How to indicate speculative relations?

> I feel sorry for the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' that she lost her 'parents' yesterday, unannounced and without knowing the Cause

It was discussed here:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/158770

And here:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/151980

Yes, I like the round-up solution of yours, that's also what I want. Geni should have started in the past and now it's a "steph-child" which ultimately needs new clothes. In genealogy it's normal to drive in 'reverse'!
It's not that I want to say that I'm really believe everything, especially with discussed mistakes, no something else is going on, in the second (76th) there are missing I think 35 generations(=approx. 800yrs.). I already got an answer from Eileen Winifred Warren, who will look into it! ( answ.: because of 1 outstanding merge request, 7 tree conflicts and 49 data conflicts). O.k, I like the names like you Justin suggested. "Myth king etc" or something else! I personally like a stamp or colour, whatever ..as long that is clear and sure that I can use/merge profiles/parts of trees, from which I know what it 'suggests'. Untill now I feel like being lead by the One-Eyed King.

sorry 'led', and sorry for other omissions/mistakes,

Jesus is Fictional? I understand that to the curators who are Atheist, Christ is up for academic debate. For us Christians and Muslims, Christ was a real person. Christians worship Christ as their Savior. Muslims revere Christ as the Greatest Prophet. I also wonder, while we think about speculative relations, whether any Curator is aware that this site is owned by people who are Mormons?

As far as Mary the Blessed Virgin goes, I think deleting her parentage was despicable! I am upset because that showed the view Atheist taking over rather than an Academic View. I'm academic myself and I respect people who respect the views of others. In Genealogy, when someone decides all on their own to delete a person because as an Atheist they are offended. I will say something.

Mary the Blessed Virgin should have parents back. A note would have been acceptable on the notes, stating this the Catholic Tradition. Instead it was deleted because someone wants nothing, but cold hard proof. A thousand years can go by and what happens, if someone calls you a myth? That's why it's respectful to keep speculative relations!

I love the fact. Geni has delved into the Bible, Myths, Legends, and Lore. The reason for the Bible, adds confidence for many people. Myths, Legends, and Lore gives people an incentive to study more about these speculative people. Also it gives people, hope.

Hope isn't something you can just give proof on. Hope is something we need in our darkest hours! Genealogy is a blessing, and I for one am a supporter of keeping Speculative Relations.

These "Speculative Relations" kept me alive in my hours, when I was ready to give up on life. I would look over my genealogy and say, if this person whom some refute, could endure, why not I?

i can accept the desosiny line cutoff and not on geni i am talking about sarah damaris dauther of jesus and marie madeleine its only private ..not for public anyway.

but disconecting st anne and st joachim from marie mere de jesus ..yess i am french and use in my own way of saying them

its a sabotage from this line :/
Mr. Robert Thomas Wood

i cant say more you have minded my deep beleive in word and i cant go wrong beleive 2016 after that marie is the dauther of st anne and st joachim!
thank you

Robert, I think you are mis-reading this. You will want to be very careful about how you phrase your arguments and objections. We should not be disrespecting anyone's faith community.

One thing to remember here is that most scholars in this area are Christians themselves, and the majority opinion among them would accept these changes without a single quibble.

Why? Because there is a difference between faith and proof. Most of us have to live in a world where history cannot prove our faith. That's why we call it faith.

There is a very strong difference of opinion between those who believe Mary was the daughter of Joachim and Anna (as in the Protoevangelium of James) or the daughter of Eli (as argued by people who think Luke is giving Mary's ancestry).

There are arguments that try to reconcile the two by saying Eli is short for Eliakim, which is an alternative name for Jehoiakim, which is the long form of Joachim.

That seems plausible enough, although not everyone agrees, and it runs into problems. First, it runs afoul of the statements by Julius Africanus and Eusebius (3rd century) that Eli was the first husband of Joseph's mother and therefore Joseph's legal father (so Mary cannot have been Eli's daughter or she would have been Joseph's sister). .

And, it runs afoul of the statements by Origen (3rd century) that the Protoevangelium was a recent and unreliable work. (Which is the part you don't like.)

The arguments are intricate and interesting, but there's no way resolve them. No one really believes there is any way to resolve them, even though it's interesting to try.

It would be very disrespectful to think everyone on Geni -- Protestants and Muslims and Orthodox and atheists -- all have to believe what the Roman Catholic church teaches about Mary.

We have to let people read the arguments and make up their own minds. We can't pretend one person or one church has the answer for everyone.

I don't think I am mis-reading this. I am being careful on my arguments. The way see it, neither Sharon nor you are being respectful. The Catholic Faith makes up 1.2 Billion people. That is one-seventh of the world. Not forgetting, Buddhism and Hinduism are even larger religions.

Then why not place that in the notes about the conflicts, so Catholics can learn? To the 1.2 Billion people in this world that believe St. Anna (Hannah) is Mary's mother can teach the Protestants and Restorationists of the Christian world their beliefs.

It's being disrespectful to anybody, except when you up and decide to delete. I have been arguing with Sharon on this same principle. Deleting Mary's parents is sacrilegious. That's why when deleting a religious icon's heritage, Curators or Managers must make sure they are not going to offend that group. Especially a group that makes up a huge portion of the World's population.

I'm not into theology on what church has all the answers. I'm going to stand my ground and state both of you Curators are disrespectful.

I'll give it to as an example, as I grew up Mormon. If someone makes a profile for Lehi the principle ancestor of the American Aborigines, in Mormon Theology. To say their is no proof, other than what the Mormon's teach, that also disrespect and for Mormons is sacrilegious.

I don't believe in Islam at all, but I love the fact we have Geni, Muhammad's genealogy. Even though, it may not be 100 % accurate. To delete his ancestors would upset the whole Muslim population.

Do you get where I'm coming from? If not let me explain, in Genealogy we must respect the beliefs of differing faiths. Sometimes the sources we have are faith rooted, not hard rooted. When we do get hard rooted evidence then, we can make the adjustments necessary.

I think most Protestants, Restorationists, Jews, and Atheists would like to learn about one piece of Catholic Tradition.

Arguments ad hominem weaken an academic discussion.
Jesus is not fictional - documentation from within 50 years of his life verify him as historical.
There is no such documentation for Mary's parents. If it is ever found, then we will know; until then, if you're relying on a genealogical website for "hope", you are misunderstanding its function entirely.

This whole debate is about "How to indicate speculative relations?". As a Geni user I would appreciate it if there can be clear indications of such purported 'relations'. We are busy with genealogy and not 'fairy tales'. I therefore support the stance of Sharon Doubell on this issue. And her position is not 'invalidated' by her being a 'non believer'. I am a Christian, and I seek the truth about genealogical 'connections'. That's why I support Sharon - who is an academician with a doctorate in psychology, for persons who might want to know ...

In ANY case, even a 115 generation line to Noah is much TOO SHORT. A more realistic line would be 140 generations. We have external non-Biblical records to show that Zerubbabel 3rd Exilarch / זרובבל was a person that lives in the 6th century BCE, i.e. about 2500 years ago. That works out to 100 generations (at a most reasonable *average* of 25 years between the birth of the father and his son). The Bible goes back 44 generations to Noah (54 to Adam).

So Noah lived about 140 generations ago.

Anything less than 120 is going to be highly suspect.

Robert,

I think this is where you are missing the point -- Lehi belongs to the Mormons. Only Mormon scripture mentions him. There are no contrary sources. Mormon scripture has the final say.

But, Jesus and his family belong to a much wider audience. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. There is no single religion that owns him. And there not just one source. There are dozens. And they contradict each other.

Respect means taking all those different beliefs into account, and respect means admitting that sources disagree.

When we work on Geni, we work as historians do, considering all the sources. Sometimes we have to admit that there is confusion and disagreement. We can end up in a place where there is no way to know the answer just from the sources, and when that happens we have to -- like it or not -- let admit that we ourselves believe something on faith but we can't demand the whole world follow us.

In fact, as expressed by New Advent: "If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin (Serm. iii de Nativ. B.M.V.)."

Please stop discussing if Jesus was fictional or historical in this thread. In my original thread start, I only questioned my path to him as it is presented by Geni.

My suggestions - please comment on them individually:
- Write "legendary" or "myth" for persons that unlikely existed according to several scientists, for example "legendary king of X" for Nordic kings from before the viking age (before 800).
- Write "Semi-legendary" for persons that researchers think likely may have existed but that appeared in unreliable sources written more than 100 years after their death, for example in the catholic tradition rather than the Bible, or saga literature (e.g. Nordic viking kings born between 800 and 950).
- Write "Speculative" in the name suffix when the person is historical (supported by sources written within 100 years after his death), but there are several alternative paths to him/her, based on guesses, conficting info and synthesis of hypotheses rather than implicit fact in the sources
- Temporarily write "citation needed" or "fictional" in the name suffix of persons that you suggest should be deleted unless sources or good arguments are provided.
- Remove paths that are proven non-existing by DNA, or where there is a consensus among modern researchers that they are completely fictional.

I do not expect everyone to agree with all these suggestions, but can we at least agree on the Nordic kings in the saga literature, to start with?

No to all them, Magnus.

I see where you are going with this and I like the direction but I think the nuanced presentation would create more problems than it would solve. Imagine, if you will the debate about Jesus extended to every questionable figure. People droning on and on about whether this king is legendary or semi-legendary, while others wander around in circles trying to figure out what is the speculation in speculative.

None of these lines can be proven or disproven by DNA. Yet. And no historically fictional person is going to get deleted from Geni. It would be pointless (because someone will add them back and we'd be perpetually re-doing the same research to show that they needed to be deleted in the first place.

On the matter of your line to Jesus - you shouldn't have one. He has no documented children.

Sharon, I have the impression Magnus is talking about the convoluted line that connects half of Geni to Jesus through Jesus' descent from King David.

Ahhh. Mine doesn't even have to go back to David. Jesus Christ is my 58th great uncle's partner's second great uncle's wife's husband's brother's wife's son - ending with
Flavia Domitilla Minor
her mother → Titus, Roman Emperor
her brother → Julia Berenice ., Princess of Judaea, Queen of Chalcis
his partner → Cypros ., III, of Judaea
her mother → Salampsio ., Princess of Judaea
her mother → Marianne I Hasmonean, 2nd wife King Herod
her mother → Elizabeth of Jerusalem, Queen Alexandra II
her mother → Eli ben Matat
her son → Saint Anne (Hannah)
his wife → Cleopas ben Jacob
her husband → Saint Joseph
his brother → Blessed Virgin Mary
his wife → Jesus Christ
her son

I had something like that the other day. Today, nothing. Someone must have cut a line somewhere.

Mary's parents got cut for insufficient evidence. The discussion is apparently spread across multiple threads.

A week ago J.C. was my 13th cousin xth rom. Since then it's changing daily!

<About Eli, being the first husband of Joseph's mother and therefore Joseph's legal father (so Mary cannot have been Eli's daughter or she would have been Joseph's sister). There are numerous examples which are stating that the words "son of" must be seen broader! A son-in-law was also called "son of" f.e. Saul calling David(his father Isaa), who's marrried to a daughter of Saul, "my son" (1 Sam. 16). & (1 Sam. 18 : 17 – 30). En zo noemde Saul David “mijn zoon” in 1 Sam. 24 : 17: “it that your voice, my son David'! You all read it again this way!
The fact that Joseph adopted Jesus made it 'just' legitimate for Jesus to be a descendant (king) to the throne of king David. Moreover before the "cut off" I saw that also Mary and Joseph were interrelated, but can't be sure anymore because I can't check it anymore. 'Cut off' too early ('cut off by lack of contributions like Sharon wrote). Now we are discussing what should be discussed!!

Pls make sub-divisions. It's too difficult to talk about Jesus and Norman Vikings in the same sentence. That's also not really respectful.

As a check of numbers of descendants in Luke and Matthew and the which and why a few people were "deleted in the countings" I read the following:
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/cbgjesus.pdf

I fully agree with Magus. St. Anna should have legendary. In fact, around the World, the Catholics will celebrate the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her parents, who are considered legendary also have a feast of their own. The Catholic Church does say, no certain knowledge. Yet, on July 26th of each year, St. Anne and St. Yoachim (Joachim) is given a special feast.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ANNE.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOACHIM.HTM

Mary's Feast is August 15th.

I am retracting my argument about Saint Anna and Saint Joachim. Mary's father would need to have been a Priest according to Luke's implication and Mary's mother from Judah to support Paul's declaration of Christ being from the tribe of Judah. Since the Catholic Tradition does not support the Biblical implication or declaration and does not support Jewish law per se, I retract with full apologies my argument.

Magnus, has asked us not to discuss the problems around Jesus on his thread. Please move those discussions here: https://www.geni.com/discussions/158770

However, I think it would still be on topic to talk about Robert's suggestion that Joachim and Anna should be attached to Mary but marked as legendary.

I thought about that solution early on, but it would be unique on Geni to do it that way.

So far, we have used the label "Fictional" only for people who have no descendants. In fact, one of the main reasons for labeling a profile that way is so we can make sure no fictional person ever has descendants who are real, and no real person has ancestors who are fictional.

I can see the appeal of adding parents that are clearly labeled as legendary, but actually that would just shift the problem to another part of the tree.

For example, by cobbling together different legends we would all end up being descendants of Jesus through his "legendary" son and then down through the "legendary" knights of King Arthur.

I can't imagine that the Christians who want to see Joachim and Anna as Mary's parents would be willing to let other people have other legends if it means making everyone a descendant of Jesus ;)

Why isn't God set up as the father to Jesus?

Because not everyone in the world believes God was the father of Jesus.

I agree with not placing God as the father of Christ. Matthew used Joseph on the genealogical line in Matthew Chapter One, not God. This was done to explain who Christ's royal lineage was. Now for Christ, I have no quarms with him having an unknown father. Since only God or Joseph could logically be Christ's father. The notion of Mary getting raped, personally to me is a load of dung.

"Because not everyone in the world believes God was the father of Jesus."

That wasn't a good answer, what other people believe in shouldn't matter, what does the story tell and what is the logical, (not necessary including what's possible according to modern science) explanation for it?

We've already discussed this on Jesus' profile - please see that Discussion for the answers we've already given.

I'm looking on his profile now, and I quote;
"with most Christian denominations believing him to be the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead."
Jesus

So why did you all decide to ignore what written?

"On Geni we have followed the genealogies of Jesus as given in the Christian gospels, which nominate Joseph as his father in records."
And you didn't even set him up as a foster father...

Joseph

No Jesus in that profile at all... Geni do support foster and adopted children, did you know that?