? Could their offspring have rightly claimed to be 'royal blood'? " Of course, the authors also have to answer these questions with yes in order to be able to continue spinning their thread. Jesus' royal descent from David, they prove ’with the Bethlehemite child murder, although - as they themselves admit - it may not have taken place at all.

According to the scheme "If ... - then ...", Barabas becomes Jesus' biological son, whereby it is shown as conceivable, yes, as probable that Jesus had other sons. According to the same scheme, the crucifixion becomes a framed deception, and the "risen One" (possibly just his mummy), his wife and his descendants (or at least some of them) appear in the south of France. The if-question of the stupid folk dance Liese is not asked by the authors: "If the pot has a hole, dear Heinerich, what then?"

Your pot has many holes and can only be used as a sieve. But something can get stuck in each sieve. Here it is the realization how easily nonsense can be sold as science. - It is conceivable, but not likely, that the authors intended to show this.