Do you have a thumbnail sketch of what this is all about? I think folks would benefit from a brief description of what this is, what the claims are, and how your theory fits the ideas.

I love the DaVinci Code theories.
Yours is an interesting take on it though.
Can you delve a bit more on how you are basing your connection with the "ancient parchments" and the apostasy and how it relates to the Merovingians?

Well, mine has nothing to do with the Da Vinci code. I've never read the book and most likely never will because it sounds to me like all the guy did was do the same research I've done on the subject and then muddy the waters by fictionalizing the whole thing.

Thanks a lot mister! LOL

Byrd,

This subject is massive. The link I provided in my first post is a very good place to start learning about the subject and all the peripheral subjects that seem to be interconnected. The book list on that site is wonderful. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a prerequisite in getting into this.

As far as the "theory" surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau - which one? There are MULTIPLE theories. None of which can be readily dismissed, none of which should be accepted in whole.

I guess I submitted this theory for an audience who has already spent significant time on this subject. I'm hoping that my theory can be analyzed by those who have spent time in this and I can learn something from the feedback.

I would be careful going down the Priory de Sion, route as their are two different organisations which have used that name. One prior to 1950 and one after, which is where the Da Vinci Code makes its largest error and many other people do.

That group itself, is wisely best left out of any theory until we can gain some hard evidence on their actions, members and so on and so fourth and just looking at it as part of the Catholic Church because although it is known to have existed prior to 1956 [Pierre Plantard and Andre Bonhomme] any of their actions are nearly impossible to find information on and it is something I have spent years reading up on although as soon as I do, I will make sure to let you know.

Edit: In fact, Pierre Plantard used Father Bérenger Saunière as a way to make his claims long after the man had died and many of these claims have been shown to be false.

[edit on 28/10/2005 by Odium]

Thanks you, Odium! I look forward to reading more of what your research has revealed. This is exactly why I shared my theory here.

I spent five years studying this subject (from 1995 to 2000). When I found the "clue" that I believe is important and has been overlooked, I abandoned my studies because of some conflicts I have in discussing this issue. I so firmly believe that the secret attached to this subject will be used in a spiritually nefarious way that for a long time I could not resolve the conflict between my personal spiritual beliefs, and what I could be part of if I shared my finding.

I've decided to go on faith and let God take care of the rest.

I'm going to go ahead and state what I believe the secret will be...but I'm not necessarily married to this...this is just what I believe to be at the top of my list.

Bones

And those bones will either be presented as the bones of Christ or the bones of his child....and there will be some one who can prove their descendancy from those bones.

[edit on 10-28-2005 by Valhall]

Amethyst,

And therein lies the rest of my theory. I believe the Catholic church and the protestant churchs have long been infiltrated by false teachers. Teachers who have led believers to accept things that weren't stated in the scriptures.

For instance, it doesn't say Christ didn't get married, does it? Therefore, we cannot hold a teaching that says Christ was never married as scripturally sound. But this teaching has been so embedded in christian doctrine that to even propose that a child may have been fostered from a union is taken as blasphemy.

What difference does it make to the sacrifice of Christ if he was married or had a child?

Not one stinking bit of difference. It does not change his sacrifice in the least. It does not change the Gospels in the least.

Tied to this is the false doctrine of the pretribulation rapture. You have a mass of phat, dumb and happy christians sitting out there convinced they will not be here when the false teachers arrive or when the tribulation takes place. This leaves them in a vulnerable state that when the tribulation starts, and the false secrets are revealed - they will fulfill the scripture that predicts the believers saying "He said he would come and He has not - it was all a lie!" And hence the great apostasy.

There are so many things coming together that can fulfill John's dire prediction.

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm going to go ahead and state what I believe the secret will be...but I'm not necessarily married to this...this is just what I believe to be at the top of my list.

Bones

And those bones will either be presented as the bones of Christ or the bones of his child....and there will be some one who can prove their descendancy to those bones.

I agree. No doubt that would shake a LOT of people's faith in Christ. End-time deception.

I saw some show on the Sci Fi channel where this Catholic priest apparently found some parchment "proving" that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child--I think that's what I saw. It drove the priest to embrace Satanism or something like that. It's been a while since I saw it.

Then you have the Da Vinci Code coming out, and networks picking up on this and more or less promoting the idea. And there was that movie The Last Temptation of Christ, which I never saw and have no desire to see.

You see something like this all of a sudden popping up, you can bet that we're being more or less conditioned.

I'd also like to add--nowhere in the Bible does it indicate Jesus ever married. The Bible warns about adding to the Scriptures. I highly doubt He ever married, because His sole purpose in coming here was to offer Himself as a perfect sacrifice. Given that, a marriage doesn't really make sense. He made provision for His mother to be cared for--if He were married, wouldn't He have made provision for His wife? What's the sense in marrying when you know you're going to die? He knew the exact day He was to die.

People who believe Jesus was married point to Mary referring to him as "my lord." Sarah called her husband Abraham "lord." So now to these guys "lord" means "husband."

Simon Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned, indicating that he was married. I'm sure that if Jesus were married the Bible would have mentioned it, and it doesn't.

[edit on 10/28/2005 by Amethyst]

I have read of this and find it an interesting theory, unlike you, I am inclined to believe it. Why, you may ask-I would be happy to tell you.
First, how could a simple French priest-with a vow of poverty- have the money to build such a grand home and remodel the church. It must have taken millions of dollars-which would be 10 or 100's of millions of dollars by todays standards.

Lets look at some of the changes he made.
There is a horned devil looking down at all who enter the church. There is a statue of Jesus holding a child as a parent might do.

If we go back, I seem to remember something about Jesus bring in a rein of 1000 years. Well, it seems that after about that amount of time, the Catholics church started sending out it's private army to take control. Heretics were killed.

How does this tie together?
This is how, if Jesus had a daughter or son for that matter, the "holy" bloodline would have continued. If it ever became know that a "holy" bloodline existed, all the money and power of the church would be transfered to the rightful owners-the bloodline.
To prevent this from happening, the church sent out it's private army to kill off all who were anyway related or even thought to be.
That way they could hold on to the power and great wealth of the church.

In on our moder times, the Catholics church is recognized as the richest entity on the planet, in terms of money, land and possessions. We all know mankind is flawed and very greedy with money and power. Just how far would they go to keep it?

This would clearly explain how the priest go so much money-bought off by the church. Why there is a devil in front of the church-killing off all of the Jesus bloodline is more than act of the devil, than God. It would explain why the figure of Jesus inside has a child.

I am very familiar with what Val is putting forth here.
There have been rumors theories put forth that Jesus did not die on the cross as is depicted in the Bible.
The theory goes that the "wine / vinegar" that was given to Jesus while he was on the cross was actually a mild poison that shortly after Jesus drank it, he appeared to have died. Once he "died, he was then taken down from the cross.
This would go to explain why he was on the cross for 6 - 9 hours instead of the standard 3 days.
About 40 days after his death, Jesus and Mary made their trip to the South of France where they lived for many years. It is purported that Jesus actually lived to be about 70 years old. There are also accounts that say that there were anywhere from 1 to 4 children born of Mary. One of the children was a girl who later became known as the "black Madonna" who married into the Merovingian family.

I remember in the late 60's this theory being put forth and that there had been some evidence to back it up that was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the parchments that were found in the hallow pillar. There were also some rumors that a Roman census account had been found that claimed this.

Am I right on this Val?

That's one of them, ken. Then there is the theory of the double on the cross. And then there is the theory that maintains the crucifixion, but says that Peter (I believe it was Peter) ferried Mary and the child off to the south of France (the Languedoc) and that Mary was idolized resulting in the Cult of the Black Madonna.

It is also theorized that the legend behind the Merovingian dynasty (that of the woman being impregnated by a creature from the sea, and giving birth to the first child of the dynasty) is symbolical of Mary and the child coming from the sea to the south of France.

"It is also theorized that the legend behind the Merovingian dynasty (that of the woman being impregnated by a creature from the sea, and giving birth to the first child of the dynasty) is symbolical of Mary and the child coming from the sea to the south of France. "

Val, if I remember my christiany correctly, is not Jesus often symbolized as the fish?
I see it on cars all over the place.
Well, if that is the case, could not the impregnating of mary from the sea represent Jesus, without directly saying so?
Saying so, might have branded someone a heritic and got them killed.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon


Val, if I remember my christiany correctly, is not Jesus often symbolized as the fish?
I see it on cars all over the place.
Well, if that is the case, could not the impregnating of mary from the sea represent Jesus, without directly saying so?
Saying so, might have branded someone a heritic and got them killed.

Right! Now, the issue here is...there is no issue. Think about it. It makes no difference whatsoever to the scriptural message of Christ's life if he in fact married and had a child. So why have christian believers been taught for centuries that to imply he COULD have been married or had children is something blasphemous or heretical? It is a man-made heresy. What would be the reason for creating a heresy that does not exist scripturally? It's a very interesting thought experiment imho.

Very good points, Amethyst.

And your statements about the royals fabricating their descendancy from Christ is exactly what I believe. I think you are now hitting on what the impetus is behind the secret. Some one is going to be able to take the title "King of Jerusalem". And they have to have a way to do that. And it has to tie them back either to either Alexander the Great or the tribe of Judah.

One point to clarify. The theory that the legend of Merovee might be symbolical of Mary M. and the child coming across the sea doesn't state that the child of Christ would be Merovee, but that Merovee descended from the child of Christ.