Location of Holy Grail

I'll volunteer to look this up. I am almost certain that this is mentioned in Josh MacDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict".

If Jesus was actually a Nazorite (isn't that what Sampson was too?) , but was called a Nazerene for the name of a town that didn't even exist at that point in time, wouldn't that demonstrate that the gospels were too modern to be written by the apostles?
Or perhaps you mean that Nazareth didn't exist at the time that it was prophesied that Jesus would be a Nazarene (Nazorite)?

Anyway, if nobody sets me straight i'll look it up and post it tomorrow.

There is no documentation of Nazareth existing in Jesus' time. The Romans were extensive and thorough map-makers and if the town had existed back then, it would have been referenced.
This doesn't mean that the apostles didn't write the Gospels though. Like so many other words in the Bible, it's meaning probably became corrupted and mistranslated over time so that the inference of Jesus coming from Nazareth was just automatically accepted.
It seems probable to me that "Jesus of Nazareth" should have probably read "Jesus the Nazorean". Rather than being "Jesus belonging to a town" it should have been "Jesus belonging to an Essene sect".

A key to solving the puzzle, why did the knites templer have so many ships?

You are very close.........................

The rose line points to the grail....................

In all the discussion of this book, everyone seems to be forgetting one minor detail. This book is fiction, as in make believe. Go to your local library and look under Fiction for "Brown". You will find this book on the shelf with a big "F' on the spine. While there are some bits of truth in this novel, I wouldn't say it was any more accurate than a Stephen King novel.

So why do we debate this novel as if it was an addition to the Bible? Simply because it involves Jesus. If you took out this element of the book it would have been another ho-hum novel that could have easily been another James Bond story. A man evades the police and a mysterious society's (albino) henchmen, picks up a beautiful sidekick, and cracks secret codes to become the hero.

One of my favorite things to hear people discuss about this book is that the disciple beside Jesus in the painting "The Last Supper"could be a woman. Was Leonardo looking at a Polaroid of this meal when he painted the picture? Can we guess the thoughts of a painter painting hundreds of years ago, a picture of an event that happened almost 2000 years ago? It is not likely.

Why did Leonardo paint John as more feminine? Probably because Leonardo was gay and had a history of painting feminine men. This wasn't the only example. Sigmund Freud made this claim in 1910. Apparently it was Leonardo's mother's fault. Leonardo never married, was charged twice with sodomy in 1476, and he drew a lot more sketches of men than women.

The other amusing bit is the claim that the Catholics suppress women, and try to hide any ties that Jesus had to women. What about Mary? Last time I heard she was considered one of the most important people by the Catholics. Sometimes I even wonder if they don't think her more important than Jesus.

Refrences:
Are you saying Leonardo was gay?
Is that John or Mary Magdalene in the Last Supper?


[edit on 8-9-2004 by dbates]

Whoever mentioned Brown's book? I have not even read the book for one; and two, this discussion is about the Holy Grail, not Dan Brown.

Let's see...




I'm only half-way through the first page of this topic. I could keep going, but you can read for yourself. The Da Vinci Code is mentioned quite a lot here. I was just saying that we shouldn't use this as a basis for discussing the Holy Grail. Anyways.

Ok, I see. However, some of those were meant sarcastically from what I get from reading them.

Anyhow, I do agree that no one should use that book for a reference point for this topic. It seems anytime someone mentions anything dealing with the Holy Grail, Ark, etc. someone immediately says "Well, in the Di Vinci Code it says..." I suppose we were both trying to make the same point

Because they needed transport - it's as simple as that.

Not only were they a military order which needed to transport large armies as quickly as possible around the world, but they were also involved in the transport of commodities over long distances.
If you study the history of the Knights Templar you will see that it was really the first international corporation - they needed their fleet to achieve any business and military standing.
Europe at that time did not contain any countries with the large navies that they were later associated with - the Knights filled that gap.

Somebody elsewhere, wrote about the British East India company whilst pursuing another theory. The Knights Templar can be looked at as a sort of forerunner to this later enterprise - though, not in my opinion, linked to it in any way.

Yes, this is my point, long distances. They were the first bankers, I believe, they must of needed large sums of gold for that. I wonder where they took those ships? Where does the rose line point?


[edit on 8-9-2004 by All Seeing Eye]

hehe, about the rose line

i might be tottaly mixed up but is that the line that went through Paris, like GMT time is through part of England but it used to be through Paris?

hehe sorry if am making a fool of myself

rynaldo

To Dbates: Most of us have been busy SHOOTING DOWN the use of TDC. It does obviously come up because it is a work of fiction which has incorporated some rather obscure facts and ideas about the grail, which although not gospel, may provoke thought about the grail. It's not as if any of us is suggesting that we start shadowing members of Opus Dei to find the cryptex that contains the map to the grail. (if you dont understand that it's because you haven't read TDC).


To Leveller:


Matthew 2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets 'he shall be called a Nazarene'.
-unfortunately, Stong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows that no such prophecy exists in the bible.
The concordance shows 6 old testament verses about Nazarites in Numbers which describe the law of the Nazarites and 3 in Judges which describe Samson. There isn't even a prophecy that the messiah would be a Nazarite.
IF it is true that Nazareth did not exist in the time of Christ, then an apostle could not have written the Gospel of Matthew. That verse had to be added later, and that opens the entire book to question.

Mark 1:9 "It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."
Mark also says Nazareth is a place. I guess that means Mark is unreliable as well. ARE YOU SURE that Nazareth didn't exist?

Luke 1:26 "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth"
Eh too Luke?

John is a little harder, because I am not using references in the context of "Jesus of Nazareth" so that the "Jesus the Nazarite" explanation is not possible.
John 1:46 "And Nathaniel said to him, 'can anything good come out of Nazareth?'"
You could argue that this verse refers to Nazarites, so John may be uncorrupted, if in fact Nazareth did not exist at the time.

John 19:19 "Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the corss and the writing was "Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews". "
I don't really understand why pilate would bother to specifiy that Jesus was a Nazarite. That's not really important to a gentile is it?


I still haven't found my copy of Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I might have thrown it away at some point since it was full of places where I had highlighted McDowell's circular logic and flawed assumptions. I hope not.

There is a few possibilities. They went to Scotland and then ventured to America. In Scotland is the Rossyln Chapel which is heavy influenced in templar/masonic design and corn/maize. Also in america is a shaft they have been trying to excavate for 200 yrs. It is known as the monet pit and is somewhere in the New England area.




As for Rossyln...

Vagabond.
The only place you can find reference of Nazareth before the 4th Century AD is in the New Testament.
Although earlier Jewish writings list at least 60 towns in Galilee, Nazareth is not amongst them. And although you've presented a few links, more importantly in my opinion, St Paul doesn't mention the town at all either.

As I've stated, it was over 300 years after the death of Christ that Nazareth is first mentioned anywhere (outside of the NT). Even Roman maps, historians and tax records don't show the town as existing in the time of Christ.

www.fact-index.com...


All Seeing-Eye.
Some believe that the Templar navy was split up and went about it's separate ways. The Skull and Bones flown by pirate ships in the Carribean would suggest that at least some became pirates - they had certainly been accused of attacking Vatican shipping after the Order was destroyed. Others are thought to have fled to Canada. Yet more are thought to have been placed under the command of the Rosslyn family in Scotland. Even more could have been put to personal use or sold.

I don't believe that the Templar navy remained as one entity. It's far more probable that smaller groups of Templar refugees took ownership over the vessels and then pursued different avenues.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by Leveller]

1. Holy Blood/Holy Grail and DVC are both part of a blooming genre of religio-conspireography, where you are allowed to cite ANY source that promotes your argument, and cite conclusions from previous chapters as evidence. Any reference to priore de Sion, Rosslyn Chapel, Templars in America et al makes me think you're speculating pretty heavily and are more interested in ideas than truth.

2. As far as the existence of Nazareth in Jesus' time goes, here's a snippet of discussion on that topic, which quotes John McRay and James Strange, both in a position to speak to the existence of Nazareth from archaeological evidence. The fact that the Aramaic refugee list cites Nazareth as a destination for priestly families in 70CE is pretty interesting. I wish I could find this quote from a less partisan site:

answering-islam.org.uk...

3. As to Jesus being a Rabbi: there were no rabbis (in the talmudic sense) in Jesus' time. The Rabbinate was basically created by the council at Yaffa in 90CE to fill the void in religious life after the Temple's destruction. Judaism underwent radical changes with the destruction of the temple, comprable to what Catholicism would experience if Rome were levelled tomorrow. It is impossible to speculate on the requirements for teachers during Jesus lifetime. The NT term "Rabboni" means teacher in a more modern sense, as leader and instructor. The whole rabbinic system did not exist yet. So the requirement for a rabbi to be married comes from a later time. . .

4. Was Jesus a CARPENTER? The Greek word "tekton" is literally a stonecutter. The term was only later understood to include carpentry, since so much woodwork was involved in squaring, raising, conveying and fitting stones together.

5. I'm interested in the grail too. Seeking it out, even. But I'm not getting my facts from bestsellers. Or even from Mallory.

And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago—
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

I just finished reading 'The Davinci Code Hoax'.
Excellent book. Debunked most everything in
the Davinci Code that is considered 'heresy'.

The Cup of the Last Supper is in Notre Dame
in France. It has been there for a long time.
At least, there is a cup there that is presented
to everyone as the Cup of the Last Supper and
the history of that cup is presented.

There is a book out called 'Relics' by Joan Carroll Cruz.
She gives the history of the cup that is in Notre Dame
as well as other relics - The Lance used during the
crucifixion, etc. etc.

Absolutely. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln were pretty much discredited for a lot of the information they proposed in that book. I noticed that it has been brought back out in mass paperback circulation (I even saw it at Costco the other day) more than likely to take advantage of the DVC hype and hoopla.

And why anyone takes DVC seriously is beyond me.

I am not sure what you think I was arguing Leveller.

I was not necessarily saying that Nazareth existed in the time of Christ or that it didn't. I'm saying that IF it didn't exist, THEN we have little choice but to accept that the bible was doctored in the 4th century. Earlier you said that Nazareth simply was derived from a corruption, however it is without question that 3 of the 4 gospels refer to a city. This means that we logically MUST either doubt the integrity or date of those books, OR we must conclude that Nazareth did exist at the time when those books were written.
If you want my opinion, I'd say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- I think Nazareth is old enough to be mentioned in the gospels which were written in the 1st century. This does not mean that I believe the gospels have maintained their integrity over the centuries- I don't. The bible never says that it can't be corrupted- in fact the last verses of Revelations warn against adding to it (although those verses I believe were added by the church to cement Revelations as the final book of the bible).

Also, although I don't know how much it matters, Jesus was a stone mason not a carpenter. Strangecraft was right about that. I'm picky about details so I enjoyed hearing somebody point that out.

I have always held the believe that the grail was located in the money pit on Oak Island, Nova Scotia. It was brought there by Knights Templar, along with their treasure from France when the Templars were outlawed.