What is "the holy grail"; is it a cup or a bloodline

The Holy Grail?
On ATS?
PROOF!

It's not a literal cup. The bloodline is said to be from Christ however, there is some concept that it really goes to Egypt and King Tut, and the royal families/Egyptian royalty/babylonia.

However, I see my own code for The Equality and Progression in it, Love/Goodness and Infinite Family, Empowerment/Growth of All.

The very opposite of the Pyramid System and hellzones/winterlands...

The two opposing sides. Whereas one is the pyramid, but the other is Mother/Sophia/The Tree of Life, with roots reaching to the underworld and to Heaven, ensuring ALL PROGRESS. Mother's Love does not leave a single person out, but never gives up on anyone in existence, any sentient being.

So the pyramid has its opposite: THE CHALLICE/WOMB.

Matrix means womb. We are born from this testing ground, into real life to progress infinitely.

But again, that also implies function and Mom's don't do function. They don't put actions (ie fruit of tree) above person's, ie the tree. All people count and are safe no matter what, everyone in existence, no matter how long it takes to have them all safe.

Christ is also the intercessor, like Sophia, is Sophia, and basically metaphorically the same thing, so I can certainly see that being related to Christ.

reply to post by Unity_99


The Bloodline truly goes all the way back to Adam and Eve in the Garden, and as such, includes all of mankind. As you said, not a single one forgotten or left behind.

Dmvr34
The Holy Grail?
On ATS?
PROOF!

I am here I exist I am what is trying to tell an existance of (on ATS) the bloodline (think its red in color) PROOF OF WHAT EXACTLY? THE FORUM ATS EXISTS? (it may bleed voluntarily if cornered/or threatened).

reply to post by Joecroft

And, we have the recently discovered “Gospel of Jesus Wife”

Gack.

That thing had been exposed as a likely hoax within a few weeks of its release (see: Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert). The scheduled academic paper and television special were "postponed" until the piece could be authenticated and dated, which was anticipated to be completed in January, 2013.

That was over a year ago. Any rational person would say that they tested it, it was not legitimate, and they quietly let it go away to save face. I contacted Mark Goodacre a couple of months ago, and he confirmed that the authentication results have not been released.

Rex282

GodIsRelative


I don't think you can put a price on anything that was built by the love of God. There is a reason it still stands in Jerusalem of all places, to this day.

Solomon's Temple has been soiled by invaders, but God has protected it for all of these centuries of people fighting over it. It's a f***ing honest to God miracle, if you ask me.

Oh, here's $0.02.

edit on 29-1-2014 by GodIsRelative because: two cents

The 1st temple is Solomons temple and has been destroyed since around 587BCE.The 2nd temple called Herods temple was completely destroyed in 70AD.

edit on 29-1-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)

thanks ..

I was about to say ...

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by Joecroft
And, we have the recently discovered “Gospel of Jesus Wife”

Originally posted by adjensen

Gack.

That thing had been exposed as a likely hoax within a few weeks of its release (see: Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert).

That’s what worries me…people pronouncing things are fake within a few weeks, of them being published, hardly seems like good science to me. Various articles, with afiliations, to the vatican, have also said it was fake. No big surprises there…

Professor Alberto Camplani stated he believed it wasn’t a forgery. And Harvard University professor Karen L. King, has has gone on record, as stating it’s authentic.

You can find her explanation and confirmation of stating it’s authentic, at the following link…

Originally posted by adjensen
The scheduled academic paper and television special were "postponed" until the piece could be authenticated and dated, which was anticipated to be completed in January, 2013.

That was over a year ago. Any rational person would say that they tested it, it was not legitimate, and they quietly let it go away to save face. I contacted Mark Goodacre a couple of months ago, and he confirmed that the authentication results have not been released.

Well, my link above, is to a Daily Mail newspaper article, (dated the 7th January 2013), which contains a video, where professor Karen L. King, states that the fragment is authentic. Looks like the anticipated release, has already happened!


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

Well, my link above, is to a Daily Mail newspaper article, (dated the 7th January 2013), which contains a video, where professor Karen L. King, states that the fragment is authentic. Looks like the anticipated release, has already happened!

Who cares if Karen King says it's authentic? She's the one who "discovered" it in the first place, what else would you expect her to say?

What matters is the physical testing of the papyrus and ink, which was supposed to have taken place a year ago. Today, no results have been announced, the Harvard Theological Review declined to publish the article that King wrote on the fragment (they had previously accepted the paper for publication, pending review,) and the Smithsonian Channel cancelled the documentary program that they had already produced and were ready to air in September 2012.

Common sense would indicate that the testing showed the fragment to be a forgery, and rather than embarrass Karen King, Yale, Harvard and the Smithsonian, it was decided to just drop the matter and hope that people forget about it, which they apparently have -- here you are, saying that it is authentic!

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
Who cares if Karen King says it's authentic? She's the one who "discovered" it in the first place, what else would you expect her to say?

But Karen King, didn’t come out and say it was authentic, after only a couple of weeks of releasing the find.

According to the video in the link, she stated that many tests were done first, before deciding it was authentic. And I’m not sure when the video was produced, but the article was dated Jan 2013, which would coincide with your anticipated release date.

Anyway, judging by your previous post, you seem to think that people claiming something is fake, only after a couple of weeks of it’s release date, is something that’s ok to do, believe and promote. Which clearly isn’t very scientific.

You also said this below in your initial reply…

Originally posted by adjensen
That was over a year ago. Any rational person would say that they tested it, it was not legitimate, and they quietly let it go away to save face. I contacted Mark Goodacre a couple of months ago, and he confirmed that the authentication results have not been released.

If what you say above is true, than neither one of us knows for sure, if it’s completely authentic yet. (see A below)

But either way, you shouldn’t be assuming that it’s fake IMO, just based on a few summaries, which were only declared, a couple of weeks, after Karen King first released the find, to the world.

Originally posted by adjensen
Common sense would indicate that the testing showed the fragment to be a forgery, and rather than embarrass Karen King, Yale, Harvard and the Smithsonian, it was decided to just drop the matter and hope that people forget about it, which they apparently have -- here you are, saying that it is authentic!

For the record, I never said it was authentic, I said 2 professors had stated, it was authentic…big difference.
(see A below)


There’s also this below, from the Harvard Divinity School website…

Here Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Professor of Linguistics at Hebrew University and a leading expert on Coptic language, was asked to consider the text's language. He concluded that the language itself offered no evidence of forgery.

Thus, on the basis of the age of the papyrus, the placement and absorption of the ink on the page, the type of the handwriting, and the Coptic grammar and spelling, it was concluded that it is highly probable that the fragment is an ancient text. Although a final conclusion about the parchment's authenticity remains open to further examination by colleagues and to further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink, these assurances were sufficient for work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment to begin in earnest.

Source

Here’s part of your initial post again below…

Originally posted by adjensen
That was over a year ago. Any rational person would say that they tested it, it was not legitimate, and they quietly let it go away to save face.

The problem with your stance, is that it is one of… “it’s fake, (based only declarations made, after only 2 weeks, of its initial release) pending further investigations”…

(A) When based on the 2 professor’s, in the sources above, the more accurate position, (And my own) appears to be one of … “It’s most likely authentic, pending further investigations”


- JC

see above someones messin wit me.

Doubtful not enough info to include the laughter necessary.

adjensen
reply to post by Joecroft

adjensenWho cares if Karen King says it's authentic? She's the one who "discovered" it in the first place, what else would you expect her to say?
What matters is the physical testing of the papyrus and ink, which was supposed to have taken place a year ago. Today, no results have been announced, the Harvard Theological Review declined to publish the article that King wrote on the fragment (they had previously accepted the paper for publication, pending review,) and the Smithsonian Channel cancelled the documentary program that they had already produced and were ready to air in September 2012.

Thats a real shame; as we the people should be the "peer" reviewers of better judgement. How is this non-disclosure of information relevant? Because its not allowed to become part of our popular culture? Doesnt everyone have the NagHammati Gnostic Library of excluded texts to the Bible at their fingertips on the bedside table? Embarrass whom the finder; what kind of lame excuse is that; to not air "information" for mass consumption. Who makes up these ridiculous rules regarding disemination of (potencially toxic and confusing) information harmful to the children of earth? There is something called a "disclaimer" that can run before and after an aired broadcast (basically a hands in the air emoticon).

adjensen Common sense would indicate that the testing showed the fragment to be a forgery, and rather than embarrass Karen King, Yale, Harvard and the Smithsonian, it was decided to just drop the matter and hope that people forget about it, which they apparently have -- here you are, saying that it is authentic!

I didnt see any proclaimation of that sort. Its also shame that the White Salamander document of Joseph Smiths 'channeling' was studied; he wrote it (apparently special salamanders named Moroni actually have the capability of speech) was deemed just credible enough (WHEW) and birthed a brand new faith! Still puzzling over that one, Jesus should have been the one doing the talking, not an educated lizard creature. You may be wondering what my point is; information is becoming harder and harder to deseminate especially if of potentially contentious nature/content. No one has any guts anymore to go out on a limb and publish. Peer review is all that is needed. Mormons would say so; nezpas?

reply to post by Joecroft

But Karen King, didn’t come out and say it was authentic, after only a couple of weeks of releasing the find.

Yes, she did. Both her and the other people who say that it's authentic on Harvard's web site did so in September 2012, at the conference where it was announced.

According to the video in the link, she stated that many tests were done first, before deciding it was authentic. And I’m not sure when the video was produced, but the article was dated Jan 2013, which would coincide with your anticipated release date.

The video is also from the September 2012 announcement, and the "tests" were her showing the fragment to a couple of other people, who said that it looked real to them.

So far as I know, King hasn't made any public statements on the fragment after the Fall of 2012, when she said that announcing it without verifying its authenticity, by a physical dating of the material, was a mistake.

Anyway, judging by your previous post, you seem to think that people claiming something is fake, only after a couple of weeks of it’s release date, is something that’s ok to do, believe and promote. Which clearly isn’t very scientific.

You apparently aren't aware of how it was demonstrated to be a fake, or at least highly suspect. People who know Coptic from that era said that it was very strangely written, like it was by someone who hardly knew the language.

That led Coptic scholars to a deeper examination of the text, and Francis Watson of Durham University discovered that the entire front of the fragment (the back may be authentic, but it's not the controversial part) had been constructed with Coptic words taken from a Coptic copy of the Gospel of Thomas, like how a kidnapper cuts words out of a newspaper and pastes them on a letter to create a ransom note.

They even figured out that the forger used a specific online copy of Thomas, because there is a typo in the fragment text which is also present in Michael Grondin's Interlinear Coptic-English Translation of the Gospel of Thomas online.

Those findings are what caused the cancellation of the television program and academic paper -- King was told to go get the fragment dated if she had any hope of restoring its credibility, and that apparently did not work out.

You can read Watson's papers here: Mark Goodacre's academic blog

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by Joecroft
But Karen King, didn’t come out and say it was authentic, after only a couple of weeks of releasing the find.

Originally posted by adjensen
Yes, she did. Both her and the other people who say that it's authentic on Harvard's web site did so in September 2012, at the conference where it was announced.

Originally posted by adjensen
The video is also from the September 2012 announcement, and the "tests" were her showing the fragment to a couple of other people, who said that it looked real to them.

So far as I know, King hasn't made any public statements on the fragment after the Fall of 2012, when she said that announcing it without verifying its authenticity, by a physical dating of the material, was a mistake.

But even if she did do that, after releasing it, she still claimed tests were done, showing it had at least some authenticity, before announcing the finding.

Perhaps she jumped the gun, in declaring it was authentic, but there was clearly more than one professor involved, and there was apparent Scholarly evidence, showing that it was likely to be authentic.

Just because she abused protocol, by announcing it was authentic early, doesn’t mean the find is NOT authentic, it just means she should have waited.

Originally posted by adjensen
You apparently aren't aware of how it was demonstrated to be a fake, or at least highly suspect. People who know Coptic from that era said that it was very strangely written, like it was by someone who hardly knew the language.

Well, you said in your other posts, that they were still awaiting tests, so claiming it’s fake, seems a little to early IMO. Perhaps waiting for these final results to arrive, would be best before jumping to any conclusions.

Also, as far as I’m aware, there are only a few experts on the Coptic language, in the entire World…roughly about 5 or 6 Scholars…

It seems to me, that to forge something like this, you would have to have a pretty good knowledge of the Coptic language, and there are only so many scholars, that do…???

Originally posted by adjensen
That led Coptic scholars to a deeper examination of the text, and Francis Watson of Durham University discovered that the entire front of the fragment (the back may be authentic, but it's not the controversial part) had been constructed with Coptic words taken from a Coptic copy of the Gospel of Thomas, like how a kidnapper cuts words out of a newspaper and pastes them on a letter to create a ransom note.

They even figured out that the forger used a specific online copy of Thomas, because there is a typo in the fragment text which is also present in Michael Grondin's Interlinear Coptic-English Translation of the Gospel of Thomas online.

Could it not just be a case of the same scribe, with the same linguistic style, and tendencies…?

Originally posted by adjensen
Those findings are what caused the cancellation of the television program and academic paper -- King was told to go get the fragment dated if she had any hope of restoring its credibility, and that apparently did not work out.

You can read Watson's papers here: Mark Goodacre's academic blog

If it “apparently did not work”, as you say, then what findings/results, (that you mentioned in your other post), are they currently waiting on, if it’s already been proven that it’s a fake…?

- JC

adjensen
reply to post by Joecroft

adjensen That led Coptic scholars to a deeper examination of the text, and Francis Watson of Durham University discovered that the entire front of the fragment (the back may be authentic, but it's not the controversial part) had been constructed with Coptic words taken from a Coptic copy of the Gospel of Thomas, like how a kidnapper cuts words out of a newspaper and pastes them on a letter to create a ransom note.

Not sure how my post here fits the 'cup-grail' topic of this unlikely thread. Did you know that Jesus wrote and spoke Hebrew, Coptic and Greek languages. Someone told me once Jesus was illiterate! (pretty sure the education started in Alexandria as a youngun) Im not sure how a kidnapper paper cutter works here in the mix, (CIA involvement probably). Coptic language is muddy (youd understand if you heard the translation in English), subtitles or cartoon bubbles needed holding the message above the head of the speaker. Coptic noise sounds nothing like anything you have ever heard translated to English vowels and consonants (ennunciations) Mediterranian Eubonics probably applies here.

adjensenThose findings are what caused the cancellation of the television program and academic paper -- King was told to go get the fragment dated if she had any hope of restoring its credibility, and that apparently did not work out.

I take it you are not an enthusiast/supporter of Kings 'alledged' findings after all.

reply to post by Joecroft

Also, as far as I’m aware, there are only a few experts on the Coptic language, in the entire World…roughly about 5 or 6 Scholars…

It seems to me, that to forge something like this, you would have to have a pretty good knowledge of the Coptic language, and there are only so many scholars, that do…???

No, there are a number of Coptic scholars, and the clue that tipped them off to this being a fake was that whoever wrote it didn't really know Coptic all that well. If the piece was authentic, it would have been written by someone for whom ancient Coptic was their native language, so it immediately caused suspicion.

Could it not just be a case of the same scribe, with the same linguistic style, and tendencies…?

No, you're not understanding what happened.

Within the last ten years, a guy named Michael Grondin posted a web page with his translation of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (available here). In preparing his translation, he made a mistake (since fixed,) a typo, on one of the words -- he'd accidentally left a letter off, turning one Coptic word into two nonsense words. That typo also appears on the Gospel of Jesus Wife, proving that Grondin's translation of the Gospel of Thomas was the source from where the forger copied the Coptic words that he drew on the fragment.

If it “apparently did not work”, as you say, then what findings/results, (that you mentioned in your other post), are they currently waiting on, if it’s already been proven that it’s a fake…?

As I told you, Karen King was supposed to have the fragment and the ink carbon dated and analyzed to demonstrate that both are from the Fourth Century. That wouldn't dispel all distrust, because the papyrus probably is that old -- you can buy 1600 year old blank papyrus pieces on the antiquities market -- but it's pretty much her only hope for saving face.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Did you know that Jesus wrote and spoke Hebrew, Coptic and Greek languages.

No, I did not know that Jesus spoke Coptic, and rather doubt that he did. We know that he read and spoke both Hebrew and Greek because he quotes both the Septaguint and the Masoric scriptures.

I take it you are not an enthusiast/supporter of Kings 'alledged' findings after all.

I thought it was a load of pants when it first was announced, because the Gnostic Christians had all sorts of wild claims, and Jesus being married would just be another one of them. I did think it was authentic, though, until the disclosure of copying from Gospel of Thomas came out.

adjensen
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

VHBDid you know that Jesus wrote and spoke Hebrew, Coptic and Greek languages.

adjensenNo, I did not know that Jesus spoke Coptic, and rather doubt that he did. We know that he read and spoke both Hebrew and Greek because he quotes both the Septaguint and the Masoric scriptures.

Oh yes he did; and you are not telling me anything new that I do not already know.
Coptic is a bridge language he knew it and spoke it.

VHB
I take it you are not an enthusiast/supporter of Kings 'alledged' findings after all.

adjensen thought it was a load of pants when it first was announced, because the Gnostic Christians had all sorts of wild claims, and Jesus being married would just be another one of them. I did think it was authentic, though, until the disclosure of copying from Gospel of Thomas came out.

You sure it was not actually "Thomas the Contender"? Wild claims of Jesus having hormones that drive sexual impulse; PURE INSANITY. You are going to tell me he was of a Ghandi type? Brothers in celebacy (its a sacred doctrine relagated to the divine only). Mohammed had 16 wives after his one and only beloved died. Islam enjoys/embraces the sexual act of procreation apparently (multiple wives etc.). Nah, Jesus was immaculate (ignored all impulse of procreation); yet you would think he'd be the first to progress his bloodline/lineage, after all 'son of God status'. Leave some DNA in the wake of beingness (never knew he'd have to proove his own existance, too late now).

vethumanbeing
Belcastro
i made a thread about the bloodline conspiracy..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BelcastroDid God create the Human Race before Adam and Eve? The Bloodline conspiracy is that the bible revolves around a Bloodline going back from adam up to jesus. The conspiracy here is that there is a certain bloodline that God had set up to rule the earth and that is why they call jesus the son of david; Because supposedly the davidic line goes all the way back to abraham, and Adam.

Thankyou; Belcastro for referenced thread 979887; Ive always had the opinion that the judeo/christian Adam and Eve was just another future overlay embodieing a past one; another culture that had that existed previously (Sumerian) would be one of them (as a template). Keep the Adama Eva alive throughout the cultures on earth. Truth disguised as metaphor fairy stories. Its always the same story throughout many civilizations; (the same repeditive story with many religious dictomes--like Noahs flood).

edit on 28-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

The story of Adam and Eve is nothing more than an allegorical tale to explain to the village idiots why they were farming instead of hunting and gathering. Humans discover they can shape the earth and produce a steady food source. No longer forced to face the possibility of starving to death following the seasons and food sources they are now like God.