The Da Vinci Code

[David Floyd]

Anyone else read this book? It's about secret societies and the Holy Grail and things of that nature, and I thought it was fascinating. It's fiction, of course, but I was curious if a)anyone's read it, and b)if some of the claims in the book are accurate, or just fiction.

[Static Universe]

Haven't read "The Da Vinci Code", but that book is mostly based on "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"
by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, which I did read.

It tells the apparently real story of a historical conspiracy to protect the blood lineage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalen (real depending how into Illuminati type conpiracies you are, of course).

The organization to accomplish this is called the Priory of Sion, and it contains some of European history's most powerful families, statesmen and scientists, including Leonardo Da Vinci.

It's an interesting and well-researched book, but you really have to suspend disbelief to buy their premise.

[Jaguar]

The draft rulz!

My mom just bought it. Maybe I'll read it.

[Static Universe]

Ah, I found a link that claims "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" to be based on a fraud:

The Priory of Sion Hoax

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html

This could be the Illuminati trying to fool us again, but I'm willing to regard this one as genuine.

Still, even fake I regard it as a pretty good read, as it does contain at least some fairly esoteric bits of European history.

[Berzerker]

I read Holy Grail and found it fascinating, but extremely difficult to follow. It was almost like reading a genealogical listing of a group of families and trying to keep track of the numerous players was difficult. But the premise I found quite convincing and obvious. The vessel - holy grail - for Jesus' blood was not some cup, but his bloodline. Given the priority for Jewish kings to have male descendents to ascend the throne and Jesus being the "messiah", or Jewish king, it is only logical for Jesus to have a wife and children. That would explain why he was obliged to supply the wine at the wedding at Cana - it was HIS wedding!

[Berzerker]

Geez, I read through roughly half of that link SU and I'm asking myself which conspiracy is greater, the one in Holy Grail or the one that guy offers as his proof of fraud.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Geez, I read through roughly half of that link SU and I'm asking myself which conspiracy is greater, the one in Holy Grail or the one that guy offers as his proof of fraud.

I know, it's amazing, isn't it?

"Holy Blood" was a great book, and I found a lot of it convincing as well, but it just seemed a little too convincing, if you know what I mean. I buy all the separate parts, but when you put them together I don't find it remotely possible to believe.

In a similar vein, another good book is "Born in Blood", which chronicles the Knights Templar metamorphosis into the Freemasons. The author eventually became a Mason himself after publication.

[War4ever]

berz you didn't use a pad and pen to write the names down ???????

[Berzerker]

Hehe, that would have required a book

[Gatekeeper]

I've seen the book, but will likely wait until a paperback version comes out before considering adding it to my "To Read" list. BTW, where does Atlantis fit in all of this?

Gatekeeper

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I read Holy Grail and found it fascinating, but extremely difficult to follow. It was almost like reading a genealogical listing of a group of families and trying to keep track of the numerous players was difficult. But the premise I found quite convincing and obvious. The vessel - holy grail - for Jesus' blood was not some cup, but his bloodline. Given the priority for Jewish kings to have male descendents to ascend the throne and Jesus being the "messiah", or Jewish king, it is only logical for Jesus to have a wife and children. That would explain why he was obliged to supply the wine at the wedding at Cana - it was HIS wedding!

1. You are assuming there was a Jesus of Nazareth. If we assume that there was such a historical figure, we have to reject the accounts of miracles in the bible, making the wedding at Cana an irrelevant, moot, point.

2. Where would he get the money for the wedding, and how would his family fit in with the accounts of Jesus' life in the Gospels?

3. Michael Baigent is also the co-author of the book The Dea Sea Scrolls Deception, which argues that there is no such person as Jesus of Nazareth. He merely is an elaboration by the early Christians based on the Dead Sea Scrolls' description of a "teacher of righteousness." I found it a very strange position to take to argue for the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth on one hand, and assuming his existence on another.

[Berzerker]

UR -

1. You are assuming there was a Jesus of Nazareth. If we assume that there was such a historical figure, we have to reject the accounts of miracles in the bible, making the wedding at Cana an irrelevant, moot, point.

Why would rejecting miracles make Cana a moot point? There are rational explanations for the water into wine aspect of the story that neither rely on a miracle or require a fictional wedding.

2. Where would he get the money for the wedding, and how would his family fit in with the accounts of Jesus' life in the Gospels?

The Bible doesn't say, but Jesus did have wealthy benefactors and family money if not his own. That hardly seems like a reason to believe he didn't get married, how did people of that time have weddings? Was Jesus supposed to be a pauper? Joseph of Aramethia was hardly a poor man...

3. Michael Baigent is also the co-author of the book The Dea Sea Scrolls Deception, which argues that there is no such person as Jesus of Nazareth. He merely is an elaboration by the early Christians based on the Dead Sea Scrolls' description of a "teacher of righteousness."

I'd have to read his book, but it sounds similar to Barbara Thiering's book on the Dead Sea Scrolls in which she shows that John the Baptist and Jesus were actually competing prophets each with their own following.

I found it a very strange position to take to argue for the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth on one hand, and assuming his existence on another.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail makes no such declaration as to Jesus' existence, only that a bloodline found in France was believed by people in the region, including the Templars, to emanate from Jesus.

[Static Universe]

I seem to recall "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" makes the point is not the pauper the bible claims him to be, but rather a fairly important political figure as the direct descendant of the House of David.

[Buck Birdseed]

I've not read any of these books but I have played Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned which partly is based on this stuff. Well, okay, the parts that aren't about Vampires.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why would rejecting miracles make Cana a moot point? There are rational explanations for the water into wine aspect of the story that neither rely on a miracle or require a fictional wedding.

If you reject the miracles, do you reject all of the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels? If you do, you pretty much don't have a Jesus of Nazareth anymore. If you don't, Where and how do you draw the line?

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Bible doesn't say, but Jesus did have wealthy benefactors and family money if not his own. That hardly seems like a reason to believe he didn't get married, how did people of that time have weddings? Was Jesus supposed to be a pauper? Joseph of Aramethia was hardly a poor man...

Jesus asked his apostles (actually anybody who follows him) to sell their posessions, give the money to the poor, and live in poverty. There are accounts of him living communally with his apostles. So there are two points right here: one, he was poor. Two, living in a commune kinda makes having a family hard, because it was a poor commune, not like people having houses of their own.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'd have to read his book, but it sounds similar to Barbara Thiering's book on the Dead Sea Scrolls in which she shows that John the Baptist and Jesus were actually competing prophets each with their own following.

It's very interesting, based on an external dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can probably find one in the library.

No, it's not like Thiering's book at all - this one posits that Jesus is entirely fictional.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Holy Blood, Holy Grail makes no such declaration as to Jesus' existence, only that a bloodline found in France was believed by people in the region, including the Templars, to emanate from Jesus.

If Jesus had never existed, it makes a bloodline coming from him a bit difficult.