Jesus The Christ of Nazareth, Christ - Display Name

Hi, about the related Jesus - Profile. Thats is double-check - twice -across. I does mean several diffirent GENI - Profils There want only the DNA Blood Test to confirm that issue. Yours sincerely: Magnus.

I'll bring this discussion to the attention of the profile's Curator, Henn Sarv. No matter what we decide to call him, some people will dislike it.

My family is 90% Roman Catholic. Yet, I agree with Daniel Sapphire. There is no difinitive way to catagorize Jesus that everyone can agree with unless the use of Jesus of Nazareth is used, as Daniel proposed. Jesus of Nazareth would'nt want symantics to come between us. Please change Jesus to the aformentioned name. If I can live with it, and believe me, my ancestors will be rolling over in their graves, everyone should be able to live with it. Besides, I have traced my heredity to before christianity and found myself related to Druids, jewish(of course), Hinduism, and many more. I am comfortable knowing I am from all religions. We are all related one way or another. I love all of you. Believe what you want, we are all talking about the same thing. Even "The Big Bang Theory" I am comfortable with. Buddah might have thrown an asteroid at our little rock. Let us grow beyond past what we were taught. Pluto was the nineth planet when I was in school. Enjoy tradition and embrace the unknown. That is my policy. To everyone I say HAPPY DECEMBER and MERRY CHINESE NEW YEAR!

Theresa Louise Schneider (Vangheluwe)

You could have just this,
Jesus of Nazareth (Christ) ('Īsā) (Yeshua)
Occupation: King, priest, prophet

People who now will see what they know, it's not a discussion board.

Jesus Christ was the " Messiah " my only personal Savior and nothing more.
The Bible say,s that they who are against me ( the only one Hebrew ) shall be banned on Earth and for Heaven. The God said .
AMEN.!

Related to: RABBI Samson Raphael Hirsch - Isack Wiseman and Chaim Hyman Herzog , Others.

Christ means Messiah, it's just a different language.
Jesus, Yeshua, Isa ar also different spellings on the same name,
but was he really married and had he children?
In order to put that in the profile it would require strong evidence
to prove that, I just found out that someone have put up a daughter
as his child, isn't that just speculations?

I suggest we do something that does not depend on a particular religious point of view. Believers will know who it is, and non-believers won't feel like Geni is pushing a religious agenda.

Ulf, that daughter of Jesus isn't just speculation, she's also in direct defiance of the earliest sources that call her a black Egyptian maid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah

I think Daniel's suggestion seems OK Perhaps the the rest be an AKA?

She can not have be an "Egyptian", nor would she likely have been black, she could have been darker, but then, darker than what?

People in french, at that time, first century, were not all light skinned or blond. The concept of judging or nameing people by their skin colour was not invented at that time, europeans could be lighter as well as darker, have all kinds of haircolour and green, blue or brown eyes.

The term "Gypsy" derived from "egyptian" is from the 1600, still, the Romani people entered Europe after 1000 and did so in different wawes first reaching Armenia. So what does the earlist source rely on?

Why not black and Egyptian? The medieval French were certainly aware of Egypt and blacks. There is no particular reason they couldn't have invented such a person, or preserved a tradition about her.

The problem of "Black Madonnas" in medieval iconography is famous. No one knows why they are black. Theories range from the idea they were black because the old mother goddess Isis was sometimes black, all the way to the idea that they were black because medieval people thought that Mary herself was black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna

But really the point should be that a woman who the earliest sources say was a servant, was not originally the daughter of Jesus. That comes from a later leap of imagination.

Agreed:
"I suggest we do something that does not depend on a particular religious point of view. Believers will know who it is, and non-believers won't feel like Geni is pushing a religious agenda."

When I was a child, I decided that I would never become an
alcoholic as adult, nor would I smoke and definitively never
believe in any fairytales.

Well the first one was easy, the second I failed, the third I have
yet to struggle with and the simple reason for that is because
I was beaten to death as a child and went to a strange place
where I meet something best described as an angel in a paradise,
who in a strange language that I oddly understood ask me
if I was ready?

Tell me, are we, are anyone ready for what one day will come?
Eight years old I was not, my logical sense for what is possible,
will never be, therefore, leave the debacle about who's what,
this is just a genealogical forum just as A.Saarinen said.

The only thing important here is that the information is as
correct as possible according to the facts available.

Hello everybody, I agree with Ulf. Why does Charlemagne / Charles the Great, have so many different names mentioned and Jesus / Yeshua / Isa doesn't ? Isn't the Bible a great history book and a good reliable source when we talk about Hebrew Chronicles ? So if the Bible says Jesus / Yeshua is the Christ / Messiah / Mashiach (Messiah in Hebrew), why just not add that to the profile of Jesus ? There are billions of people on earth who believe to know he really was/is. So just add all his names and do not skipp the ones only some people do not like. Please ? Greetings, Recia.

p.s. ... then everybody is happy ! And for those who think or believe Jesus / Yeshua was not the Messiah / Christ / Mashiach ... so what !?! The Bible, more then 2000 years old says he was ! And many things in the Bible are allready proven to be right, since archeologics did find proof for many things written in the Bible to be really historical facts. I know one of these argeologics myself, personal.

My first answer was enough : I want the DNA Blood Test the 4 Swab Test I send to Houston in Texas US is comming to an end.

The 'Black Madonna' does not represent literal skin color. Neither do these references (below) in the Bible refer to literal skin color.

Song of Solomon 1:5-6

5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

And...

Job 30:28-30 (Read the entire chapter for context)

28 I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.

29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

These are referring to the 'Alchemical Wedding' as the Bennu bird burned up and rose from the Fire- in short it's the Resurrection via Reincarnation. A state when a person is aware that they are not the 'body' but are 'spirit' and even though the body dies the spirit is eternal and will rise again. Baptism by water, then baptism by fire tempers the mind and heart to be baptized in light thus attaining the Bud-ha- Enlightened Mind and (and to steal a phrase) be 'born again', etc...

Scholars are still debating whether "black" (in this sense) had the same meaning in medieval Europe as it did in the ancient Middle East, and whether the blackness of St. Sarah had anything to do with the blackness of the various Black Madonnas.

I suggest reserving judgment.

It's also claimed that the Queen of Sheba was 'Black' but if a person cares to know the house, in which the 'Queens' of Sheba were a mix of Egyptian Royalty and Old Persian / Achaemenid Empires. This cast is often referred to as Troglodytes.

If Hippolytus of Rome (Chronicon of 254 AD) is right, in that he identified the Troglodytes with the descendants of 'Put' (sons of Ham).

And if these people whom settled along the African Red Sea coast were 'Black'... Do you think these Imperial thinking Scholarly 'master-debaters' found it funny when they labelled the common chimpanzee 'Pan troglodytes'?

Scholars can debate all they want- Judgement is always deferred to the 'Enlightened'- linear Imperial thinking cannot embrace the unfathomable.

Certainly education should remain in the hand of a Polymath.

Hopefully a polymath who has done something more than just read the latest bestseller.