The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?

[kronick]

well honistly...im not gonna believe dan brown any more than ill believe the bible...whats makes dan brown more right than the bible?

[F L E S H]

am surprised you have nt mentioned "holy blood holy grail" the work dan brown is supposed to have plagurised.if you perservere with this book you will be rewarded about the truth about the man from gallilee.that he did nt die on the cross

Well, there are all sorts of theories about that too, sadly, none can be proven to be correct. I don't remember if I wrote it in the original post, but there was a bishop writing in the 2nd century who didn't believe Jesus dies on the cross. He said that Jesus went on to old age, got married, had kids, etc... Sort of like "last temptation of Christ"

[GHoSToKeR]

Dan Brown did not plagurise 'Holy Blood Holy Grail', he simply took the basic premis of the book and used it in his own work of fiction.

[kronick]

but whos to say which story is true? i dont think dan brown mad up the part of "a bishop writing in the 2nd century". he took a "rumor" and made it real in his book, with twists of his own but basic parts in the book are derived from real "rumors".

[sundance]

all I am saying is that if you want to know the TRUTH about Jesus then "Holy Blood Holy Grail" will solve any queries you may have on this subject .The research is impecable.I am intrigued by the Cathars and there religion and were they influenced by the blood line of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene!

[kronick]

however "impecable" the reascearch maybe...its not 100% so you cannot prove it no matter what you say.

[GHoSToKeR]

all I am saying is that if you want to know the TRUTH about Jesus then "Holy Blood Holy Grail" will solve any queries you may have on this subject .The research is impecable.I am intrigued by the Cathars and there religion and were they influenced by the blood line of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene!

The 'research' is totally flawed. They claim the PRiory of Sion is the keeper of this secret, when in actual fact Pierre Plantard forged documents and then got his colleges to 'find' them.. these documents claimed that the Priory of Sion was an ancient secret society and he was the Grand Master. Since the release of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', the author has admitted that these documents were forged and that the Priory is not who he claimed to be, even though they do exist to some extent.

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/poseur3.html

http://priory-of-sion.com/

http://www.ordotempli.org/priory_of_sion.htm (this is an interesting read)

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles...chardson1.html

[F L E S H]

I also read somewhere that the Priory, as it's described in the Da Vinci Code, for example, is bogus. It might exist somewhere, but they're probably not the keepers of the Holy Grail, whatever it may be.

This Holy Grail business is a puzzle that will likely never be solved, but I do believe that it is so much more than a simple cup. I also believe in the interpretation of 'sang raal' (royal blood) instead of 'san graal' (holy grail) but that's just me. These are the problems because people who wrote over a thousand years ago didn't put spaces or lowercase letters when they wrote.

[kronick]

where ever you got "sang raal" and "san graal" from was prolly translated from another language, which means the thing about no spaces 1000 years ago would not mean anything when talking about our alphabet and language.

[GHoSToKeR]

I think you mean san grael or sangrael?

Anyway, F L E S H.. you're right.. The Priory as described in The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail is (from what I gather) a fallacy. I'm sure it it did exist to some extent - the real Priory of Sion was rumoured to be a Catholic monastic order. It has also been rumoured to be nothing more than an innocent group of friends who called themselves The Priory of Sion. Pierre Plantard used the name for his hoax, claiming he was the Grand Master of the Priory, and that the Priory was a secret society, which had links to the Knights Templar, the bloodline of Jesus Christ, and the Merovingian Kings.

What's interesting is how this false timeline incorperates both rumour and fact to give an impression of authenticity. When I first reads The Da Vinci Code, I totally believed it. Now, only a few months and a small amount of research later, I can see how well orchestrated the hoax was. Whether Dan Brown (author of The Da Vinci Code) actually believes it to be true is another question. Surely he would have heard that these documents were forged? And if so, why claim that all the documents he mentions in the text of his novel are accurate and true?

As you said, F L E S H, I also believe that there is more to the life of Jesus than we know. I believe he existed, but I believe he was nothing more than an enigmatic politician, who's legend has been used and twisted to further the control of certain people or groups of people. Who knows?