Of Royal Blood?
Many people have addressed the issue of Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying. People correctly ask “If these two produced an offspring, what would that status of its divinity be?” ½ divine? How about the grandchildren? ¼ divine? And, what about their descendants today, such as Sophie Neveu?
Dan Brown and others call this “the Royal Bloodline.” But isn’t there something strange about that term? I mean, a major point of the book is to debunk the divinity of Christ. Great pains are taken to humanize him, domesticate him, and make him into a mere man.
Think about this: If He is not the King of Kings, or even the King of the Jews, what kind of King is he? What kind of Royal Bloodline can He and Mary Magdalene produce?
If He a mere man (and therefore didn’t rise from the dead, didn’t ascend into Heaven and is in fact full of hot air when He claims divinity), than His heirs are no more royal than yours or mine.
The whole premise of the Priory of Zion and the Knights Templar needing to protect Christ’s heirs through the centuries is inconsequential, irrelevant and certainly a waste of time and energy.
OK. If Christ had heirs, the Church might want to suppress and eradicate them, but still, could you honestly call them Royal? What is Christ King of? Where is His reign? Whom does He rule over? Why should anybody put any stock into what He says if He was a big, fat liar? If “the Church” inflated him to be a “God,” He’s still not Royal? What’s the big hullabaloo?
Like C.S. Lewis said, either Jesus is who he said he is or He is a liar, a fraud or a crazy man. Either he is King and Lord of all, or He is a nut job. If the Bible is true, He made no provision to merely consider Him a good teacher. If the Bible is doctored up by the Church to make Him better or more divine than He really was, He should be discarded. There is no wiggle room here. He and The Da Vinci Code demand a verdict.