I could tell you who rules the world, but I'm sworn to secrecy
and giant cockroaches would eat my brain if I revealed
any of our secrets.
:cool:
Printable View
I could tell you who rules the world, but I'm sworn to secrecy
and giant cockroaches would eat my brain if I revealed
any of our secrets.
:cool:
i think they already ate. :DQuote:
Originally posted here by rcgreen
I could tell you who rules the world, but I'm sworn to secrecy
and giant cockroaches would eat my brain if I revealed
any of our secrets.
:cool:
I have just been convince to read this book. I wanted to read De Vinci Code already but I moved it to the top. :) I love technology, I just reserved a copy for the local lib. in another window.
If you want to read the davinci code, try Jesus went to India, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and The Hiram Key same crap without the story or pretnese of fiction t oget it mainstreamed. as for brown's acuracy in historical facts dead sea scrolls actualy discovered in 1957, templars didn't bulid catherdrals, Louve 673 pains of glass (not the 666 he claims), the dead sea scrolls are exclusively old testament and jewish texts. The councile at Nieca voted 300 to 2 on the divinaty of christ not real a close vote. While it was normal for a jewish man to be married in jesues day, but unuseual for a profit/holy man to be married.
Here is a very good look at the book http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm#_ftn4
Comon guys this crap should up in the early 80's and was dismissed then, now because some hack drops some action sequences around it you think its real.
The Templars built a bunch of churches (or is the discussion about the difference between a church and a cathedral?). Here's the most famous one (also in the book).
The wrong date on the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls is correct (Teabing in the book:"The Dead Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert.", while it was actually 1947 - not 1957 like you state).
And again: almost all the quotes from that site you quote are in the book said by Teabing, a weirdo Grail-hunter...
umm neg the quotes from teabing are there beacuse they are refuteing them, as for the dead sea scrolls you are correct typo on my part 47 is correct, althoug hsome folks claim earlyer and some fragments may have been serculateing in the underground antiuity collectors from the 30's. regardless his date was off, a rather recint date Iwould add...a lot of his crap was off he identified a famus painting of John the baptist as a painting of jesues...common fiction is fiction but he should claim his facts are correct if he is taking poetic license with the truth.
as for this whole holy blood holy grail crap...a lot of what they want to claim is based of the gospel of thomas. Pure gnosticism...but they some how get it wrong or lie about it...their belief christianity was origionaly a femanistic religion with a female deity, gnostic beleived that women where less then men and that to reach holyness a women had to become a man.
This crap is just pure new agism...take bits and peices out of the past , throw out any bit you don't agree with, mash it all together and mix in a healthy dose of femanism, don't worry about reality on the way.
This one is easy there is a big diferance between a church and a cathedrial, a cathedral is the seat of the diacies, ie the seat of power for the region, in the middle ages it would have also been a place of learning. A church is a small place of worship, a cathedrial will contain multipul churches inside its walls, and manage many others the inverse of that is not true.
The way I see it is that Brown has a nice theory (supported by dozens of scientists):
Fact: Godfried du Bouillon founded Les Pauvres Chevaliers du Temple (Poor Knights of the Temple / Knights Templars) in 1118 to escort knights to Jerusalem and to protect christianity.
Fact: Templars got Papal protection, didn't have to pay taxes,...
Fact: on Friday, October 13 (that's where our Friday the 13th comes from), 1307, most Knights Templars were murdered.
Brown uses these facts to fund his theory: the Templars brought back the Holy Grail (whatever that is), the Pope feared them for that (imagine what would happen to christianity when they'd release the contents) so gave them his protection, richness (the Templars turned from Poor Knights to Filthy Rich Knights),... Some 200 years later, the Pope thinks it's been enough and has them all murdered to avoid them releasing the secret of the Holy Grail and having to pay ransom.
The truth? Who knows... could be...
Fact: the Prieure de Sion does exist (it's related to the Freemasons, just like P2 is. P2 was a real organization, btw). The question is whether it's the same one as Brown's... The "modern" Prieure de Sion claims to have its roots in the Templars movement.
Brown: the Priory of Sion is a secret organization, responsible for keeping the Templars' secret (the Holy Grail) a secret.
Brown uses Da Vinci (why? Because the Prieure de Sion claims Da Vinci was one of their leaders) to support his theory. The problem of course is that nobody knows what Da Vinci was thinking when he made his paintings.
If you're trying to prove that Da Vinci did not paint a woman in The Last Supper, you'll get nowhere, just like you'll get nowhere trying to prove that he actually did paint Mary Magdalene. Fact is that there's no chalice to be seen in that painting, which is of course used by Brown as "proof" that the Holy Grail is not the actual chalice, but has a symbolic meaning...
Teabing (in the book) is the one coming up with theories like the previous one, and most of them can be discussed until hell freezes over. There's no proof for them, but it all sounds logical (mostly thanks to Brown's writing style) and coherent. In fact, it makes more sense than the "real" version, and that's what's interesting about the book, imo...
RoadClosed: true or not, it's a great book. You should also pick up Digital Fortress (also by Dan Brown): it's basically the same book (big conspiracy theory), but this time about the NSA and encryption algo's...
There was a special on TV recently (Primetime Live, or something like that, one of the news shows) about whether or not Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or if that was a story created by the Catholic church to discredit a woman who was shown to have power in the Bible, and then tied in to the Illuminati and a group of French people who are said to be descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It was absolutely fascinating, but one of the most interesting things brought up in the whole program was that there are people who apparently believe that Mary Magdalene was in fact the holy grail.
I will try to see if I can find it on google and link it here, it was a very interesting program if nothing else. I am not going to make a judgement call on whether or not I believe it, because there are (if you're open-minded enough to listen) valid arguments on both sides.
Editted to add link.
Deb: The single most interesting fact supporting that theory, must be the word "Holy Grail" itself. It's an erroneous translation...
What the Templars brought back, was the Sang Real - French for the Real Blood. Some bozo managed to "translate" that to Holy Grail... understandable maybe, since Holy Grail in French is "San Greal"... San Greal (or Saint Greal, meaning Holy Grail) and Sang Real (meaning Real Blood) are pronounced the same way.