It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dan Brown and Priory of Sion

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The following excerpt came from...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

"Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, sued their mutual publisher, Random House, claiming that Brown had stolen their ideas. Both books explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that the couple had a child and that their bloodline still exists today."

Now here is my comment and question...

Everyone is aware by now that Dan Brown has been sued and won.

He basis part of his book on the "Priory of Sion", which many claim to be a 'fake' secret society. Here's one of my questions, is the Priory of Sion related in any way to the infamous "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"? Which is also reported to be a fake SS. And, how do the informed feel this all relates to the Synagogue of Satan (SS, or SOS)?
www.protocolsofzionmovie.com...
www.biblebelievers.org.au...
www.dccsa.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, I have a book that might be of interest to Dan Brown. It could help him with any other suits. The book is written by a 'real' secret society that "came out of the closet", so to speak, and, was written in the 1920s, although earlier copies exist.

It clearly states that Jesus had children who moved to France for protection and that a secret society was protecting His offspring. It goes into remarkable detail.

When Dan's book came out, I just naturally concluded that he was drawing from this particular SS, which I will not name here (the book is currently not being kept by me, FYI). But, Brown decided to refer to his source as the "Priory of Sion".

Now here's where the conspiracy may be. If there are confirmed 'real' secret societies who claim this knowledge, why would Dan Brown stake his claim on what some say is an obviously "fake" SS?

Could all this be an elaborate scheme to discredit the "real" secret society that has actually had the privilege of protecting Jesus' offspring? Was the "Priory of Sion" created (after the publication of the book from the real secret society) as an obvious forgery to purposely cloud and confuse the truth from being accepted?

Traditional Christianity seems to be completely upset with this whole issue. And, with the main source of his book being so easily debunked and the real source not even being mentioned, this only adds to the debate and nothing is solved.

In fact, if Dan Brown's whole notion IS completely correct, this Priory of Sion fraud allows traditional Christianity to continue AND acts as a clever way to continue to conceal the truth. Something is definitely not kosher about this whole mess.

I can be contacted, BTW, at Aryandan@yahoo.com, Dan Brown




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The protocols and the priory are seperate. Jews and christians revere the word "zion" as it referes metytonically to the holy land. The protocols were the manufacture of russia anti-semites looking to stir up pogroms against the jews in teh region.

The priory was the manufacture of a group that tried to claim one of its members were the heir to the french throne (but not the descendant of jesus).

Chances are, Dan Brown doesn't read ATS, and will not email you.

What SS are you thinking of?



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I will eventually name the book and the secret society, as well as, provide quotes from the book. I was just fishing to see what others knew and how rare the book I have is.

If I mentioned the SS, you would have definitely have heard of it. But, I will tell you it is not the Mason, or Illuminate, etc.

The SS I am referring to also claims to have prominent members throughout history who knew about Jesus' fatherhood, and many of the names were actually the same names the Priory of Sion claimed. Which only makes me further believe the whole thing is a snow job.

I do believe the 1920's book I have is legit. They did not have any apparent agenda and they have been confirmed by historians on all kinds of other subjects that they speak.

About Brown contacting me, I don't really think he would, but I put my email address for anyone.

On your other reply you mentioned...

"The protocols were the manufacture of russia anti-semites looking to stir up pogroms against the jews in teh region."

That is certainly the standard belief and retort to the issue. And there is no doubt that it is true, they were released by anti-Semites (any one who believes in the authenticity of the Protocols would naturally be anti-Semitic, and, rightfully so) for the purpose of stirring up pogroms (again, if you believe them, you would want to act).

So, your comment is factually correct (except for them being manufactured), but misses the reality of the Protocols themselves.

Of course, the pogroms were directed at people who had little or absolutely nothing to do with the plans of the Protocols.
Have you ever read the Protocols?
They were not the plans of Jews, but were really created by those who call themselves Jews, but are not, but are actually members of the Synagogue of Satan (SOS), who attempt to control not only Gentile but also, Jews.
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Their primary human agents are the international bankster klan everyone talks about, ie, the Rothschilds, etc, (who are Satanist). They needed to chase the "unaware" Jews out of Russia for their ultimate plans to secure Palestine. Satan is aware that the Lord God Himself will be landing there shortly. (Rev 21:3).
www.rateitall.com...
(look under my review of x-files for more on this)

Satan is the real author of the Protocols. And the Protocols, by the way, have been followed to the tee. So, it's a little hard to debunk them, since, if a person who read them would just look around them, they would see them being fulfilled almost as accurately as divine prophesy. I could go on and on about the Protocols, but that is for another time.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I believe that 'Zion' and 'Jews' are pseudonyms for Illuminati, and 'Goyim' is a pseudonym for us, the 'Useless eaters.'

The holocaust was used as a vehicle to create a climate where no-one dares question the Jews, so the Illuminati can hide under that veil.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Hasn't the Priory of Sion been proven to exist? All of the stuff about it in The Da Vinci Code may not be true, but I'm pretty sure it's a fact that it exists or existed at one time.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have already been debunked, by much more learned men than we.

They are inarguably a forgery.

Seriously, do yourself a favour and check out the wealth of information on the topic.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Hasn't the Priory of Sion been proven to exist?

Its been shown to not exist. A pretender to the french throne, shortly after wwii, made up the documents. The priory never existed.


All of the stuff about it in The Da Vinci Code may not be true, but I'm pretty sure it's a fact that it exists or existed at one time.

Practically nothing in the davinci code is true. Its a fictional book. The Priory never existed, the documents that talked about it were fakes, it was all a fraud.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its been shown to not exist. A pretender to the french throne, shortly after wwii, made up the documents. The priory never existed.

Practically nothing in the davinci code is true. Its a fictional book. The Priory never existed, the documents that talked about it were fakes, it was all a fraud.


Can you show me proof of this debunk that the Priory never existed. As far as I know, it's still very much proved that it has existed; and yes, I realize the Da Vinci Code is fictional and it's about 1% fact, 99% fiction.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
From Wikipedia:


The Prieuré de Sion, usually rendered in English translation as Priory of Sion or Priory of Zion, has, since the 1970s, been an elusive protagonist in many conspiratorial works of pseudo history. It has been characterized as anything from the most influential secret society in Western history to a modern Rosicrucian-esque ludibrium, but, ultimately, it is a hoax. Most of the evidence presented in support of claims pertaining to its historical existence, let alone significance, has not been considered authentic or persuasive by established historians, academics and universities. There was a very small medieval monastic order known as the Priory of Sion, but it and all its assets were absorbed by the Jesuits in 1617.

The Priory of Sion is an association that was founded in 1956, in the French town of Annemasse. As with all associations, French law required the association to be registered with the government. This took place at the Sous-Prefecture of Saint Julien-en-Genevois, in May 1956, and its registration was noted on 20 July 1956 in the Journal Officiel de la République Française. The founders and signatories are inscribed as Pierre Plantard (known as "Chyren"), André Bonhomme (known as "Stanis Bellas"), Jean Delaval and Armand Defago. The purpose of the association according to its Statutes deposited at St Julien was entered as, "études et entraide des membres" ("education and mutual aid of the members"). In practice, the originator of the association and its key protagonist was most probably Pierre Plantard, its General Secretary, although its nominal head ("President") was André Bonhomme.

Plantard originally hoped that the Priory of Sion would become an influential cryptopolitical pseudo-masonic lodge (similar to the P2 cabal) dedicated to the restoration of chivalry and monarchy, which would promote Plantard's own megalomaniacal claim to being a legitimate pretender to the throne of France.

In order to give credibility to the fabricated lineage and pedigree, Plantard and de Cherisey needed to create 'independent evidence'. So during the 1960s, they deposited a series of forged documents, the so-called Dossiers Secrets or "Secret Dossiers", at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), in Paris. Therefore, people who set out to research the 'Priory of Sion' would come across these fake documents at the BnF. One of those researchers was Henry Lincoln.


There's quite a bit more to the story, but yes, the "Priory of Sion" did not exist at the time it was supposed to have. Also a good backround history found here.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its been shown to not exist. A pretender to the french throne, shortly after wwii, made up the documents. The priory never existed.

Practically nothing in the davinci code is true. Its a fictional book. The Priory never existed, the documents that talked about it were fakes, it was all a fraud.


Can you show me proof of this debunk that the Priory never existed. As far as I know, it's still very much proved that it has existed; and yes, I realize the Da Vinci Code is fictional and it's about 1% fact, 99% fiction.


First of all, the problem with the Da Vinci code isn't that it is a fiction book, the problem is that at the beginning Dan Brown claims all of his BS to be FACT. Here's a quick question just for your common sense, let alone anything else. Why would someone involved in a secret society write down EVERYTHING important and revealing about its members, information more than POTENTIALLY damaging to them, and then actually call it, "the secret documents", and place it in a place sure to be discovered? I know if I were to have secret documents that needed hiding in a library, I would call them, "compost techinques", or perhaps "advanced shoe tying techniques". Just doesnt follow. Someone intended for this to be found, otherwise it would have been better hidden. I know this isn't real "evidence" for you, but the last post pretty much summed it all up. I just thought I go in for the overkill. Have a nice day.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   


The Priory never existed

There are original documents that attest to the existance of A Priory. Is it the same one
as discussed by Baigent ,Lincoln, Leigh, Brown and others? There is really no way to verify it one way or the other. There was an Order of Monks established on Mont Sion
in Israel in 1099 by Godfroi. There was an Order of Monks evicted from the " Little Priory" @ Orleans in France ca. 15 century( as I recall).

Is there a connection Quen Sabe?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
This is for Roark...

Roark, just look at what happen to Russia after publishing the Protocols...

Right after the first release, the Jews started their Jewish revolt of 1905 which failed because it was a rushed reaction to the publication itself.

They were always planning the takeover of Russia but the release of the Protocols pushed the date up.

That is when, BTW, Lenin's brother was hanged.

Then, they staged another attempt to take over Russia that was successful with the help of the Satanic banking "jews" from Switzerland who funded Lenin with Swiss gold and trained him in revolutionary tactics.

The Royal Russian family was all murdered by "jews" (and this is well documented by Jewish sources, just because a Jew says he is Atheistic does not conceal his true identity).

Then, once Lenin consolidated power, Russia's gold was transferred to Switzerland (one of the biggest Swiss investment in history), since Lenin was just a hired thug, after all, and not a real leader, he had no problem paying back his masters. That was his job, to steal Russia's wealth and turn all the Gentiles into "workers" for the "dictators"; translation: 'slaves' for the "jews"!

So, if you think the Protocols were fake, then do you just think it was a coincidence that Russia was taken over by "jews" calling themselves communist.

And these commie "jews" killed millions of Christians, executed over 20,000 priest, and blew up countless churches, and massacred the Romanov's?

The Protocols speak for themselves as being true and all the dead bodies that fell in their way don't deny them, but rather, confirm them!!!



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Lenin's brother was executed in 1887 not 1905 and although many many Bolsheviks (and Mensheviks, and numerous other socialists) were Jewish, Stalin was not. If the Revolution was a grand plan of Zionism then why would Lenin allow the Man of Steel to rise through the ranks and essentially wipe out the Jewish contingent?

Ok back to the Priory.

It's existance depends upon interpretation. If you think a couple of con men/ practical jokers, an alcoholic french noble and a second-rate author were a secret society then yes the Priory did exist in fits and starts from the 1950's till Plantard's death in 2000.

If you feel that the Priory is an ancient organization stemming from at least the time of the Crusades (let alone Merovingian France), then I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The Priory that has gained so much fame in the last few years has no connection to the Jesus Bloodline, the Merovingian Kings of France or even the "Ordre of Sion" which MAY have been founded by Godfrey of Buillon in 1099.

I have yet to find any hard evidence of this Order or the supposed "Papal Bull" that confirms its existence. But it does not take a stretch to assume that either Godfrey or his brother Baldwin would have bequeathed the site of the "Mother of All Churches" to a monastic order.

As for the "mysteries" surrounding Berengier Sauniere and Rennes-le-Chateau. Researcher Paul Smith has done a pretty convincing job debunking the Lincoln/Baigent/Leigh money making machine: www.priory-of-sion.com...



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
First of all, the problem with the Da Vinci code isn't that it is a fiction book, the problem is that at the beginning Dan Brown claims all of his BS to be FACT. Here's a quick question just for your common sense, let alone anything else. Why would someone involved in a secret society write down EVERYTHING important and revealing about its members, information more than POTENTIALLY damaging to them, and then actually call it, "the secret documents", and place it in a place sure to be discovered?


Incorrect; he claims that the Priory of Sion is a European secret society founded in 1099 based on documents called Les Dossiers Secrets which also gave names of members. He also claims that Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that is the center of controversy due to reports of brainwashing, cocercion, and a dangerous practice known as corporal mortification. He also claims Opus Dei recently completed a National Headquarters in New York City, and that descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate.

OK, first of all, he says that the Priory of Sion was said to have existed from the documents that were found. This is true. Whether or not the Priory of Sion existed is debatable, but based on the Les Dossiers Secrets, they did exist, and they have included several members, such as Leonardo Da Vinci.

Opus Dei is a real "sect". SOME members practiced the rituals of the Opus Dei represented in the books; though these are by no means the general practices of all members of Opus Dei; Brown never claims that they are, just that they have been REPORTED to do such things, and therefore are a topic of controversy.

The Opus Dei headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue, NY, is obviously factual.
www.mond.at... At that site, you can see a "picture" of the headquarters, its address and other information. If anything in Dan Brown's "fact page" is innaccurate, it might possibly be the cost of this building; for on this site, it reports a cost of $42 million.

As for the last part, keep in mind that he never claims that any of the things he says ABOUT the architecture, documents, etc. is true; just that they are real and that they are described truthfully in terms of physical appearance, etc.

Once again, keep in mind this a fictional novel.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Whether or not the Priory of Sion existed is debatable, but based on the Les Dossiers Secrets, they did exist, and they have included several members, such as Leonardo Da Vinci.

The secret documents are fraudulent. Those documents are the entire basis for the claim to existence of the organization, and they were fakes made up by Plantard and his friends.


he Opus Dei headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue, NY, is obviously factual.

And the louve is in paris, and paris is in france. Brown got some basic facts correct. Thats about it. THe priory is a hoax, the davinci code itself is a theory bandied about by artists (notice his wife is an artist, to whom the book is dedicated), and the "blood line" gibberish is a modern invention.



As for the last part, keep in mind that he never claims that any of the things he says ABOUT the architecture, documents, etc. is true; just that they are real and that they are described truthfully in terms of physical appearance, etc.

Once again, keep in mind this a fictional novel.

I think you've really got to keep that advice and apply it to yourself. The priory is fake, its been known to be fake since before Brown wrote the book. The preface to the book is part of the fiction, it makes the book more beleivable as you rear it. Nothing between the covers must be true, its a fictional book.

What Dan Brown did was take conspiracy theories and news of the weird from lots of different places and tie it all together, opus dei, Plantard, gnostic jesus, goddess worship, the grail legends, the knights templar, all rolled up into one giant conspiracy enchilada, nice and spicey.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have already been debunked, by much more learned men than we.

They are inarguably a forgery.



Funny but the Protocols have been mentioned in hundreds of scholarly researched books and their providence is not the question...

The Question is this: How well does the Protocols resemble what has happened in history both before and after being found and does it in fact represent a blueprint for action by a secretive group to achieve world domination?

The answer has been an overwhelming: YES!

Now where or when the Protocols was written is not as important or whether it was the Bible of the Illumaniti or Zionists or Brotherhood or Secret Societies, as the story it does tell. It tells a good story indeed.

Forgery? how can it by definition be a forgery unless I do not understand the meaning of the word?

[edit on 9-5-2006 by denythestatusquo]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by Roark
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have already been debunked, by much more learned men than we.

They are inarguably a forgery.



Funny but the Protocols have been mentioned in hundreds of scholarly researched books and their providence is not the question...

The Question is this: How well does the Protocols resemble what has happened in history both before and after being found and does it in fact represent a blueprint for action by a secretive group to achieve world domination?

The answer has been an overwhelming: YES!

Now where or when the Protocols was written is not as important or whether it was the Bible of the Illumaniti or Zionists or Brotherhood or Secret Societies, as the story it does tell. It tells a good story indeed.

Forgery? how can it by definition be a forgery unless I do not understand the meaning of the word?

[edit on 9-5-2006 by denythestatusquo]


First of all, let me say thank you Nygdan for saying all of that in your last post. It saved me from saying the same thing in a post that could have been better spent. Now, as for how the Protocols are defined as a forgery, let me take a deep breath and show you....
In 1921 the London Times followed the authoring of the book to a plagiarization. They found this by comparing the Protocols to a work that was then compared to another in which a man who writes a story exploiting Napoleon. Much to the dismay and lack of intelligence on the author's part, the forgeries are sadly almost word for word to their decades old predecessors. The original story came out in 1864, "Discussions Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu while in Hell".(The title is actually in French, but this is roughly what it says.) It was intended completely to exploit Napoleon's lust for complete world domination. Herman Goedshe was the first to PLAGIARIZE the work in 1867 or 68, can't really remember which. Everything about Napoleon was taken out and he just inserted Jews where Napoleon's name would have been. (Pretty sad, huh?) I can't recall the name of the book, but in there was a chapter in which Satan talks to the Jewish leaders about ruling the world. Whatever the name, this was the important part, because roughly thirty years later this one little piece was taken out and rewritten in an essay that became the beginning of the Protocols.

Here I would just have to agree with Roark. They are INARGUABLY a forgery.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have already been debunked, by much more learned men than we.

They are inarguably a forgery.

Roark I have to disagree with you here. It’s just not that simple. We do know that the Russian secret police used it to the Tsar’s end. This still does not explain the true origins of the document. We also know that only 16% is (possibly) copied from dialogues. And let’s not forget how many of the protocols are actually happening today.

The Protocol of Zion Fact or fiction thread is the one you want to check out if pursuing this.

About “learned men”, one thing I learned on ATS is not to take anything from authoritarian source for granted. The info is there, we can look for ourselves what the truth really is using the same research methods.


[edit on 9/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
60 Minutes did a piece on this exact subject two weeks ago.

It showed exactly how and why the Priory of Scion was faked.

It is all crap and Dan Brown bases his whole book on these supposed "facts" at the beggining of his book.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
be careful. Dan Brown only says that "The Priory of Sion" founded in 1099 is fact,
which according to charters and such it is. He does NOT say that his (or I might
add Baigent,Leigh,and Lincolns) version is fact.

Those who say there is nothing to connect the historical priory with the modern one are correct. There is nothing substantive to connect them. They May well be seperate
and exclusive. There are however hisrorical connective suggestions that may well
support a connective chain through time.

We will probably never know the complete story, just as we will never know the complete story of events in Judea and Galilee ca 30-40 CE. Even if "the Grail Documents" exist and are released. There will always be those that say " it isnt
in the bable so its a lie."



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join