Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Holy Grail...legend or fact?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Holy Grail...legend or fact?
    Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:33
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

If you accept everything, you would display a severe lack if critical thinking.
 
And yet, critically thinking would make believing that Jesus had a kid considerably more logical than believing Mary was a virgin.
 
Yes, from an objective point of view, but from a religious point of view - since this is a matter of faith - it may not necessarily be.
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:47
  Seems some forms of Psuedo History are more acceptable than others.
 
    Faith in ones beliefs is to be commended but folks have faith in many differing and often questionable things.


Edited by Scorpian - 01-May-2007 at 12:08
Scorpian
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2007 at 10:48
 
Originally posted by JanusRook


In my opinion I assume that Jesus was raised in the faith of Joseph who I believe was a sadducee or temple jew.
We don't have much information on Joseph's faith, but most of Christ's teaching is much closer to the Pharisees than the Sadducees. An afterlife is a Pharisaic teaching, denied by the Sadducees, following the original Jewish tradition. 
 
It's notable that the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus into revealing himself as a Pharisee in the famous question-and-answer re marriage in Matthew 22.
 
Just for a change, a statement on the Mormon position here is at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/EternalMarriage.pdf
 
It doesn't make much difference to the rest of your post, but personally I'd bet Joseph was a Pharisee.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2007 at 11:00
I believe we miss a point in here.
 
There is also a history of mythology.
 
The fact that there is a cup in Valencia that gave origin to many legends, and that even a part of the Arthurian myths can be traced to it, I believe it is important.
 
Is it the REAL cup of the Last Supper? I guess it is unlikely. However, what is based on solid ground is that the cup is old and that exist at least from the Middle Ages, and that even Hitler once wanted to have it.
 
The study of the ancient myths, of the alchemical books and of the cathedrals' symbology could sound strange to many, but it has an historical value and shouldn't be avoided. It is the same value than any other historical study.
 
We should not confusse the myth (which is an objetive thing: a story, a script) with what the myth tells which, most of the cases, is just fantasy or a symbology.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 01-May-2007 at 11:02
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-May-2007 at 09:37

It doesn't make much difference to the rest of your post, but personally I'd bet Joseph was a Pharisee.


I don't know though, I have my reasons for associating Joseph with the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees.


1. I was under the assumption that the Pharisees intended to replace the ruling officials of the Temple. However Joseph seemed to have at least a decent relationship with those at the temple since he managed to lose Jesus in there. So even if he wasn't with the Sadducees he probably wouldn't have been liked by the Pharisees.


2. Jesus apparent contempt for the Pharisees, where would he get such seemingly inborn disdain for this sect? Could it be perhaps by his foster father, who perhaps saw them as becoming far too arrogant and self-righteous?

3. Apocryphal writings say that Joseph wed Mary in a Temple ceremony (Gospel of James I believe?) thought up by Temple priests, that doesn't seem like something a Pharisee would do.

Joseph to me honestly seems to be more of an apolitical nondivisive blue-collar kind of guy. However I think he sympathized more with the Sadducees, if for no other reason, he was surrounded by Pharisees and didn't like them.

The more I think about it, I think this is my opinion of the Holy Family religious belief.

Joseph- born Pharisee convert to Sadducee.
Joachim and Anna- rich couple (so probably Sadducee) and thus Mary would have been born a Sadducee.

Jesus- Sadducee by birth, by virtue of parentage, besides it gives his coming a sense of legitimacy if it's "a continuation of the Temple". Later on he becomes an Essene as he tries to figure out who he really is before he began his ministry.

Of course I'm basing this on what I see as common sense, and not being an expert can be completely wrong on any and all of this.


An afterlife is a Pharisaic teaching, denied by the Sadducees, following the original Jewish tradition.


Do you have any interesting sources (books, websites, etc.) that you can recall off the top of your head about what roman era jews believed their afterlife to be, because I've heard different things, ranging from living through your sons lives to becoming a dried husk in sheol.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2007 at 06:06
In reply to Janusrook, did you know that there where multiple gosples and the church picked the 4 gosples out them selves. who is to say that the other gosples did not mention a child in them??
 
(not insolting the church though, i am christian.Sleepy)
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2007 at 12:24
did you know that there where multiple gosples and the church picked the 4 gosples out them selves.


I am fully aware of the fact seeing as how I mentioned Apocryphal gospels in my above post. And saying the church picked 4 and only 4 gospels makes it sound like a conspiracy. The ENTIRE church had a council and determined that the four gospels are the most theological sound and least likely to contain error, the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.


who is to say that the other gosples did not mention a child in them??


No where in any of the apocryphal works is it mentioned or suggested that Jesus had a child. This by itself should say something, since if there was even a slight chance of this happening someone would have brought it up.

And yes I'm aware of the gnostics, but they seem to me to have just incorporated christianity into their all ready existing pre-christian beliefs so anything they have to add has to be taken into context, and even then I don't believe they mention a child, they just raise up the feminine aspects.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2007 at 10:23
You are probably correct on the original point that Joseph probably didn't pay too much attention to the doctrinal differences of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
 
However Jesus' teaching is essentially Pharisaic not Sadducee in its message of resurrection and afterlife rewards and punishments, though it is neither Pharisaic nor Sadducee in its rejection of overscrupulous study of, and reliance on, the law.
 
When he denounces the 'scribes and Pharisees' as hypocrites (passim Smile) he is criticising not their doctrine but their practice of it. On the other hand his differences with the Sadducees is doctrinal.
 
And let's not forget Paul before the Sanhedrin: "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). It is of course possible that Paul here is just lying to get himself out of a hole, but that's somewhat uncharitable.
 
I don't think there's any doubt that at the time, Jesus and his disciples were seen as preaching a populist version of Phariseeism.
 
Which is why I tilt the probability of his (earthly) father being a Pharisee too (in of course the technical doctrinal sense). It is true that he seems to have some kind of in with the temple authorities, but after all (as the Paul quote above makes clear) the Sanhedrin was pretty much divided between the two parties. The Bible tends to lump together the 'priests and elders' and I think that's a reference to the Sadducee priests and the Pharisaic teachers (whom we would now call rabbis).
 
A couple more points below.
 
 
Originally posted by JanusRook


It doesn't make much difference to the rest of your post, but personally I'd bet Joseph was a Pharisee.


I don't know though, I have my reasons for associating Joseph with the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees.


1. I was under the assumption that the Pharisees intended to replace the ruling officials of the Temple. However Joseph seemed to have at least a decent relationship with those at the temple since he managed to lose Jesus in there. So even if he wasn't with the Sadducees he probably wouldn't have been liked by the Pharisees.


2. Jesus apparent contempt for the Pharisees, where would he get such seemingly inborn disdain for this sect? Could it be perhaps by his foster father, who perhaps saw them as becoming far too arrogant and self-righteous?
It could have meant that, but you can still read him as a Pharisee originally. After all the Sadducees were also arrogant and self-righteous. (At least as portrayed by the other sides.)


3. Apocryphal writings say that Joseph wed Mary in a Temple ceremony (Gospel of James I believe?) thought up by Temple priests, that doesn't seem like something a Pharisee would do.
King Alexander Jannai, a staunch Sadducee supporter, married Salome, whose brother Shimon ben Shetach was a Pharisee leader. Reigning after Alexander died, she openly supported the Pharisees.
So inter-group marriage was certainly not unknown.
 
But I know nothing of Jewish wedding customs of the period. I believe modern Jews break something at a wedding because they cannot get married in the Temple.
 


Joseph to me honestly seems to be more of an apolitical nondivisive blue-collar kind of guy. However I think he sympathized more with the Sadducees, if for no other reason, he was surrounded by Pharisees and didn't like them.

The more I think about it, I think this is my opinion of the Holy Family religious belief.

Joseph- born Pharisee convert to Sadducee.
Joachim and Anna- rich couple (so probably Sadducee) and thus Mary would have been born a Sadducee.

Jesus- Sadducee by birth, by virtue of parentage, besides it gives his coming a sense of legitimacy if it's "a continuation of the Temple". Later on he becomes an Essene as he tries to figure out who he really is before he began his ministry.
Jesus may have been an Essene at one time (forty days in the wilderness?) but he definitely didn't stay one.


Of course I'm basing this on what I see as common sense, and not being an expert can be completely wrong on any and all of this.
That qualifies you to join my club.



An afterlife is a Pharisaic teaching, denied by the Sadducees, following the original Jewish tradition.


Do you have any interesting sources (books, websites, etc.) that you can recall off the top of your head about what roman era jews believed their afterlife to be, because I've heard different things, ranging from living through your sons lives to becoming a dried husk in sheol.
 
Sources is tough because I've acquired these beliefs over the years. However there is a key passage in Daniel 12.
" 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
  3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. "
which is the earliest reference to resurrection and afterlife rewards for the righteous that I know of in the Bible.
 
Significantly (?) that occurs during the captivity in Babylon (and was certainly written during or after it), and the splitting away of the Pharisees occurs after the return from Babylon.
 
So that I wind up at least speculating that the doctrine of resurrection somehow got imported into Judaism during the captivity.
 
I'll see if I can find any more to support that.
 
(You might have thought they would have picked it up in Egypt, but apparently they didn't.)
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-May-2007 at 10:25
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2007 at 17:12

But I know nothing of Jewish wedding customs of the period. I believe modern Jews break something at a wedding because they cannot get married in the Temple.


That would be an interesting thing to learn, I wonder if any of our jewish forumers have any information on the subject.


Jesus may have been an Essene at one time (forty days in the wilderness?) but he definitely didn't stay one.


Of course not, at that point religion was meaningless to him.  Uh, I mean that  in the sense that he finally realized that he was the Word made flesh and knowing the Truth, worldly religion didn't matter.


So that I wind up at least speculating that the doctrine of resurrection somehow got imported into Judaism during the captivity.


The persian religions seem to have influenced Judeo-christianity quite significantly. I wonder if they [the persian religions] had similar beliefs in the afterlife to each other.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2007 at 18:18
Originally posted by Scorpian

  Seems some forms of Psuedo History are more acceptable than others.
 
    Faith in ones beliefs is to be commended but folks have faith in many differing and often questionable things.
 
Of course, but the virginity of Mary is a religious matter, the bloodline of Jesus is, actually, not, since this has been promoted by conspiracy theorists. There may have been religious cults believing this too, but the modern day followers of this idea does not follow the idea because their religion says so.
 
 
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2007 at 18:27
Originally posted by JanusRook

did you know that there where multiple gosples and the church picked the 4 gosples out them selves.


I am fully aware of the fact seeing as how I mentioned Apocryphal gospels in my above post. And saying the church picked 4 and only 4 gospels makes it sound like a conspiracy. The ENTIRE church had a council and determined that the four gospels are the most theological sound and least likely to contain error, the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.

 
Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.
 
However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did not end up in the Bible.
 
Also, the Gnostic teachings would probably not contain any idea of a Messianic bloodline. In Gnosticism, the sexual union is considered impure, since the union creates flesh, which is impure, and therefore a Gnostic would never promote the idea of Jesus having descendants.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2007 at 00:55

There may have been religious cults believing this too


Give me proof of one pre-modern religious cult believing in this idea.


Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.


It wasn't an ecumenical council. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.


However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did not end up in the Bible.


That's what I said. Wink


the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.




Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2007 at 00:57

There may have been religious cults believing this too


Give me proof of one pre-modern religious cult believing in this idea, because I have never heard of this outside of modern times.


Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.


It wasn't an ecumenical council. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.


However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did not end up in the Bible.


That's what I said. Wink


the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.



Also, the Gnostic teachings would probably not contain any idea of a Messianic bloodline. In Gnosticism, the sexual union is considered impure, since the union creates flesh, which is impure, and therefore a Gnostic would never promote the idea of Jesus having descendants.


I agree, yet it is through Egypt and gnosticism that most theories about the divine bloodline originate.


Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2007 at 05:29
Originally posted by JanusRook


There may have been religious cults believing this too


Give me proof of one pre-modern religious cult believing in this idea, because I have never heard of this outside of modern times.


Janus, you mention a council, which was this? I thought the process was an evolution where the different congregations decided which gospels they considered genuine, a decision only counting for their congregation. Later, as the congregations gained more interaction between themselves, the Bible gradually was shaped.


It wasn't an ecumenical council. It was the synod of Hippo, where many Bishops were in attendence and it was also brought up at the Council of Carthage. In the beginning many people arranged their own Bible's but under the influence of these councils and the creation of the Latin Vulgate the Bible had it's books, of course it should be noted that by the 500's the Cannon of the Bible was agreed upon.


However, the Church fathers did not destroy the "gospels" left out, as many of them contained Christian teachings, but they simple couldn't guarantee the authenticity, consequently these writings did not end up in the Bible.


That's what I said. Wink


the other gospels aren't condemned as a rule, but they are suspect as to their accuracy.



Also, the Gnostic teachings would probably not contain any idea of a Messianic bloodline. In Gnosticism, the sexual union is considered impure, since the union creates flesh, which is impure, and therefore a Gnostic would never promote the idea of Jesus having descendants.


I agree, yet it is through Egypt and gnosticism that most theories about the divine bloodline originate.

 
I should have known about Hippo, thanks for pointing out.
 
Also, when talking about the selection of the gospels, I fully agree, just wanted to fill you inSmile
 
Finally: No, I can't give you any evidence of any such pre-modern cult, because I don't know of any such. But since I don't know of any, I mentioned the possibility because I weren't sure there were none such cults. If you get me.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2007 at 13:21
But since I don't know of any, I mentioned the possibility because I weren't sure there were none such cults. If you get me.


I get what you mean, and the lack of such cults in pre-modern times should tell you something about the belief that christ had a child.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2007 at 15:39
Exactly. Well put.
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2007 at 14:24
Originally posted by Hope

Originally posted by Scorpian

  Seems some forms of Psuedo History are more acceptable than others.
 
    Faith in ones beliefs is to be commended but folks have faith in many differing and often questionable things.
 
Of course, but the virginity of Mary is a religious matter, the bloodline of Jesus is, actually, not, since this has been promoted by conspiracy theorists.
 
 
 
 
The bloodline of Jesus isn't a new concept as newly written by Dan Brown and a few numpty conspiracy theorists.
       That particular Magdalene tale has been around a long time.
    In my opinion both were and still are religious matters.
          Hence I stick with the views as written in my earlier postings; i.e. some forms of psuedo history are more acceptable than others.
  
        Virgin Mary & Mary Magdalene the HarlotEmbarrassed
  Both Untrue but peeps will believe what they want to believe.
                    Psuedo history or notQuestion what's your opinion?.
           
 
        
     
 
     


Edited by Scorpian - 11-May-2007 at 14:58
Scorpian
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2007 at 14:48
Just to make an important thing very clear: Mary Magdalen is not mentioned as a harlot in the Bible, and was not regarded as one until a pope gave her that title to make her a role model for prostitutes.

Edited by Hope - 14-May-2007 at 14:49
Back to Top
Scorpian View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
  Quote Scorpian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 06:58
Originally posted by Hope

Just to make an important thing very clear: Mary Magdalen as a harlot , was not regarded as one until a pope gave her that title.
 
     Yep!Wink  exactly that.
 
   Altering past history and then having future generations believing in something that wasn't true seems to me a regular occurrence.  If a Pope can relate change of one truth then other popes/peeps could/did similar.
                    Therefore what is truth and what are lies?
 
   The grail itself may be nothing more than seeing and believing beyond the mundane to a time before the lies started. Ermm (could be anything! and your guess is as good if not better than mine)
         
      


Edited by Scorpian - 15-May-2007 at 07:38
Scorpian
Back to Top
Hope View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184
  Quote Hope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 11:31
Originally posted by Scorpian

Originally posted by Hope

Just to make an important thing very clear: Mary Magdalen as a harlot , was not regarded as one until a pope gave her that title.
 
     Yep!Wink  exactly that.
 
   Altering past history and then having future generations believing in something that wasn't true seems to me a regular occurrence.  If a Pope can relate change of one truth then other popes/peeps could/did similar.
                    Therefore what is truth and what are lies?
 
   The grail itself may be nothing more than seeing and believing beyond the mundane to a time before the lies started. Ermm (could be anything! and your guess is as good if not better than mine)
         
      
 
What other alterings of history did you have in mind?
 
As for this incident about Mary the Magdalen, it is well known  when her role as a harlot began. Changes as these are discovered by comparing texts.
 
As for the grail, it probably has been based on some mystic item prior to the Arthurian legends, an item found in Celtic mythology most likely as have been mentioned earlier in this thread.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.941 seconds.