Print Page | Close Window

The Holy Grail...legend or fact?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19303
Printed Date: 13-Dec-2017 at 15:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Holy Grail...legend or fact?
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Subject: The Holy Grail...legend or fact?
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 10:35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail
 
Since the publishing in 1982 of the controversial novel Holy Blood and the Holy Grail the Grail legend has captured the public imagination. Dan Browne ensured the controversy continued with The Da Vinci Code.
 
Everyone has their own ideas about what or who the grail may be and where it could be hidden.
 
Everyone from the Cathars to the modern day Freemasons have been suggested as having connections to the legend.
 
So what do you think? Fact or fiction? If fact where is it now? Is it possible that Jesus may have had descentants some of who are walking the earth today?


-------------
Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile



Replies:
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 16:33

The historical  holy grail was never a person.  Nor was it an ornate cup.  Rather the holy grail was simply the cup that was readily available to Jesus at the Last Supper.

As Jesus ate the meal in the home of a moderatly wealthy person, the cup used by Christ could have been either ceramic or perhaps beaten or cast bronze.    I seriously doubt that it would have been a truly remarkable cup in regards to appereance (the owner was not truly wealthy and Jesus preferred modesty).   After the last supper, the cup was washed along with the 12 other similar appearing cups, placed in a cabinet and then discarded several years later. 
 
No conspiracies, no hidden secrets and no mysteries.


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 16:25
Well, I think the person coming closer to what the grail really is, must be American comic writer Hal Foster who, in Prince Valiant, claimed that it was the pursue of the good in your own heart, something like that.
 
However, most information that comes from Holy Blood, Holy Grails is not true, only based on legends or hoaxes, for instance the existence of Priory of Sion.
 
Personally I don't believe in the holy grail, at least not as an item of Christian lore connected to Jesus Christ. It appears way too late in Christian legends to make me believe in it.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 17:50
The legend was probably a medieval invention. In old Northern European legends stretching back to pre-christian times. There are several cups with magical qualities popping up in them (such as the cauldron of the Irish God The Dagda or the cup of the British King Bran). All seem to have the quality of bringing the dead back to life or healing by drinking from them. The cup King Arthur is searching for is almost certainly the cup of Bran not Jesus.
 
As with most other pagan legends and holy days, the medieval church converted by incorperating local mythos into their own.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 20:09
Originally posted by Paul

The legend was probably a medieval invention. In old Northern European legends stretching back to pre-christian times. There are several cups with magical qualities popping up in them (such as the cauldron of the Irish God The Dagda or the cup of the British King Bran). All seem to have the quality of bringing the dead back to life or healing by drinking from them. The cup King Arthur is searching for is almost certainly the cup of Bran not Jesus.
 
As with most other pagan legends and holy days, the medieval church converted by incorperating local mythos into their own.
And the first written mention of the Grail itself is still from Chrêtien de Troyes http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceval_ou_le_Conte_du_Graal - Perceval ou le Conte du Graal , estimated to have been written sometime between 1180 and 1190. It was started by Chrêtien but eventually finished by someone else.
 
It was an instant runaway Medieval literary success. Twenty years down the line there were trobadours complaining about the insane never-ending demand for more Grail-and-Arthur stuff at the courts of the day.LOL


-------------
One must not insult the future.


Posted By: New User
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 22:14
Originally posted by Paul

The legend was probably a medieval invention. In old Northern European legends stretching back to pre-christian times. There are several cups with magical qualities popping up in them (such as the cauldron of the Irish God The Dagda or the cup of the British King Bran). All seem to have the quality of bringing the dead back to life or healing by drinking from them. The cup King Arthur is searching for is almost certainly the cup of Bran not Jesus.
 
As with most other pagan legends and holy days, the medieval church converted by incorperating local mythos into their own.
 
 
 
interesting stuff. Clap Love hearing of religious crossovers but not heard of that one, cool.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 23:14
The holly grail exist. However, it is not the descendency of Jesus.
The holly grail is actually a cup that is suppose the cup of the last supper.
It is kept in Valencia Cathedral, Spain.
 
End of the mystery
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 07:13
Originally posted by pinguin

The holly grail exist. However, it is not the descendency of Jesus.
The holly grail is actually a cup that is suppose the cup of the last supper.


Indeed, Very true.


Originally posted by pinquin


It is kept in Valencia Cathedral, Spain.


highly unlikely. About as likely as the 'holy sponge' being something to do with Jesus.

Lets face it, how do you know which one was used at the Last Supper, which of the 12 Jesus used etcetc. Does it have his name on it?

the most likely thing that happened to the holy grail... It broke, was discarded and disapeared from history.


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 07:52
Originally posted by pinguin

The holly grail exist. However, it is not the descendency of Jesus.
The holly grail is actually a cup that is suppose the cup of the last supper.
It is kept in Valencia Cathedral, Spain.
 
End of the mystery
 
Pinguin
 
Well, let's rather say that some people assume the holy grail is a cup, others assume it is the spear of Longinus, but whatever they assume, the holy grail is an invention of fiction, written by, as Joinville said, by Chretien de Troyes in the late 12th century.
 
That a cup in Valencia Cathedral is claimed to be the holy grail, does not make the grail real, it only proves that the grail legends have been integrated by the Catholic church.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 08:32
I'd say that cup in Valencia is about as real as the three foreskins of Jesus, the four shrouds all woven between 900 and 1400 AD (and at least one of which has female blood on it...Wink), and the five tons of wood that all supposedly came from one simple cross. Disapprove
 
And lets, just for a minute suggest Jesus got a kid. How many generations ago do you think 33 AD is? About 2000 years, 4 generations per century, that would make 800 generations. That means any descendant would have one-in-800-square-parts holy blood (that is 1 to 640000, I think)... Microscope anyone? And that of course is supposing the bloodline was continued until present day, and each person in the direct line got only 1 kid. If they all would have had two kids... how many people would there be with holy blood? Enough to fill a country I'd say. Big grail...
 
Correction of my mathsskills (or absence thereof). The square value of 800 is 640000. The other number was the square root...


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 08:38
Well, I'm personally a fan of myths in that sense I tend to believe that most myths are based on facts. But I'm also very aware of how false history has affected society, and I tend to be very, very sceptic about religious relics. After all, religion is a matter of faith, not solid evidence that comes out in multiple editions.


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 13:25

Just to clear this out, the Holy Grail is still largely unknown. Sang Real "Royal Blood" that Mr. Brown wrote about is still merely a theory which is cleverly manipulated into tricking many readers that such theory is accurate.

I am not against Da Vinci Code. It's a fun book to read, but the readers should be aware of what are facts and what are work of fictions.
 
It's funny.... there are so many AE members complaining about 300, and yet none of them talk complain about Da Vinci Code....


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 13:46
pekau, although i agree with you - Fiction is fiction, History is History, I do have one or two problems with the Da Vinci Code.

Novels about History are great, as are conspiracy books. They are just an interesting as murder mysteries etc. I think they are something fun that anyone can read and, can, in some cases actually improve interest in the reality of what the person is writing about.

Far more dangerous than Novels about History are books like 'Holy Blood, holy Grail' or indeed the original 'priory of Sion', which set out to be "History" and are taken seriously by the mainstream. It is a real disaster for society and Historians when authors of books like these are taken MORE SERIOUSLY than proper academics studying within these fields. I mean lets face it, would you trust your health to a Doctor or would you go down to the local Witch doctor for all your remedies?

So i think the problem is with psuedohistory and not with novels like Dan Browns.

My problem with Dan Brown is his idiotic pretence that its based on fact. He knows thats just nonsense, but uses it to present the book as something a lot more 'brilliant' than it really is. Lets face it, it truly lacks creativity - the book is based on a best selling conspiracy, one of characters name 'scrambles' into the surnames of hte authors of that bestselling conspiracy book. I mean come on. Its the sort of thing a 10yr old would do with an English project. This is what angers me - why does it have to be made out to be some sort of master piece. Why cant people realise, its just CRAP! read some REAL books, perhaps.

I'd say that cup in Valencia is about as real as the three foreskins of Jesus, the four shrouds all woven between 900 and 1400 AD (and at least one of which has female blood on it...Wink), and the five tons of wood that all supposedly came from one simple cross.


Jesus Foreskins. I just can't believe it. What was wrong with medieval society with their relics.




Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 04:35
Originally posted by pekau

Just to clear this out, the Holy Grail is still largely unknown. Sang Real "Royal Blood" that Mr. Brown wrote about is still merely a theory which is cleverly manipulated into tricking many readers that such theory is accurate.

I am not against Da Vinci Code. It's a fun book to read, but the readers should be aware of what are facts and what are work of fictions.
 
It's funny.... there are so many AE members complaining about 300, and yet none of them talk complain about Da Vinci Code....
 
Oh, yes, we did complain about the DaVinci code... Endlessly.
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3597 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3597
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13232 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13232
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10714 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10714
 
And this is just the tip of the iceberg... I know there must be at least three more threads about the DVC which I cannot find anymore.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 04:47
Originally posted by ovidius

Jesus Foreskins. I just can't believe it. What was wrong with medieval society with their relics.
 
Ah, shall I tell you the story of St. Ursula and the eleven thousand virgins? LOL
 
St Ursula was a noble Christian woman bethrothed to a pagan king. Wishing to remain a virgin, she set out with ten companions, each with a thousand virgins to accompany them. They traveled far and wide, and finally were killed at Cologne by the Huns, because the Huns hated Christians.
 
And lo and behold. Somewhere in the middle ages, close to Cologne, a large field full of old human bones was found. People immediately surmised these were the Virgins of St. Ursula, and Colonge grew increadably rich on selling pieces of the bones as relics, and from the many pilgrims staying in town.
 
Of course, modern science has proven that the bones are both male and female, and are most likely of people who have died from an epedemic of some sorts in the Roman age...
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15225d.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15225d.htm


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 05:06
Originally posted by pinguin

The holly grail exist. However, it is not the descendency of Jesus.
The holly grail is actually a cup that is suppose the cup of the last supper.
It is kept in Valencia Cathedral, Spain.
 
End of the mystery
 
Pinguin
But it is of course also kept in Wales (these days in a safe deposit box I believe), but then it is known as "the Nanteos Cup".
 
Richard Wagner once visited Nanteos, was shown the cup by its then owner, and derived part of his inspiration for his opera "Parzifal" from it.


-------------
One must not insult the future.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 14:16
 
Originally posted by pekau

Just to clear this out, the Holy Grail is still largely unknown. Sang Real "Royal Blood" that Mr. Brown wrote about is still merely a theory which is cleverly manipulated into tricking many readers that such theory is accurate.

I am not against Da Vinci Code. It's a fun book to read, but the readers should be aware of what are facts and what are work of fictions.
 
It's funny.... there are so many AE members complaining about 300, and yet none of them talk complain about Da Vinci Code....
 
You weren't here when we talked about it.
 
It is an unmitigated load of rubbish, badly written, and just as wrong about the present-day facts as it is about the historical ones. (French criminals are held in prisons in Andorra, visitors to France have to lodge their passports with hotels so the police can inspect them, aristocratic Englishmen have 'anglo-saxon accents', the Tuileries are the Paris equivalent of Central Park ... and on and on from one utter stupidity to another.)


-------------


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 17:55

Since this has turned into a debate about literature:

 
Check out Umberto Eco's novel Baudolino, where the Grail appears as an important element. This novel is just fiction, but it is wonderful fiction.


Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 23:30
Quote: Aelfgifu

"And lets, just for a minute suggest Jesus got a kid. How many generations ago do you think 33 AD is? About 2000 years, 4 generations per century, that would make 800 generations."

2000 : 30 years => 67 generations.

Jesus could be your greeeeeat-grand-dad sweetie-pie.


-------------
Be good or be gone.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 13:05

I'd just like to say that I agree with people on everything here.

1. The Da Vinci Code is crap.
 
2. The physical Holy Grail that Jesus used at the last supper probably was discarded years later.
 
3. The Holy Grail Arthur found was the "baptized" Cup of Bran.
 
4. Is anyone else not impressed Jesus had multiple foreskins.....
 
5. The Da Vinci Code is crap.
 
6. It is theologically incompatible and morally ambiguous to assume that Jesus had a child. There is no mention of it in any of the Gospels or Apocryphal works, or any contemporary works. The women he supposedly had a child with, probably didn't fall in (physical) love with him. And do you believe that God knowing all the problems that an absentee father would bring would just abandon his progeny in the world. I mean Jesus was distraught when God abandoned him for a milisecond on the cross.
 
7. The Da Vinci Code is crap.


-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 20:10
The Da Vinci Code must be a very special kind of crap. But should I really have to read the God Damm Thing - to learn about multiple foreskins?!

-------------
Be good or be gone.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 21:43
Ladies and Gentlemen: the REAL Saint Grial:
 
 
 
 
Well, it does not mean that it is the actual cup of the Last Supper, which could it be or not. What it is true is that MOST OF THE LEGENDS of the Grial have its origin in this particular cup.
 
Actually, the Grial is only the upper stone part of the Cup, the rest was added to make it look wonderful, like it does.
 
Pinguin
 
 
http://www.aragonesasi.com/historia/santogrial.jpg -


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 10:21

Does most of the grail legends origin in this cup, or does this cup origin in most of the grail legends?



Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 11:05
This cup has no agreed provenance as the Holy Grail. That cup was probably just an ordinary tavern type cup of the era.
 
The Holy Grail legends would have nothing to do with the cup shown. That is all they were legends


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 14:55

The grial of Valencia is directly linked with the characters of the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table, according to a Discovery Channel documental I saw long ago. So, that's not just a coincidence.

 
 
 


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 18:07
The grail of Valencia is of course linked to the legends, and probably from that era when the grail was incorporated in Catholic mythology (along with the wonders of numerous saints, the Maria Magdalena's arrival in France and similar stories).


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 00:23
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Originally posted by pekau

Just to clear this out, the Holy Grail is still largely unknown. Sang Real "Royal Blood" that Mr. Brown wrote about is still merely a theory which is cleverly manipulated into tricking many readers that such theory is accurate.

I am not against Da Vinci Code. It's a fun book to read, but the readers should be aware of what are facts and what are work of fictions.
 
It's funny.... there are so many AE members complaining about 300, and yet none of them talk complain about Da Vinci Code....
 
Oh, yes, we did complain about the DaVinci code... Endlessly.
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3597 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3597
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13232 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13232
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10714 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10714
 
And this is just the tip of the iceberg... I know there must be at least three more threads about the DVC which I cannot find anymore.
 
It must have been some time ago. I never saw these forum... thanks for mentioning it!


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 01:26
Well, i seriously dont think that anyone is prepared to say that a physical representation of the "holy Grail" exists, or that it ever did, with any "proof". That would be like saying "Gallahad" existed.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 08:29
Originally posted by Penelope

Well, i seriously dont think that anyone is prepared to say that a physical representation of the "holy Grail" exists, or that it ever did, with any "proof". That would be like saying "Gallahad" existed.
 
What people expect is that the legends contain precise fact. Of course they are not precise but symbolic and idealized representations. However, deep inside any legend that deserve respect, there are some historical facts that got blured.
 
The "holy Grail", in the Middle Ages, existed as such. Some people believe that the cup of Valencia was the origin of several of those myths. The legends of King Arthur, on the other side, seem to be a compendium of several Middle Ages traditions of several different places in Europe.
 
As far as I know, a branch of those traditions, particularly the ones related with the Holy Grail, started to go around in Spain long time before the Arthurian canon developed.
 
I don't have the facts at hand, but it is an interesting topic of study that look to be more serious that previously though. We are not talking of magic here but of the history of legends.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 18:30

Looks like no one believes in the Da Vinci code holy grail stuff due to inaccuracies and lacklustre supporting evidence. 

 Ermmokay! I more or less agree and can't offer nothing new on the subject but;
      Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)
      Seems if peeps can accept one such incredible immaculate conception pregnancy then why not two?
       
      


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 08:17
Why believe either?

-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 09:14
Originally posted by pinguin

The holly grail exist. However, it is not the descendency of Jesus.
The holly grail is actually a cup that is suppose the cup of the last supper.
It is kept in Valencia Cathedral, Spain.
 
End of the mystery
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
It's only the only item recognized by the Vatican as the possible grail.  There was a need to do this at some time in the 15th century, for political reasons.


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 09:54
Originally posted by Scorpian

Looks like no one believes in the Da Vinci code holy grail stuff due to inaccuracies and lacklustre supporting evidence. 

 Ermmokay! I more or less agree and can't offer nothing new on the subject but;
      Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)
      Seems if peeps can accept one such incredible immaculate conception pregnancy then why not two?
       
      
 
 
That's because whether Mary was a virgin prior to the birth of Christ is nothing but a matter of faith, as is Jesus' role as the Redeemer. Personally, I believe He is, and if Mary was a virgin, well, what does it matter? Details like that often serves to draw focus from the main issues.
 
As for the legend of the Messianic bloodline, that is just speculations based on, well, legends, and some Christians believe that such speculations are anti-Christians and therefore not to be uttered. Also, the Messianic bloodline is merely pseudo history, while the virginity of Mary purely is a matter of faith.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 09:57
Originally posted by gcle2003

Why believe either?
 
Smile  Exactly!
        it amazes me how folks can denounce one thing yet accept without question another.
                 


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 02:56

 Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)
      Seems if peeps can accept one such incredible immaculate conception pregnancy then why not two?


First off, there is absolutely no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Jesus had a wife, let alone choosing Mary Magdalene as a wife. I  people only associate her as somebody special because she can be the figurehead of a cause, lets say feminism in the case of her being a strong woman in the face of a patriarchal dominant male conspiracy, or perhaps as a redeeming figure for women who have made bad choices, she was a prostitute who turned from her sinful ways. Other than that she is mentioned in the Bible twice. Once when Jesus tells her to stop her ways, and again when she finds Jesus' tomb empty. They also mention two other women who find Jesus' tomb, how come they are never mentioned as possible spouses?

In fact all of the evidence suggests that Jesus wasn't married to Mary Magdalene, first off because if he was married it would have been done years and years earlier, since that was the tradition at the time, I mean he didn't meet Mary Magdalene until he was in his thirties.

Also to show reasoning for why he wasn't married:

We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married.
SOURCE: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13520_1.html - http://www.beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13520_1.html


In my opinion I assume that Jesus was raised in the faith of Joseph who I believe was a sadducee or temple jew. Then sometime after Joseph's death, Jesus began to become more aware of his own divinity and spirituality. He seems to have taken up with the essenes (monastic jews) as he grew up, which is shown in his visit to John the Baptist (who was an essene). And essenes were a celibate sect, so it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to see Jesus as a bachelor.

-------------

Onto the virgin birth, throughout all of the Near East and Asia Minor there were many many stories of mythological figures having virgin births so this was actually very easy for people at the time to accept.

The reason that Christians must make a big deal and go "overboard" on the virgin birth is because Jesus must have no mortal father to be the incarnation of God on earth. And the only way to be certain of that is for Mary the vessel chosen by God to be untainted by man. Theologically even suggesting that she had relations after the fact would lead people to believe that she could have had relations with Joseph prior to Jesus' birth, which would bring into question Jesus' role as the Son of God.

Did she remain an eternal virgin? I don't know but this has shed some light on my thoughts:


To understand what Matthew means when he says "He (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son", one only has to look at the Hebrew meaning of "until" and other references in the bible. "Until" makes reference to ONLY the time that has passed before the occurence; therefore meaning "before". It does not mean that Joseph necessarily had relations with Mary after this time. Two examples in the bible which support this: 1 Timothy 4:13 "Till I come, attend to reading, to exhortation, and to the doctrine". This clearly doesn't mean that they should stop this when he returns, but rather "while I am gone". Another example from Psalms 109:1 "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand UNTIL I make Thy enemies Thy footstool". We know that that the Lord is eternally at God's right hand and not just "until" he makes His enemies His footstool.

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-11906,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-11906,00.html

-----------------

As to whether Jesus had children, do you think Jesus, knowing all that would befall him and making the choices he did, would abandon a woman he loved and his children he loved, only to have them either be forced into exile, killed or harmed in other ways or used as a political devise?

No of course not, which is why I believe Jesus would not have married and had kids since, he knew he would be traveling a lot spreading his message, and he knew that he would dedicate his life entirely to spreading the word of God, and that he would eventually die for this.


it amazes me how folks can denounce one thing yet accept without question another.


As I have shown only lazy or ignorant Christians accept anything without question.

Of course it all comes down to faith anyway, personally I don't like to believe my religion is the fairy tale portrayed in the Da Vinci Code.


-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 10:37
Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)
I have a feeling that the whole Virgin birth thing came from Mithras. Mithras' birthday was even on December 25th. Mithras followers supposedly also ate a sacred meal of Bread and Wine, and they also had a baptizing ritual with water.
There's also Sol Invictus who has a Halo, his birthday is also celebrated on Dec 25th, and there were later images of Jesus in a chariot in the sky just like Sol Invictus.
 
So it's very easy to see that at the Nicaea Convention, when writing the Canons they took Pagan beliefs so that they may give the pagan people something very familiar.
As far as I'm concerned, Jesus may have existed, but he was probably just as human as you and I and preached a new branch of Judasism. Infact this was a major arguement at the convention. Should he be seen as a human prophet who risked everything for his belief, or something divine. Obviously Divine won out, which would have happened either way as divinity means power as far as I'm concerned. So this is what we have today, and people believe full heartedly in it.
To question someones belief in why they believe one thing and not the other is like questioning them whether they believe they are human or not. To them their belief is as clear as day as if they were looking in the mirror and seeing the obvious. You can't turn a believer into a non-believer unless they have some personal revelation. Faith is powerful.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 12:21
You can't turn a believer into a non-believer unless they have some personal revelation.


It goes the other way too, whose to say which is right and which is wrong.


-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 12:59
I think it's alot easier to turn non-believers into believers. And who said I said there was anything wrong with it? I never found dedication to something wrong unless it was getting to the point of radicalism and pushing your faith onto others.
 
As of yet i haven't heard of a believer turning into a athiest because of another athiest. You don't see athiest missionaries or athiest pushing their beliefs on others, partly because we don't have any doctrine to begin with.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that all the athiest on this forum came to their conclusion on their own.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 15:15
Originally posted by Scorpian

Originally posted by gcle2003

Why believe either?
 
Smile  Exactly!
        it amazes me how folks can denounce one thing yet accept without question another.
                 
 
I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then why do I not believe in the divinity of Odin or Cernunnios or other Mythological dieties? Because that would be contradictory.
 
Of course, believing Mary was a virgin and that Jesus had descendants is not contradictory, but the point remains the same: If you accept everything, you would display a severe lack if critical thinking.
 
And as Janus said: Only lazy or ignorant Christians swallow everything without question.  


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 04:14
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.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Hope
Date 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.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date 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.


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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 - 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.
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date 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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: JanusRook
Date 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.


Posted By: Guests
Date 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)


-------------


Posted By: JanusRook
Date 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/2a - sleep in the dust of the earth shall http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/2b - awake , some to http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/2c - everlasting life, and some to http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/2d - shame and http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/2e - everlasting contempt.
  3 And they that be http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/3a - wise shall http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/3b - shine as the http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/3c - brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/12/dan/12/dan/12/3d - 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.)
 


-------------


Posted By: JanusRook
Date 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.


Posted By: Hope
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: Hope
Date 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.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date 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.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date 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.


Posted By: Hope
Date 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.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date 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.


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 15:39
Exactly. Well put.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date 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?.
           
 
        
     
 
     


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Hope
Date 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.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date 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)
         
      


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Hope
Date 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.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 08:48
What other alterings of history did you have in mind? quote Hope
 
   LOL Where to begin!
    Anything from Jesus birthday being 25th December; let alone Easter;  to the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Confused 
      I'd be here all day listing every interference and change. But if you want to believe as fact doctrine as defined by others at such places as Nicea then that's your affair.
 
       Too many variations, alterings and interpretations of the same religion should relate my point. One group after another of religious despots have conspired to keep the masses pious and not question what is told them. Hence we have multiple variations of a Christian theme where each would argue theirs was the true path to God.
 My previous point being to go back pre-bullsh*t to an untarnished religion; though for some it is apparent that a whole load of tarnish is acceptable and nothing I will say will sway them to the dark side.Wink
                  
   do you reckon Popes or Religious leaders never lie Question
     
                   
     
                 


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 11:52
Originally posted by Scorpian

What other alterings of history did you have in mind? quote Hope
 
   LOL Where to begin!
    Anything from Jesus birthday being 25th December; let alone Easter;  to the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Confused 
      I'd be here all day listing every interference and change. But if you want to believe as fact doctrine as defined by others at such places as Nicea then that's your affair.
 
       Too many variations, alterings and interpretations of the same religion should relate my point. One group after another of religious despots have conspired to keep the masses pious and not question what is told them. Hence we have multiple variations of a Christian theme where each would argue theirs was the true path to God.
 My previous point being to go back pre-bullsh*t to an untarnished religion; though for some it is apparent that a whole load of tarnish is acceptable and nothing I will say will sway them to the dark side.Wink
                  
   do you reckon Popes or Religious leaders never lie Question    
 
Just to make one thing very clear: I've never doubted the existence of certain alterings of history, on the contrary I know them very well. However, I wanted to get some more examples of what you had in mind, so we can discuss this in a broader spectre.
 
As for the dates mentioned, Jesus born the 25th, we can not be certain in either way. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Also, I know that the date of the Easter celebration is an invention of some Church assembly.
 
When speaking of the Virginity of Mary, it is a question of faith, no doubt.
 
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. It shows that the Church has decided some details regarding celebrations, but it does not prove anything regarding the question whether Christianity is false or true. That is a matter of faith only.
 
Then to the question on religious authorities, I believe that religion should be personal. Religious authorities have, still do and will for quite some time lie, cheat, perform hypocricy and so on. I am very sceptical to the idea of such authorities in general and the papacy in particular. Although we are in need of priests as guides in faith, yet what is true and false is up to each person to decide.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 12:59
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
 
      LOL hey! you asked and I gave reply. 
  Seems you judge me too harshly. Unhappy Did I judge you? ErmmNo
 
              Did I mock your faith?Ermm No
                        Did I lie?Ermm No
         
 So what is my actual transgression against you? other than I cannot accept Man made doctrine. 
 
           
      
 
  
 
 
       
 
 
          
               


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 18:45
I'm sorry if my message sounded a bit more harsh than it should have. My apologies. The point is, I was a bit uncertain when I read your post and misinterpreted it, plus I was a bit tired in the moment of action, which of course is no excuse, just an explanation. Please forgive me my way of expression.
 
However, although my way of expressing myself was not of the best, it still says I don't disagree with you very much. We have our differences, but regarding religious authorities I think we agree.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 10:12
Hope,
       I'm sorry if I offended you.  Embarrassed
    
    My intent was to have folks think & ponder awhile before I swung this conversation back to Sophia in relation to the Holy Grail and Dan Brown.  But seeing as I'm upsetting folks i'll take a break from this thread and let you peeps voice your opinions awhile; though I may jump back into this conversation sometime later.
                               
                                            scorp.


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 11:30

By all means, Scorpian, you did not, I take full responsibility for the incident. Blame it on, well, me, actually.

Therefore, feel free to make comments, I don't intend to be an obstacle. And you are quite right, pondering and thinking is crucial to any living debate (and society for that matter).


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 08:12
 I could have been a little more diplomatic.Embarrassed
 
        I've decided it best not to relate detail about the original concept of Sophia Goddess, Sophia & Templars, Sophia/Mary Magdalene/Christ, Sophia & Solomon, Sophia & the Dragon, Templars & Solomon, Solomon's Seal/Key etc. That stuff can be gleaned off the internet if anyone has a care to research.
        
    My intent was to have folks ponder if the early Christian Church peeps had in fact suppressed wisdom, light & truth in favour of a fabricated doctrine.  
     We have already related Church Doctrine had been altered; hence I reckoned to introduce this further subject and let you folks discuss this related Holy Grail issue by further debate.
                   
    I'm going to back off this subject and ply my mischief elsewhere Wink
                                           
                                     No hard feelingsThumbs%20Up  
                                                  Scorp.
 
           
 
 


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 11:17
Originally posted by Scorpian

 I could have been a little more diplomatic.Embarrassed
 
        I've decided it best not to relate detail about the original concept of Sophia Goddess, Sophia & Templars, Sophia/Mary Magdalene/Christ, Sophia & Solomon, Sophia & the Dragon, Templars & Solomon, Solomon's Seal/Key etc. That stuff can be gleaned off the internet if anyone has a care to research.
        
    My intent was to have folks ponder if the early Christian Church peeps had in fact suppressed wisdom, light & truth in favour of a fabricated doctrine.  
     We have already related Church Doctrine had been altered; hence I reckoned to introduce this further subject and let you folks discuss this related Holy Grail issue by further debate.
                   
    I'm going to back off this subject and ply my mischief elsewhere Wink
                                           
                                     No hard feelingsThumbs%20Up  
                                                  Scorp.
 
 
 
 
 
Well, when you say Early Christian church, this church consisted of several scattered congregations, not consisting of a unity. These congregations chose themselves to believe which texts they considered to be genuine. Several texts with Gnostic content were not considered genuine, but they were still read and even cherished by some of the early church fathers, because they contained teachings that corresponded with Christian ideas of justice and so on. (Of course, some texts were not appreciated and some church fathers were more strict than others, like Tertullian and Origenes).
 
It was, I believe, not until Constantine the Great favoured Christianity as the religion of the empire that the church started their alterings. But please correct me if I'm wrong.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 12:26

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.


Give me just one instance where a pre-modern religious figure, text or cult believed that Mary Magdalene gave birth to the child of Jesus.


What other alterings of history did you have in mind? quote Hope
 
   LOL Where to begin!
    Anything from Jesus birthday being 25th December; let alone Easter;  to the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. Confused


The church has never said that "Holy Days" had to conform to their actual days in history. All of those are celebrations of the event and can occur at anytime. My birthday is January 25th but I could celebrate it on Mar 12th, does this alter the history of my birthday, no. But unless you were educated you could believe my birthday was Mar 12th, ignorance of the masses doesn't mean something's being hidden from them.

Also, give me one contempary source that proves that Mary was not a virgin. Many people throughout history have remained virgins till their death, why can't you believe she did as well.


It shows that the Church has decided some details regarding celebrations, but it does not prove anything regarding the question whether Christianity is false or true. That is a matter of faith only.


The Church does not need to prove that it is false or true, since it is assumed by it's very nature that it is true. That isn't to say that many Church theologians and philosophers haven't gone to great pains to explain using logic why the Church is the way to the truth, it's just they too are under the basic assumption that the church is true. Which is faith which is held in every philosophical and scientific thought.



I am very sceptical to the idea of such authorities in general and the papacy in particular. Although we are in need of priests as guides in faith, yet what is true and false is up to each person to decide.


Exactly, but you must remember, the authority does not lie within the person who holds the post, but to the position of his office.

So what is my actual transgression against you? other than I cannot accept Man made doctrine.


The insult is to presuppose that the doctrine of belief is man-made. We as Christians have just as much evidence to show that it is divinely created. Just because we operate under a different starting opinion doesn't make our opinion less valid. (The starting opinion is that God acted upon the creators of the doctrine- which you cannot prove or disprove).

    My intent was to have folks ponder if the early Christian Church peeps had in fact suppressed wisdom, light & truth in favour of a fabricated doctrine. 


Doctrine has NEVER EVER EVER been fabricated with a malicious intent. Everytime something has been changed it was under great theological scrutiny beforehand or it was because of conflicting sources. The early church fathers were merely human and took what they thought to be truth and made it their beliefs. The Church has never altered texts but edited them. If you want to look at a religious text that has been altered beyond recognition look at the King James Bible, where it was specifically edited to serve Henry VIII's morality.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 15:51
 
Originally posted by JanusRook

[
The church has never said that "Holy Days" had to conform to their actual days in history. All of those are celebrations of the event and can occur at anytime. My birthday is January 25th but I could celebrate it on Mar 12th, does this alter the history of my birthday, no. But unless you were educated you could believe my birthday was Mar 12th, ignorance of the masses doesn't mean something's being hidden from them.
My birthday is July Fourth. I wish Americans would get the name right, but I appreciate that they celebrate it.
 
You are of course correct.


Also, give me one contempary source that proves that Mary was not a virgin. Many people throughout history have remained virgins till their death, why can't you believe she did as well.
I can happily believe that Mary or Mary Magdalene or any lady that claims to be one is a virgin. I find it difficult to square with their having a child. Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.
 If you want to look at a religious text that has been altered beyond recognition look at the King James Bible, where it was specifically edited to serve Henry VIII's morality.
Hmm... Do you have any backing for that? Morals-wise, or indeed theology-wise, James I/VI and Henry VIII didn't have a lot in common, apart of course from being in general Christian.
 


-------------


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 18:34

The church has never said that "Holy Days" had to conform to their actual days in history. quote JanusRook

I was talking more than just Holy DaysConfused 
What happened to pacifism ?  Seems it got dumped in favour of enforcing those divinely created doctrine changes you mention.
 
 
 
(The starting opinion is that God acted upon the creators of the doctrine- which you cannot prove or disprove). quote JanusRook

      Seems you cannot prove or disprove this assuption either.Clap

The insult is to presuppose that the doctrine of belief is man-made. quote JanusRook

  LOLSeems I can't express my own opinion without upsetting folks. There was a time I'd be burnt at the stake for less.Wink
            
The early church fathers were merely human and took what they thought to be truth and made it their beliefs. Quote JanusRook
 
           I'm not even going to go there.Confused
 
Doctrine has NEVER EVER EVER been fabricated with a malicious intent. Quote Janus Rook
 
  Tell that to all the folks who died over the centuries who would oppose this Doctrine.
 
Also, give me one contempary source that proves that Mary was not a virgin.Quote JanusRook
   
    Can you prove Mary was a Virgin? other than relating to those divine doctrines you favour.
 
 
         Phew! I feel as if I went nine rounds with Mike TysonOuchLOL
  
 
                
                       
                        
                
                    
                      
                
             
 
 

      

 




-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 23:21
Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.


Surprisingly though in the ancient world this was not held to be a problem.
Also, Jesus is seen as a human incarnation of God, and Parthenogenesis does occur in organisms, so it could be that God forced Mary into a state of Parthenogenesis and the Y chromosome is the divine incarnation of God, to use genetics as a possible explanation.


Hmm... Do you have any backing for that? Morals-wise, or indeed theology-wise, James I/VI and Henry VIII didn't have a lot in common, apart of course from being in general Christian.


I was referring to the editing process that "proved" that Henry VIII's actions in severing the Church of England were legitimate and had basis in God's word, (the Bible).


What happened to pacifism ?  Seems it got dumped in favour of enforcing those divinely created doctrine changes you mention.


The Church has always been in favor of pacifism, even the Crusades were only meant to "secure the Holy Land, and make pilgramages safe again". No where did the Pope specify to kill anyone (I think). It was just a natural consequence of the times to make war. The Kings of Europe could also have peacefully negotiated.


Seems you cannot prove or disprove this assuption either.Clap


Exactly so it's a non-issue for both of us.


Tell that to all the folks who died over the centuries who would oppose this Doctrine.


The Church has NEVER killed anyone. They have always offered a second chance to anyone who was in opposition. It was always the Secular courts that executed people for heresy, witchcraft and rebellion, and there was no church approval for these actions either.


    Can you prove Mary was a Virgin? other than relating to those divine doctrines you favour.


Well she never had any children by anything natural. In all contemparary sources she was assumed to have been a virgin until her death. And historical tradition says that she was, whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.


-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 04:53
The Church (i.e. the Catholic church) may have ordered the death of some heretics - which of course is gruesome and not Christian at all - but their reputation of malicious actions has been exaggerated with the rise of secularity.
 
However, regarding the popes I dare say there were some leaving not the best legacy of Christendom. But whether this was a cause of malice or just a different view of ethics is difficult to say.
 
It should also be noted that institutions such as the Inquisition started as a judicial institution with the best intentions, but it turned into what later has been displayed in popular culture: An institution of bigotry.
 
The Church has not always followed the Path of God and has been hosting quite a lot of bigots and hypocrites, but that was the tune of their age most often.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 05:32
so it could be that God forced Mary into a state of Parthenogenesis and the Y chromosome is the divine incarnation of God, to use genetics as a possible explanation.  quote JanusRook
 
LOL I was going to mention artificial insemination my last post but I reckoned you'd flip considering the turn that conversation would take.
 

I was referring to the editing process that "proved" that Henry VIII's actions in severing the Church of England were legitimate and had basis in God's word, (the Bible).Quote JanusRook
  
       Seems that same editing process was alright for some but not for others.
 
 The Church has always been in favor of pacifism, Quote JanusRook
 
Looks like the Churches stance on Pre Constantine pacifism and Post Constantine pacifism are two differing things.
 
Exactly so it's a non-issue for both of us. Quote JanusRook
 
The Church has NEVER killed anyone. They have always offered a second chance to anyone who was in opposition. It was always the Secular courts that executed people for heresy, witchcraft and rebellion, and there was no church approval for these actions either. Quote JanusRook
 
     Well she never had any children by anything natural. In all contemparary sources she was assumed to have been a virgin until her death. And historical tradition says that she was, whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.
Quote JanusRook
 
In all honesty I have behaved myself and sought not to provoke other than defend my own opinion. The downright basis of my joining this thread was to play mischief with those who would decry one thing as cack yet defend something else just as unbelievable.
                Embarrassed Seems I got such a reaction and something else.
   
    I have tried to walk away from this thread umpteen times because I don't want to turn this issue into a religious war of words.
          Whilst I never pertained to having an education alike to most of you AE bright intelligent forum folks; The insult given in return was to presume that my knowledge here was beneath contemp and that I don't know squat diddly.  
                      For all intents we are now evenThumbs%20Up
           

 

 




-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 07:45
 
Originally posted by JanusRook

Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.


Surprisingly though in the ancient world this was not held to be a problem.
Less of a problem than now, admittedly. Remember, though, that while the ancient world happily accepted that gods sometimes impregnated human females, such females were not subsequently seen as virgins.
 
I doubt that in any society a woman who had a baby would have been considered a virgin, certainly at the time.
 


Hmm... Do you have any backing for that? Morals-wise, or indeed theology-wise, James I/VI and Henry VIII didn't have a lot in common, apart of course from being in general Christian.


I was referring to the editing process that "proved" that Henry VIII's actions in severing the Church of England were legitimate and had basis in God's word, (the Bible).

You referred though to the editing of the Bible itself. It would seem you are suggesting that the AV contains text that denies the primacy of the Pope over the church, whereas previous versions had different text supporting it.
 
Maybe you can tell me where to find it.
 
(And while I agree that James and Henry believed themselves to be head of the church in England, they didn't agree on too much else, James leaning to being Protestant and Henry undoubtedly being Catholic.)


Well she never had any children by anything natural.
But that doesn't necessarily make her virgin, any more than, say, Leda was.
 


-------------


Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 12:16

And for the record: What matters as a theological issue is whether Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Christ. Not if she remained a virgin.



Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 01:21

The origins of the Grail? How could I miss on  this one before? If this is too old a thread perhaps I should start another? As a Celtic warrior, I need to put that one question above all back on the right track. To begin here was part of the lost religion of Europe; they simply did not worship gods and considered Nature as their overall entity rather than God!

When you have any sort of god that represents the earth’s powers then you subconsciously use your current understanding of nature to get a grip on what you are talking about. To deny this is risking being in denial of life itself. Here is the most basic process of the mind.  The processes of nature always happen and deny them causes us grief. This holistic understanding is not subject to the same challenges as are the countless divisions of other “religions”. Please consider the modern consequences of ignoring nature. Climate change and all that stuff is happening!

Nature is the cup from which we drink. This pure and simple teaching came from the Mother religion and has never been bettered.  The opponents of the Mother of all religions said God is their meat and drink and have such things as communion to prove it. Dare I say something seems to be missing in the chain of cause and effect there and we haven’t work our way up the food chain for nothing. The chalice of history is overflowing with references to this minor point. Consider the cornucopia the Roman goddess, Fortune carried. The Old Testament is dripping with illusions to the cup of life. Previous religions had it for here is one of the most basic symbols of all religions.

Dan Brown keeps on alluding to the cup is a major reference to a woman’s internal body parts, but Brown probably has a dirty mind as well. Okay so he explains that theory and so we all know about being male and female. What is the Celtic connection? I would suggest the Irish stories, but there are many others from all over Europe.



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 03:10
Hm. Looks like I missed this thread.

I just have a few comments. I think it is important to remember, when reading The DaVinci Code, that Dan Brown displays an appalling ignorance of early Christian history. His account of the life of Constantine and the Arian heresy is woefully innaccurate (esp. with regard to the Council of Nicaea). I also think it is important to remember, as Janus stated, that the canonization of Scripture was not some sort of conspiracy. If we are going to criticize the early fathers, we have a responsibility to understand pneumatology and the theological/ecclesiological position of the Church.

Now to address a few quotes...

Originally posted by Janus Rook


It wasn't an ecumenical council [that set the canon]. 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.


Well stated. The Synod of Laodicea also addressed the issue of canonical Scripture, although the list traditionally attributed to it is generally assumed to have been a later addition to the acts.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Less of a problem than now, admittedly. Remember, though, that while the ancient world happily accepted that gods sometimes impregnated human females, such females were not subsequently seen as virgins.
 
I doubt that in any society a woman who had a baby would have been considered a virgin, certainly at the time.


But isn't there a key difference? In the case of most of the pagan myths the gods usually engaged in physical intercourse with the women who bore their children. In the case of Mary, the Holy Spirit is said to have descended upon her.

Are there pre-Christian myths in which impregnation was not a result of physical intercourse? I don't doubt that there are, but I'd be interested to learn about them.

-Akolouthos


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 03:37
Originally posted by JanusRook

Most people, contemporary or otherwise, would accept having a baby as proof the mother was not a virgin.
Surprisingly though in the ancient world this was not held to be a problem.


Certainly not for mythical figures it wasn't. For living people it was.

Also, Jesus is seen as a human incarnation of God, and Parthenogenesis does occur in organisms, so it could be that God forced Mary into a state of Parthenogenesis and the Y chromosome is the divine incarnation of God, to use genetics as a possible explanation.


The only problem here - especially in the ancient world in Judea - is that Jesus could then not have been the Messiah. To fulfill prophecy, he had to be a descendant of the flesh of David, ie Joseph had to be his father.

The Church has always been in favor of pacifism


Definately not. Pacifism was popular at some periods (eg the Pax Dei movement) and not at others. The Pope sanctioned wars, and the fact that there were demands made does not change the fact that this is not pacifism. The pacifism evident in the Sermon on the Mount does not entail merely giving a potential victim an out, it demands "no resistance" to violence.

It was just a natural consequence of the times to make war.


Granted, but this does not make it pacifism. It just makes it conform to medieval patterns of violence.

The Church has NEVER killed anyone ... It was always the Secular courts that executed people for heresy, witchcraft and rebellion, and there was no church approval for these actions either.


Oh really?

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1440491 - http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1440491

Merely one example in a veritable mountain that go against that particular claim.

whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.


You've got to be joking. It's been around since the earliest days of Christianity, or maybe you never heard of Arianism.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 03:53
Originally posted by edgewaters


The only problem here - especially in the ancient world in Judea - is that Jesus could then not have been the Messiah. To fulfill prophecy, he had to be a descendant of the flesh of David, ie Joseph had to be his father.


He was of the house of David. That said, Tradition holds that Mary was also of Davidic lineage.

Originally posted by edgewaters


Definately not. Pacifism was popular at some periods (eg the Pax Dei movement) and not at others. The Pope sanctioned wars, and the fact that there were demands made does not change the fact that this is not pacifism. The pacifism evident in the Sermon on the Mount does not entail merely giving a potential victim an out, it demands "no resistance" to violence.


Somewhere (and I apologize, but I cannot recall in which thread) I mentioned that the ancient canons always treat soldiers returning from wars as penitents. War can never be holy; indeed it is a grave sin, a consequence of the Fall. Though it is sometimes necessary, the necessity does not separate the act from the sinfulness necessitated by the Fall.

Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Janus Rook

whereas like the bloodline of Christ any belief that she wasn't a virgin is a fairly recent concoction.

You've got to be joking. It's been around since the earliest days of Christianity, or maybe you never heard of Arianism.


Im fairly certain that the Arians did not doubt the Virgin Birth.

-Akolouthos


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 06:43
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Originally posted by gcle2003

Less of a problem than now, admittedly. Remember, though, that while the ancient world happily accepted that gods sometimes impregnated human females, such females were not subsequently seen as virgins.
 
I doubt that in any society a woman who had a baby would have been considered a virgin, certainly at the time.


But isn't there a key difference? In the case of most of the pagan myths the gods usually engaged in physical intercourse with the women who bore their children. In the case of Mary, the Holy Spirit is said to have descended upon her.

Are there pre-Christian myths in which impregnation was not a result of physical intercourse? I don't doubt that there are, but I'd be interested to learn about them.
The one that springs immediately to mind is Danae, who conceives Perseus after being visited by Zeus as a shower of rain.
 
Then there's Athena, who springs from Zeus's forehead after he had swallowed her mother. (And incidentally there appears to be another Athena myth in which she is a mother after a rape attempt that failed, yet she remains a virgin.)
 
In retaliation for Zeus giving birth to Athena, Hera is supposed to have conceived Hephaestus without any male involvement at all. 


-------------


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 06:56
Originally posted by gcle2003


The one that springs immediately to mind is Danae, who conceives Perseus after being visited by Zeus as a shower of rain.
 
Then there's Athena, who springs from Zeus's forehead after he had swallowed her mother. (And incidentally there appears to be another Athena myth in which she is a mother after a rape attempt that failed, yet she remains a virgin.)
 
In retaliation for Zeus giving birth to Athena, Hera is supposed to have conceived Hephaestus without any male involvement at all.


Interesting, interesting.

I guess out of those choices the most analogous situation would be that of Danae and Perseus, as the others had to do with divine females. Many thanks for the lesson. Smile

Still, wouldn't the key difference be that while the shower of rain is a physical manifestation of Zeus' power, the Spirit is said to have descended upon Mary in an incorporeal manner?

-Akolouthos

P.S. Sorry if I don't reply tonight; I've stayed up far too late already.



Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 08:12
Good work gcle2003, but didn't Zeus visit in a shower of gold? I thought of that one, but wasn't quite sure of  the virginity of Danae. You are right of  course in that the gods always came first. The god thing happened with Rhea Silvia the mother of Romulus and Remus. As a vestal Virgin she was  taken by Mars the god of war and gave birth to the founders of Rome. When born they were set adrift in a reed boat on the river Tiber to die of exposure, but a she wolf found and suckled them until the shepherd Faustulus found then and took them to his home to raise as his own.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 14:06
Originally posted by Akolouthos

He was of the house of David. That said, Tradition holds that Mary was also of Davidic lineage.


Only via a rather shaky interpretation of certain wording. This was a key debate in the early church actually.

Moreover, being of the house of David, or receiving Davidic lineage through Mary, does not qualify him as a candidate for fulfillment of prophecy or Messiahdom. The text is very clear that it must be a descendant from an unbroken line of sons, pure paternal lineage, and it cannot be adoptive - it must be of the flesh of David (it literally says that the seed must "proceed from the bowels").

Though it is sometimes necessary, the necessity does not separate the act from the sinfulness necessitated by the Fall.


Regretting the necessity of violence is not the same thing as pacifism.

Im fairly certain that the Arians did not doubt the Virgin Birth.-Akolouthos


You can easily confirm this is wholly untrue with but a cursory examination. The core essence of Arianism is that Jesus was a man on whom the spirit descended at baptism.

"Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten."

-Arius, in a letter to Eusebius


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 14:39
 
Originally posted by elenos

Good work gcle2003, but didn't Zeus visit in a shower of gold? I thought of that one, but wasn't quite sure of  the virginity of Danae.
 
It's a matter of translation. I think the commonest version is that she was visited by a shower of golden rain. But I'm no Greek scholar. It could have rained a shower of gold Smile
 
You are right of  course in that the gods always came first. The god thing happened with Rhea Silvia the mother of Romulus and Remus. As a vestal Virgin she was  taken by Mars the god of war and gave birth to the founders of Rome. When born they were set adrift in a reed boat on the river Tiber to die of exposure, but a she wolf found and suckled them until the shepherd Faustulus found then and took them to his home to raise as his own.
I'd be interested in knowing how Hindus account for the incarnation of Vishnu in Krishna, but Krishna's mother was no virgin since he was her eighth son.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 15:40
That's never a problem. Before conception the mother goes for a bath in the sacred river, in this case the Ganges and her virginity is restored. The Nile had the same reputation for restoring the maidenhead of the sacred mother.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 17:29
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Akolouthos

He was of the house of David. That said, Tradition holds that Mary was also of Davidic lineage.
Only via a rather shaky interpretation of certain wording. This was a key debate in the early church actually.

Moreover, being of the house of David, or receiving Davidic lineage through Mary, does not qualify him as a candidate for fulfillment of prophecy or Messiahdom. The text is very clear that it must be a descendant from an unbroken line of sons, pure paternal lineage, and it cannot be adoptive - it must be of the flesh of David (it literally says that the seed must "proceed from the bowels").
 
A shaky interpretation, eh? Let's discuss shaky interpretation. Wink
 
Among the fathers who support the claim that Mary was of Davidic lineage, Irenaeus stands out. This is especially true in light of the fact that he answers your objection rather succinctly:
 
And when He says, "Hear, O house of David," He performed the part of one indicaring that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be "of the fruit of his belly," which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not "of the fruit of his loins," nor "of the fruit of his reins," which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man.
[Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3.21]
 
In essence, the fact that Mary was a virgin is what fulfilled 2 Sam 7: 12. Irenaeus continues:
 
In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established "the fruit of the belly," that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary,  "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;" the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise  which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David's] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let  those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive," and who will have Him to be Joseph's son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.
[Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3.21]
 
The orthodox position is wholly consistent. Other early witnesses to Mary's Davidic lineage include Tertullian, Eusebius, and Augustine. I'm afraid you will have to provide some examples if you feel that there was a large amount of debate among the fathers.
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

Regretting the necessity of violence is not the same thing as pacifism.
 
Absolutely correct.
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

You can easily confirm this is wholly untrue with but a cursory examination. The core essence of Arianism is that Jesus was a man on whom the spirit descended at baptism.

"Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten."
-Arius, in a letter to Eusebius
 
You might want to make that examination a bit less cursory. LOL
 
If you read the entire document from which you took that excerpt, you would realize that the claim that the Son is begotten and the implicit reference to the Father as agennetos (unbegotten), in the context of Arius' letter, refers to their pre-temporal ontological characteristics. For the orthodox, the terms monogenis (only-begotten) and agennetos, refer to the etiological rather than the ontological properties of the first and second persons of the Trinity. Neither party, in using this language, is referring to the Incarnation, the human birth of Christ.
 
The issue is actually extraordinarily complex, and requires a fair bit of understanding of the context in which the Arians were making their claims. Arius believed that the Son had "subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not." In the context of his letter, in which he was trying to explain his dispute with the orthodox to Eusebius, Arius' comments regarding generation cannot be taken to refer to His physical birth. Eusebius certainly didn't take Arius' comments as referring to the Virgin Mary, as his subsequent epistle to Paulinus--which is also extant--clearly shows. With the neo-Arians, it gets a bit trickier. If you wish, we could discuss them as well.
 
That said, while I remain unconvinced, I am not necessarily unable to be convinced. I haven't been able to find any reputable sources wherein it is asserted that the Arians denied the Virgin Birth, and I think it would be odd for them to do so, given that they accepted the same Scriptures. Still, their exegetical perspective often differed significantly from that of the orthodox. I guess that's an unnecessarily long way of saying that I am open to discussion on this point. Smile
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 23:46

There can be no doubt the early Christian Church took the established religious stories of Europe and assimilated them fopr their own. In the legend of Grail Quest the Christian knights such as Percival and Galahad set forth to find the Holy Grail, the chalice used by Jesus at the Last Supper. The grail was brought to England by Joseph of Arimathea, but hundreds of years later was stolen from the chapel inside Camelot.

The many stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table usually say the knight who found the Holy Grail was Sir Percival. His mother had brought him up in a lonely forest to prevent him from following his father who ran away from his family. Without a father and ignorant of the ways of world Parsifal grew. Then one day he saw some knights, and rode off with them to become a knight of the Grail.

For all the Arthur fans there is more than one story and told in many ways across Europe. In the English version Arthur died by wound given by his son, Mordred, who tried to usurp the kingdom while Arthur was overseas. The more ancient Fisher King cycle tells how King Arthur had the Spear of Destiny snatched from his hands and turned against him. It was thrust into his groin and from then onward the wound never healed. The ailing King called a hundred knights to go into the far ends of the world. He wanted them find the Holy Grail and bring it to him. Then he may drink the elixir of life and by living he would forever save his land from destruction by fire or water.

The chosen knights knew they would never again see each other or their beloved King again yet left on the quest immediately. The years passed and Camelot became more desolate. He lived on but Camelot the beautiful wasted away, the wind howled through the barren trees of the surrounding wasteland. Sometimes a peasant would wander into the King's dusty bedchamber to find a lonely old man inquiring about the Grail Knights. When told of their deaths, he crossed them off, one by one.

He lost all hope when Sir Parsifal the Pure arrived, the youngest and most naive of them all. He told of the death of the last knight other than himself. Only the tarot fool, the joker in the pack had returned so the King decided to lay down and die. Parsifal tried comfort the sobbing man. The King just asked him for a cup of water and try and not trip up on the way back. All Parsifal could find was a chipped and discarded wooden bowl and He filled it from the water of a muddy spring. When Parsifal trickled water from the bowl onto the King's dying lips he came back to life and grabbed the bowl. Parsifal had found the Holy Grail, for it had been within reach all the time.

Some say Arthur's body now lies in a hidden cave, with the golden horn of justice by his side. When our planet is in danger by pollution of earth, sky and water we need find that horn. With one blast upon it, Arthur and his knights will rise again to battle against those who destroy the vital mother essence of this world by their greed.



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2017 at 03:08
I am not sure whether i would have been allowed to start a new topic/thread? on this since i don't like idea of this being lost/hidden by pages posts before & after, but no matter.
There is also another topic http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19798
(AE has an article on the HG too at http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Holy_Grail_Sacred_Cup_or_Female_Prophet .)

I tried posting on hancock forum yesterday but said was moderated and hasn't been approved apparently?
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,257991

I have several threads and leads for the Grail which i have yet to write properly on. In this post i am only touching on just two. May post a few more afterwards.

0. first a list of the main extant Holy Grail/Chalice candidates/locations theories, and a timeline:

List of some of the main theories:
Valencia chalice (Bennett),
Genoa chalice,
Antioch chalice,
Dona Urraca chalice,
Nanteos cup, Herefordshire,
Shropshire stargate (OJB),
Frampton mosaic (Karen Han),
Shroud of Turin (Scavone, Bullen),
Ark of Covenant (Hancock) / Ethiopia (Hancock),
glass vessel Dover &/or glass vessel Burgh (me),
Sutton Hoo vessel (me),
Udu's bowl (Waddell),
Mary (Goering, Hancock) / Sara (Brown) / Rosslyn chapel (Brown),
horn of Achelous (Peron),
hawkstone Grail (Phillips),
chiemsee(bucht) / ising Switzerland/Germany,
under Basilica of San Lorenzo Fuorile Mura, Rome (Barbagallo),
cosmological/solar / indian (Schroeder) &/or indo-european (A Jacob),
(drinking) horn of Bran (Galed) &/or Bran's cauldron (Loomis),
greal & Amen the cauldron of Ceridwen (Sykes, Cotterell),
Lia Fail/Fal/Falias &/or cauldron of bounty/Dagda?
Montsegur castle of Cathars in Pyrenees (Godwin);
Shugborough (Baigent/Lincoln/Leigh, Brown, Kemp, Lawn);
Rennes Le Chateau;
Montserrat Catalonia.

Timeline:
Valencia chalice (chalcedony) 4th cent bc - 1st cent ad
Jesus, last supper, Gethsemane, crucifiction
Philip, Joseph of Arimathea 63 *
Eucharistus/Evaristus 79 / 97/99-105/107
Hawkstone Grail 1st cent
Valerian / Sixtus 2 / Lawrence / Proselius 258 *
"Valencia chalice 262 ad"
"this most-famous chalice", "until 4th cent" ?
Chrysostom 347-407
Arthur 400 yrs / "516-537"
silver-gilt Antioch chalice ear / 1st half of 6th cent
life of St Laurence (Donato) 6th cent ?
Arculf 7th cent *
(post)Vulgate "717" / c 1230
"Dona Urraca chalice, 11th cent"
Genoa chalice (green glass/"emerald", Embriaco (Caesarea) 1101
Valencia chalice, Don Carreras Ramirez 1134
Malmesbury/interpolations ear 12th cent
Mary holding bowl, churches Catalan Pyrenees 12th cent (predate Troyes)
Valencia chalice (dark red agate, 2 handles) 12th cent
Abp William of Tyre 12th cent
** Troyes 1180-91 **
Boron  1180/1191-1199/1202
Chartres 1195-1200
Kyot/Guyot de Provins 12th cent
Kyot/Eschenbach 1195-1200/1210
Barbezieux late 12th - ear 13th
(post)Vulgate "717" / c 1230
Voragine 1290s
Genoa chalice towards end of 13th cent
Rochefoucauld 1315-25 / 14th cent
Valencia chalice & a gold cup, 1399
Oja Church frescos 14th cent
Nanteos cup medieval / 14th cent / at least 1400 yrs after crucifiction
Tafur 1436
Malory 1471
2 grails (Euro & Ethiop), 'Adoration of the Magi', Albert Durer 1471-1528
life of St Laurence, 17th cent
Hawkstone 18th cent
Genoa chalice, Napoleon 1805
Genoa chalice returned 1816
Dante Rossetti 1828-82
Tennyson 1857-85
Nanteos cup 1878 / end of 19th cent
Wagner 1882
Nanteos cup late 19th cent, ear 20th cent / 1905
Antioch chalice 1910
Schroeder 1910
Hawkstone grail 1920
Evola 1937
Helen Adolf 1947
Nanteos cup displayed 1977
Valencia chalice, John Paul 2, 1982
Baigent 1982/3
Indiana Jones 1989
Loomis 1991
Hancock 1992
Jung/Franz 1998
Brown 2003
Barber 2004
Phillips 2004
Bennett 2004 (Catholic)
Goering 2005
Valencia chalice, Benedict 16, 5th World Meeting of Families, 2006
Dona Urraca chalice 2014
Nanteos Cup (wooden) stolen & recovered Herefordshire 2014-15-16.

1. Arthurian Grail:

In our discovery that "(King) Arthur's" 12 battles 9 battle site match 8 of the 9 Saxon Shore sites from Great Yarmouth (Norfolk) to Portchester (Hants) we found some possible Grail matches connections:

"an extremely important glass vessel" at Dover/Dubris [= Guinnion (& = Badon 1)]?
Genuissa ~ (Mary of) Guinnion "white, holy" ~ Guinevere (Modena Archivolt) ~ Grail ~ glass vessel?
(Dover perpetually white ~ holy/virgin.)
Grail stone ~ Bredenstone??

Celtic glass vessel of/from early 5th century a.d. at Burgh castle [= Glein (which some consider to be related to or from *glan/*glein "pure/clear" or gleno "holy"?)] (Grail [~ Igraine?] ~ Glein?)

Those are the 2 main ones, there are also/alternatively some other minor possibilities including:

place name Sarre near Reculver / Thanet / Richborough.

grail-like vessel in Fishbourne mosaic.
Fisher king ~ Fishbourne palace?

Italian dish, & some Celtic bowls? & bucket/silver bowl/platter "from Byzantium" in the Sutton Hoo ship burial treasure.

vessel/bowls/dish/beaker/vase/juglet in the Hoxne hoard.

great dish/vessels/bowls/dishes/platers/plates in the Mildenhall treasure.


2. Biblical / Roman / "Aryan" Grail:

Holy Grail/Chalice (cup) [= Liahona?] (= vessel held by empress Theodora?) = golden cup of harlot Babylon [Rome] (Revelation 15) = woman with cup on coin of pope Leo 12.

Grail = wine-mixing vessel = mystery (&) harlot (&) Babylon ["confusion, mixture, babble"] (Roman Catholic mixed christian and pagan religions) [& Thyatira?]

(grail = wine-mixing vessel = mystic beverages "composed of wine, honey, water & flour"?)

([un]holy) Grail = wine-mixing vessel = wine/blood of the harlot Babylon [Rome] = "turn wine into water" (Daily Blog) = fluoridated (& other ingredients) tap water = fluoride is a new Latin word.

holy grail "= lotion" / "= fresh water" / "= aqua vitae" / "health" = inverted poison/harmful Fluoridated (& other ingredients) tap (& bottled) water (= "kool-aid") = "poison mixed with honey from a golden goblet" (Nennius).

Grail = "(by) degree, (by) stages" = mystery (Babylon) (& "depths of Satan"?) [& nicolatines?]

Holy Grail = stone = Peter = "pope(s)" = Rome.

Grail/crater = stone/lapis = Zeus ("= Jesus") = Jupiter ("= Peter")

Holy Grail = Marian Chalice = Mary/Eve (= Isis = harlot Babylon) = Roman Catholic.

Repanse de Schoye = damsel/maiden bare of the holy grail = harlot Babylon [Rome]?

"chaste"/"holy" = kadesh = sacred harlots = harlot Babylon.

holy grail = post-Vulgate/Romance = Latin/Jerome = Roman = harlot "Bablyon". (Numen also Roman. Evola also Roman.)

holy Grail = "true/real/royal/holy blood" = the 1st 40+ "popes" really match Roman emperors (= Francis 2 gave Eliz 2 orb with cross on which BBC said symbolises "christian" royal dominion over whole globe.)

(Repanse de) Joie / (Rapanse de) Shoye &/or (Chretien de) Troyes (& Paris) = (Helen of) Troy (& Paris) / Trojan blood = royal blood = sangreal / holy grail = Romans & Britons from Trojan [= Troy connected with Atlantis (Zangger)?]

holy grail stone fell from sky = kingship desc from heaven (Sumerian kinglist).
grail stone fell from sky = "nephilim vs followers of Jesus".

holy grail = holy/royal blood = king(s) of Atlantis [= "Aryans" (Arthurian/Odinist/Roman)?]

Jesus blood caught in (gold) grail = 10 blood clots of slain bull caught in cup/vessel (& drawn in golden vessels) by king(s) of Atlantis [= "Aryans" from Atlantis/Tiahuanaco?] = harlot Babylon [Rome] riding 10 head/king beast [EU/G7] in Revelation/Apocalypse 15.

Jesus blood caught in (golden) holy grail = blood dropped in mercy seat of holy Ark of Covenant underneath Skull Hill / Gordon's Calvary near the Garden Tomb (Ron Wyatt) = ark-like object carried before "pope" Gregory the Great? &/or ark at Monreale Sicily?

(Jung &) Franz = pope Francis?



-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2017 at 09:08
It looks like Hancock's grail/ark theory is right.

Helen of Troy = Repanse/Rapanse de Joye/Shoye (= Queen of Sheba?)
Menelaus = Menelik
Thon(is) = (Prester) John
Egypt/Mediterranean = Ethiopia
Troy = Troyes
[Paris (Troy)&/or Perceval &/or Feirifez = Paris (France)?]
[2 grails (Euro & Ethiop), 'Adoration of the Magi', Al Durer 1471-1528]
[Gala-had ~ Gra-ham(_Hancock)?]

However, there are clearly at least two or more original grails in the overall Holy Grail/Chalice cycle.


-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2017 at 13:28
There are many who believe the grail is a reference to the blood line of Christ and not a cup. I'm one of those.




-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2017 at 02:47
Interetsing, do you care to give/discuss any further info on that?
If bible is true then the real "Jesus"/Yeshua can't have had any physical children (though his brothers/sisters / cousins could have).
This gives me two new entries:

The "Jesus Christ" of Guinnion of Arthur may be Julius Caesar (who landed near Dover/Deal) = Arthurian = holy grail = sanreal "holy/royal blood" = blood line of Jesus (or his brother/cousin) =  the Roman "Jesus" is either Zeus or Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar or Claudius (since the 1st 40+ "popes" really match the Roman emperors list) = Genuissa/Gwenwisa daughter of Caesar or of Claudius = Ambrosius/Aurelius wore purple (= Aurelius is Roman name meaning "golden, fine, excellent") = Arthur was "emperor" and took "Rome".

Arthurian holy grail = sanreal "holy/royal blood" = blood line of Jesus (or his brother/cousin) =  the Roman "Jesus" is either Zeus or Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar or Claudius (since the 1st 40+ "popes" really match the Roman emperors list)  = Welsh Tudors descs of "David" = Britons decs of Trojan Brutus = Romans decs of Trojan Aeneas = "Trojan war time of Samson" (Jerome) = "Brutus time of Eli" (Geoff of Monmouth) = Rapanse de Schoye matches Helen of Troy and/or Queen of Sheba (and/or Rose of Sharon)?



-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2017 at 12:31
I've never seen anything in the Bible that would have excluded Christ having children.
As he was a Jew, it would have been expected he marry by 30 years.

AR, I'm surprised that you've missed this line of thought.

The idea is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children.
The children or their descendants, went to S. France and founded the Merovingian Dynasty.
The surrounding theories get into the Cathars, and the Templars. Check into the "hooked x" idea.
Where I don't buy into the existence of the "Priory of Scion", the rest of it is difficult to dismiss out of hand.













-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2017 at 06:55
I hadn't missed the theories of Jesus/Yeshua (or James) & Mary & Sara (or Barabbas) & Merovingians & Priory of Sion of the likes of Baigent/Lincoln/Leigh &/or Brown, i just thought/felt it was not very strong/convincing evidence theory as regards the Grail.
The bible is condisered to imply that Yeshua was the son of God and celebate and that he was crucified and then ascended to heaven (after saying "don't touch/cling-to me" to Mary M.) I have indeed heard it is true that eunuchs were not looked on favourably in Jewish culture. (I wish God had ot me married by 30 years.)

I had thought you might have meant something bit different like maybe Scottish/Irish, or Roman. (What i have been trying to do is to get to the real hidden grail thread or grails threads of history, the global elite, and biblical.)
I did somewhat miss (the importance of) the Irish/Scottish/Masonic grail connection.

lia fail "sacred stone" = (Liahona =) Holy Grail ("stone/emerald/golden") = Knights of Round Table = Eochaid "knight" = (Knights) Templars = Masons = Scots = princess Scot(i)a (dtr of Pharaoh Achenres) = princess Rapanse de Schoye/Joye (= Helen of Troy) = Queen of Sheba (= Rose of Sharon) = Ark of the Covenant (seat, Ethiopia) = 'Kingdom of the Ark' ("link between Egypt & Ireland") by Lorraine Evans [= Lorraine Cross? Troyes/Chartes?]

However i can't find any (direct) link of Irish/Scottish grail with blood line of Jesus, except unless name James/Jacob(ite) of the Stuarts/Scots links with James brother of Jesus somehow?

Aetius & Pharamond & Merovech/Merovingian (France) = Aedesius & Frumentius & Meropius or Meroe (Ethiopia)?
And/or,
Merovingian (France) = Syagrius/Sigonius or Aetius/Aegidius (Ile de France/Gaul, Roman)?



-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2017 at 22:04
Sorry i found out i made stupid dumb mistake (we can "thank" the water poisoners for all such). Tentative Correction (any/all could still be wrong) :

Merovee/Merovech/Merovingian (France) = Menelik (= Manasseh?) or Meropius or Meroe (Ethiopia) or Melchizedek?

Pharamond (France) = Pharaoh or Frumentius (Ethiopia)?

[Aetius/Aegidius = Aedesius (Ethiopia)?]

Priory of Sion (1152/78) = Prester John (1145/65/77)? or St Mary of Zion (in Axum the "New Jerusalem/Zion", in Ethiopia the "New Zion/Israel")?

Grail cup caught drops of Jesus blood = gomer shallow bowl in which  sacrifice blood collected (Tana/Ethiopia)?

Mary Magdalene = Makeda (Q of Sheba)?

Sara "princess" = princess Scota = princess Rapanse de Schoye =  princess Sophie?

[Joseph of Aramathea ~ AbbaSalama/Frumentius? &/or Athanasius? or Amharic?]

"The Golden Ark of The Covenant" ~ The GAOTU?

?galathea/galathes ~ Gaythelos/Gaodhal/Gaedel_Glas ~ Galawdewos/Claudius ~ Galahad?

?S(c)ion ~ Scone ~ Scota ~ Shoa ~ Schoye (~ Sheba/South) ~ Sophie/Sophia?

[?Shangri-la =] SanGrail/Sangreal "stone" (or Mary) = "a rock on which Mary rested on her journey back from Egypt"* / "a large stratum of rock" (olivine-bearing basalt, Tana Kirkos island, lake Tana/Tsana/Sana Hayk) = Ark was on Tana Kirkos.

[* Possibly compare 'St Mary on the Rock' of Fife which is analogous to St Mary in Castro of Dover which matches Mary of fort Guinnion?]

Sara ~ Sarras ~ Zarragossa ~ Zara Yaqob (Tana)?


Plus, one possible Irish/Scottish/Jacobite/Masonic [contrived] (direct) link with "blood line of Jesus":
"Crimson/Red Branch" (Irish/Scottish) = "holy blood line of Jesus" = sangreal = holy grail caught drops of Jesus' blood.


Also, an update of the timeline:

Udu's bowl, .... bc
Ark of the Covenant .... - ... bc
Valencia chalice (chalcedony) 4th cent bc - 1st cent ad
Mary, Jesus, last supper, Gethsemane, crucifiction
Philip, Joseph of Arimathea 63/76 ad (42 yrs) *
Eucharistus/Evaristus 79 / 97/99-105/107
Hawkstone Grail 1st cent
Tertullian glass chalice 160-220
Valerian / Sixtus 2/5 / Lawrence / Proselius 258 *
"Valencia chalice 262 ad"
"this most-famous chalice", "until 4th cent" ?
shrine over St Lawrence martyrdom site 4th cent
Chrysostom 347-407
Arthur 400 yrs / "516-537"
Merovinginians
(SLFlM 580)
silver-gilt Antioch chalice ear / 1st half of 6th cent
life of St Laurence (Donato) 6th cent ?
Arculf 7th cent *
(post)Vulgate "717" / c 1230
"Dona Urraca chalice, Leon, 11th cent"
Genoa chalice (green glass/"emerald", Embriaco (Caesarea) 1101
Valencia chalice, Don Carreras Ramirez 1134
Malmesbury/interpolations ear 12th cent
Priory of Sion charter 1152 & 1178
Mary holding bowl, churches Catalan Pyrenees 12th cent (predate Troyes)
Valencia chalice (dark red agate, 2 handles) 12th cent
Abp William of Tyre 12th cent
** Troyes 1180-91 **
Boron  1180/1191-1199/1202
lady chapel / st Jose's chapel 1186
Kyot/Guyot de Provins 12th cent (shortly bef 1187)
sir Coules del Grail 1189
Chartres 1195-1200
Kyot/Eschenbach 1195-1200/1210
Barbezieux late 12th - ear 13th
(post)Vulgate "717" / by c 1230
Scharfenberg 1270-5
Voragine 1290s
Genoa chalice towards end of 13th cent
a grail & a chalice 1308
Rochefoucauld 1315-25 / 14th cent
Valencia chalice & a gold cup, 1399
Oja Church frescos 14th cent
Nanteos cup medieval / 14th cent / at least 1400 yrs after crucifiction
Tafur 1436
DaVinci 1452-1519
Malory 1471
LaSN 15th cent
2 grails (Euro & Ethiop), 'Adoration of the Magi', Albert Durer 1471-1528
litany of Loretto 16th cent
life of St Laurence, 17th cent
Hawkstone 18th cent
Genoa chalice, Napoleon 1805
Genoa chalice returned 1816
Dante Rossetti 1828-82
Tennyson 1857-85
Nanteos cup 1878 / end of 19th cent
Wagner 1882
nutt 1888
Grail tapestries 1890
Abbe Sauniere, Rennes le Chateau 1891
Chiemsee 1st yrs of 20th cent / Nazis
Nanteos cup late 19th cent, ear 20th cent / 1905
Remy 1909
Antioch chalice 1910
Schroeder 1910
Hawkstone grail 1920
Grail women's movement 1921
Aburushin / Grail Movt 1928 / 1938-41 / late in 1945 / late 1940s
Waddell 1929/1930
Hitler as grail knight poster 1936
Evola 1937
Helen Adolf 1947
Falconer 1953/1998
Grail psalms 1963
Nanteos cup displayed 1977
Valencia chalice, John Paul 2, 1982
Baigent/Lincoln/Leigh 1982/3
Indiana Jones 1989
Loomis 1991
Hancock 1992
starbird 1993
Jung/Franz 1998
"21st cent grail"
Chiemsee 2001-2/2007
Brown 2003
3psi\0n 2003
Barber 2004
Phillips 2004
Bennett 2004 (Catholic)
Goering 2005
McGoodwin 2006
Valencia chalice, Benedict 16, 5th World Meeting of Families, 2006
Barbagallo 2007
Dona Urraca chalice 2014
Nanteos Cup (wooden) stolen & recovered Herefordshire 2014-5-6



-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: .Sidney
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2017 at 16:23
The myth of the cup goes back to the story of Joseph in Pharaoh's prison 

Genesis 40; 9-13
So the chief cupbearer told Joseph his dream. He said to him, “In my dream I saw a vine in front of me, and on the vine were three branches. As soon as it budded, it blossomed, and its clusters ripened into grapes. Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup and put the cup in his hand.”

“This is what it means,” Joseph said to him. “The three branches are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position, and you will put Pharaoh’s cup in his hand, just as you used to do when you were his cupbearer. 

Pharaoh = God
cupbearer = Jesus
3 days in prison = 3 days in the grave





Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2017 at 15:25
Good one Sid, kick myself i don't think i thought of that (the bad tap water every meal doesn't help me). True enough, though there are more than one threads & cups interwoven in. Harlot holding cup can't quite be same as cup of Joseph (though Christ was crucified by Romans).
Of course the cup bearer is blood of the lamb of God, while the baker is the law/works. Just like Abel & Cain.
So we have 4 Josephs: Joseph son of Jacob, Joseph step father of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Joseph Cartaphilus (Wandering Jew?)
Do you think it might connect with Ark in Ethiopia, since Joseph story is in Egypt next door?
There is another cup in sons of noah picture in wikipedia article on sons of noah / 70 nations, similar to cup in 3 magi picture.


-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: .Sidney
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2017 at 15:38
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin

Good one Sid, kick myself i don't think i thought of that (the bad tap water every meal doesn't help me). True enough, though there are more than one threads & cups interwoven in. Harlot holding cup can't quite be same as cup of Joseph (though Christ was crucified by Romans).
Of course the cup bearer is blood of the lamb of God, while the baker is the law/works. Just like Abel & Cain.
So we have 4 Josephs: Joseph son of Jacob, Joseph step father of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Joseph Cartaphilus (Wandering Jew?)
Do you think it might connect with Ark in Ethiopia, since Joseph story is in Egypt next door?
There is another cup in sons of noah picture in wikipedia article on sons of noah / 70 nations, similar to cup in 3 magi picture.

The other cupbearer in Joseph's story is Benjamin, his only full brother and, like Joseph, the beloved son of Israel/Jacob. The story in Genesis is that Joseph (as Lord of Egypt) secreted his silver cup in Benjamin's baggage, forcing Benjamin to become his slave, but also leading Joseph to reveal his true self to his brothers. In effect Joseph, by passing his silver cup (which he used at formal banquets and in divination) to Benjamin, was making Benjamin his cupbearer.

Joseph and Benjamin were the children of Rachel, the younger daughter of Laban. Joseph and his half brothers were born in Laban's household, where Jacob was living in servitude. When Jacob secretly left Laban's household with his family, Laban pursued claiming that someone had stolen his 'teraphim'.

The guilty party was Rachel, who concealed her theft by sitting on the objects and claiming that she was menstruating and so could not stand up! What 'teraphim' really were is a bit of a mystery. Laban viewed them as 'his gods' and they were used in divination, but some have suggested that they were ancestral bones, in particular the skull - and skulls are very easily made into drinking vessels!

So we have an image here of Rachel bleeding into a skull-cup; a cup which she conceals and might well have passed onto her sons (Joseph and Benjamin). Joseph symbolically passes his concealed cup to his brother Benjamin, and Benjamin is supposedly the ancestor to Mary Magdalene who some claim is herself the 'Holy Grail' (as the carrier of the bloodline of Jesus).  

There has always been a kind of rivalry between the Tribes of Benjamin and Judah over the rulership of God's people. Jerusalem, God's Holy City, was right on the border territory between the lands of Judah and Benjamin, and was apportioned to the Benjamites. Benjamin himself was supposedly born in Bethlehem (Ephrath in Bethel), a significant place also for King David and Jesus. King Saul (Tribe of Benjamin) was the first Holy appointed King of Israel, but he was usurped by David (Tribe of Judah). Earlier Judges of Israel seemed to swap between being descendents of Judah and descendants of Benjamin or his full brother Joseph. Even David's descendant, Jesus, had his teachings overwhelmed by the interpretations given to them by St.Paul (a Benjaminite)! 

Benjamin's conception is also an interesting episode. Whilst it is not made explicit, Rachel (she of the bleeding cup) only conceived Benjamin after Jacob had been renamed 'Israel', following an episode where he wrestled with an angel (or God) and had been touched by this opponent on the inner thigh (his genitals). So God touched Jacob's genitals, who then impregnated Rachel, who then conceived Benjamin! Rachel died giving birth to this child sprung from blessed genitals and holy blood, and named him Ben-oni - 'son of vigour'. 'Oni' has the same meaning as 'Onan', that son of Judah who was famous for his masturbating - so 'oni' probably refers specifically to sexual vigour.




Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2017 at 13:18
The Benjamin and Joseph's cup is another good interesting one thanks. Do you have any source or historical basis for the rest though? Is "Rachel" linked with the princesses (Sara, Repanse, Helen, etc) we linked in the post a couple of posts ago? Gets abit too rude at the end.


-------------
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.


Posted By: .Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2017 at 17:44
Rachel means "ewe". She died when Benjamin was born.

When Joseph blessed his sons, he said of Benjamin - “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.”

So at the start of his life (the morning), Benjamin consumed the life of (devoured) his mother (the ewe/prey). At night (at the end of his life, or at the end of this Tribe of Israel?) he shall divide (share out) the spoil (his inheritance). The question is - was this inheritance the bloodline/sacred cup, and who was to share in it?



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com