The 'Divine Bloodline' Doctrine

In recent years, there has been spreading among certain New Age groups and writers, a pernicious and dangerous doctrine. I am writing here of the belief that certain families or bloodlines are more noble or divine than others. This belief assumes certain lineages are meant to rule, while others may be great seers or prophets.

The ‘divine bloodline’ doctrine is a perverted form of the ‘divine right of kings’ doctrine, invented in medieval times to legitimize, not the royal family, but the seat of the monarchy itself. Various families may have held different thrones, and random popes held the seat of St. Peter, but according to this medieval belief, it was not the family or lineage that was holy, but the office itself. When political pundits discuss a respect for the Office of President or Prime Minister regardless of personal views with the man or woman holding the seat, this is a lesser echo of the tradition dating to the ‘divine right of kings’ doctrine.

The ‘divine (or noble) bloodline’ doctrine rose recently in popularity among New Age circles due to speculation that Jesus may have had a wife and children. It is beyond the scope of this topic to discuss the merits of this speculation, but shall be enough to posit that it is true in the minds of many New Age believers holding a Christian background.

It is easy enough to see how connections were made. If Jesus was a god-man, or the only Son of God conceived through a virgin (Culdians, and the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, by contrast deny this claim of a virgin birth or god-man status), this would make any children or descendants he may have had divine, holy, or noble beings, simply by right of their DNA. If this is true, the jump is also often made to similar holy/noble families of prophets and saints. Depending upon the purity of the line, or how close one can trace their family lineage to these saints and god-men, the closer one then is to God himself, and the more political and religious authority is theirs by right of birth.

What is often not stated (or even thought about) is that by definition, if there is a grade of noble and holy families, there must also be a corresponding decent of ignoble and unholy families. Many New Agers holding this belief today may find that they have little to no DNA from Jesus or the Prophets. Their very doctrine would then condemn them to a lower caste, not worthy of the closeness and comprehension of God. Perhaps their DNA is evil, or perhaps it is just not pure enough to be worthy of any higher grace or connection with God. We’ll let the New Age theologians work out the details of this less savory aspect of their doctrine, but depending on where your parents came from, your own personal aspirations towards spirituality will be severely curtailed.

This is what happened in India, when early Hindu theologians misinterpreted the Caste doctrine, closing the door to the Divine to all but the priestly caste. True caste is dependent on a personal, spiritual lineage, not one of birth. And it is no wonder Gautama Buddha was eventually rejected in his home country by the entrenched priest class, and other power and moneyed interests in his attempt to reform the system, most famously stating, “Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behavior makes one either a priest or an outcaste.”

One can also witness the children and descendants of holy men. Take Krishna, for example, perhaps the greatest of the Hindu avatars, often held to be on par to a god-man. One of his sons was a drunken murderer, and his transgressions were so offensive that Krishna cursed him. Or take the prophet Samuel, from the Old Testament; “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.” – 1 Samuel 8:1-3

It is evident throughout history that nobility and divinity are not aspects of blood or DNA. It is a doctrine with no basis in Spirituality, but Materiality. A spiritual attribute is one that is a part of the Soulspirit, part of your essential self even beyond death. A material attribute is temporary only during the short time on Earth. If divinity and nobility are attributes of the blood, these characteristics of integrity curdle with the blood at death. And those aware of the higher realms and beings, know this is not the case.

As opposed to transitory New Age thought, the Culdian Teachings hold another view; one that is more just, empirically observable, and logically sound, one that will not attempt to recreate a failed caste system or bar the doors of the divine to anyone. It is a Teaching that allows each the free will to embrace or abandon God, to perfect or disfigure their own Soul as they will. One should denounce a corrupt king, pope, or president and follow the words of a homeless orphan should he be pure and wise. We hope those in the New Age movement will recognize their dangerous error.

The following excerpts address two sides of the same coin, the Kolbrin denouncing nobility by birth, and Gwineva denouncing ignobility or evil by birth (Emphasis is mine):

“Nobility and honour are words much abused, but in truth nobility is not bestowed by birthright but resides in the soul, and honour is not a thing bartered among kings but comes from a sense of goodness. Men sell their honour for gold, and nobility is conferred on those who have done nothing more than their duty. This is wrong.

When titles are given as the reward of true selfless service, when he who serves his fellows well is ennobled, both giver and receiver are raised in stature, and the realm benefits.

When they who inherit titles also inherit the virtues which earned these, then all is well; but when he who inherits, to whom they descend, is unlike he who earned them, then they can no longer be borne with honour.

Honour and nobility, in their true sense, are not things which can inevitably be inherited, they are not in the blood. The man who, being without merit himself, appeals to the actions of his ancestors for his justification, is like a thief claiming justification in possession. What good is it to the blind that his parents could see, or what benefit to the deaf that his grandfather heard? Is this more foolish then that a mean-hearted man should claim nobility because his forbears were noble? A man who serves the people well has no need of ancestors. The noble mind does not derive pleasure in receiving honours, but in deserving them. Is it not better that men say, “Why has this man not been honoured by the king?” than to ask why he has been?” – The Kolbrin, The Britain Book, Chapter Eight

“A child is born innocent and remains so until it sins…

It is equally wrong and wicked to assert that the sins of the forebears shall fall upon the children, for each individual is responsible only for their own wrongdoings, their own commissions and omissions; no one ever pays spiritually for the wickedness of others. Certainly children may be affected by things their parents have done wrong, but this forms part of the natural earthly conditions and hazards. However, payment for wrongdoings against children and others is extracted from the perpetrators and from no others, certainly not from the innocent.” – The Book of Gwineva, Part II, Chapter 7

Divine right is what is conferred to the king because he had been determined as just authority over the lower classes by God. David was a good king. Solomon was a good king. But many kings of the Bible were bad, like Saul and Solomon’s offspring. Just as these kings can be looked at at as bad, except for David, Herod can be seen as an even worse king because of his call to execute the Messiah. I heard that the Magi returned from Bethlehem going around Herod to prevent conflict. So we have some cases in the Bible that dispute and confirm Divine Right. Scripture is offered that confirms that the descendants of David will once again rule. Especially in Israel.

Natural Law and Social Contract are two opposing arguments against Divine Right and are philosophical in their viewpoints. Natural Law commits values to the individual and group because the values are seen as being within the good, or virtue, of reason or human nature. Values either come from the individual or the group and determine the way our elected officials, here in the United States, vote and operate. We are a democracy and represent the people power. We depend on the authoritative allocation of values for our well being. If some thing in government goes wrong, we can have a ballot initiative and vote the ill equiped government official out. If things are going smoothly economically, politically, and religiously, let the party and rationale behind the consensus continue. Natural Law gives rights to each person to propose their values and keep them in effect or discontinue them based on objective observations. The way government operates also depends on who believes in the goodness of the gene pool and the goodness of the environment; independent and dependent of Divine Right.

Social Contract can favor or disfavor a king; the same behavior can be witnessed in United States politics as discussed, but can be more difficult to overturn a kingdom. Arguments of Social Contract confront the rights individuals have given up to a ruler or magistrate in return for protection. This protection is from the kingdom of the magistrate, usually military. In some cases, if the problem is financial, nobles and magistrates might grant lower taxes—if the kingdom can afford it. More or less freedoms and rights are exchanged for the protection of a king.

In the Enlightenment thought of Natural Law, argument can be made about human nature. To support a magistrate science can be argued. Just recently scientists undertook the Human Genome Project. From a discussion I held with one very bright person, there were conclusive findings of the project. Ordering of genes can determine characteristics of a person. I do not know why the project was determined as inconclusive, perhaps to protect those holding those very genes. The idea that human knowledge is innate and is unlocked as time progresses suggests that the ordering of genes are strong and continue from descendent to descendent. If a child is born to a dynastic line, that child would arguably have very good genes and not let the foreign mix of any ill character genes in because the formation of the mind is set in stone; knowledge is innate and our fates are predetermined.

John Locke opposes the above philosophy and asserts that experience is where knowledge comes from; tabula rasa. Genes do not play a role in human makeup and the environment is where character qualities come from. Yes, souls and spirits grow over time and are strong influences of character. It would be very nice if faith did not fluctuate and was at the pinnacle of achievment for every member of society because society would operate better; ideals of love, hope, and faith would abound. People would realize we work as a group and our time on earth is short, so we better make the best of it.

There are different dimensions where spirits retire and I want to go to the best one. Often, it involves the whole of our life time for God to determine if we are ready to migrate to heaven. Maturity of faith beyond the age of reason helps us get to heaven.

Manifest destiny can be applied to either nature you choose and affect the rule of democracy or of a magistrate. Our actions determine our destiny and involve our needs. The Bible can support or refute the necessity of Divine Right because as shown with Social Contract and Natural Law, some rights are inherent while other rights are applied to the law books. I believe it is inherent rights that God protects, such as our freedom of choice, which composes humanity. It is easy to believe in a destiny that protects innate qualities of knowledge because our futures are predetermined in this thought. If our minds grow from experience, a destiny is continuously acting upon our character, in effect, continual creation.

“A child is born innocent and remains so until it sins…

I am a strong advocate of this statement. However, I feel there is need for clarification around exactly what ‘sin’ is. Is it some theological or religious concept? Is it a concept as dictated by some deity or by humankind for whatever reasons? So, according to the abovementioned statement, a child is born innocent and remains so until it digresses from some conventionally accepted or ‘normal’ practise. Would this be a fair enough statement? [Sorry Len, just seen this as being a comment from your response to Christopher. However, for those not familiar with the Culdian understanding of the concept of ‘sin’ this may need enlarging upon.)

Honour and nobility, in their true sense, are not things which can inevitably be inherited, they are not in the blood.

Totally agree. I would posit both honour and nobility are mindsets determined by one’s experiences and understandings that are gathered throughout one’s lifetime.

It is equally wrong and wicked to assert that the sins of the forebears shall fall upon the children, for each individual is responsible only for their own wrongdoings, their own commissions and omissions; no one ever pays spiritually for the wickedness of others.

Yes, vicarious sins, like vicarious atonement are a hangover from ‘less enlightened times’ and should never hold sway over anyone at any time. However, they do, and I can only believe this to be a form of control used by certain ‘influential’ people in order to obtain and/or maintain control over others.

There are different dimensions where spirits retire and I want to go to the best one.

In this I firmly believe you will go to the one dimension you resonate mostly with.

Very interesting discourse.

What is the color of consciousness? would it happen to be blue?

In my view Royal blood is a spiritual consciousness, which anyone has the ability or potential to obtain through following the precepts of the way.

Nobility is an attribute of the soul and no man has this by right of birth. Nobility demonstrates an ability to live and act according to the high principles. It is expressed in deeds, outlook and bearing, in the manner of life and relationship with others. That which ennobles a man is his recognition of something to love and strive for outside of himself. Nobility is the subordination of self to principles.


Actually Ra, I thought consciousness was pink with purple polka dots…lol.

I would have to believe all colours are attributed to consciousness (that is, all colours we are influenced by whilst in this limited 3-dimensional reality we currently live in).

Nobility is an attribute of the soul and no man has this by right of birth.
Completely agree here. Nobility is indeed an attribute one can aspire to and maintain should they wish to. However, the nobility referred to here, I believe, is that one inferred onto others by peoples who may have, at one stage, believed the above, but who now have little or no knowledge of the higher meaning of the word noble or nobility. In some ways I believe it now has more to do with 'possession' or 'possessions' than anything else. A shame really.