Originally posted by Leveller
But I follow the line that Jesus would have come from the Nazorean branch of the Essenes - he was Jesus of "Nazareth" after all. We know that the name "Nazareth" is probably a corruption, as the town itself did not exist in Jesus' time.

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.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

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)?

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?

Originally posted by EliteXizer
The quest for the grail is a quest for eternal life!

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

Originally posted by rynaldo82
yer i have read this, interesting stuff after reading the TDC book. might be going to rosyln abbey near edinburgh soon. if i get a digi camera before then am hoping to take pics

rynaldo

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

Originally posted by dbates
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.

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...

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I feel like I read this somewhere before....

thinking...

Aha! The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Originally posted by Ezekial
I have read the book to counter The Da Vinci code called 'Cracking the Da Vinci Code' and found it interesting but still lean towards the idea that the the Holy Grail is not literally a cup.

Originally posted by rynaldo82
yer i have read this, interesting stuff after reading the TDC book. might be going to rosyln abbey near edinburgh soon. if i get a digi camera before then am hoping to take pics

rynaldo

Originally posted by Ezekial
As for clues, if you read TDC it says that the Holy Grail/Cradle of life/Holy Feminity is located at the base of the inverted pyramid in Paris. I don't believe that it is located there though.

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

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
A key to solving the puzzle, why did the knites templer have so many ships?

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.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
A key to solving the puzzle, why did the knites templer have so many ships?

they were also involved in the transport of commodities over long distances.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
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.

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.