The Holy Grail...legend or fact?

Hope,

However, if you seek to make Christianity appear false with these points (these points being historically correct), I dare say you fail. Not because I deny the truth, but because these details are not important regarding the faith. qoute hope          hey! you asked and I gave reply. 

Edited by Scorpian - 17-May-2007 at 13:04

Edited by Scorpian - 16-May-2007 at 12:52

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.

Edited by Scorpian - 15-May-2007 at 07:38

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.

Edited by Scorpian - 11-May-2007 at 14:58

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.