Talk:The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Ken Mondschein
I removed Ken Mondschein's review and debunking of the book from the external links and references section because the NY Press link was a dead end.
Bloodline theory
The Resurrection of Jesus article says
- Other writers claim that Jesus was taken from Roman custody when the crowds asked instead for Barabbas. These theories have given rise to such works of pseudohistory as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which espouses the idea that the Merovingian kings were descendants of Jesus.
It's been too long since I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail for me to be sure, but I do not recall the bloodline theory being dependent on Jesus not being crucified or surviving the crucifixion, merely on Mary Magdalene carying his offspring. If that is indeed the case, could someone please update the reference in that article?
Ray Dassen 21:51, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
To the nit-picker
The essence of the book is the debunking of Christ. The authors may be wrong on everything else but the simple truth still stands: Jesus Christ was nothing more than a political figure. While the Christians attack the book and foam at the mouth to prove it is a hoax, no-one has debunked the most important part. This is the reason the book attracts so much attention, not because it's about secret societies or some mystery in france. As far as I can tell both sides of the debate are equally at fault for using post-hoc, red herring arguments. (Another good read is: The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (Allegro, John M.) one of the dead-see scroll researchers interesting interpretation of the bible)
-James C
Essential problem with the thesis of book
Appears to be the following: Several centuries' worth of absence of "hatch, match and despatch" records and many short lives - if Jesus did leave heirs there would be no way to trace them. The point in favour of the book (& related volumes) - if it encourages investigation of the obscurer corners of history. Anyone wishing to make use of the first point can, with acknowledgement. Jackiespeel 18:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone care to apply Occam's Razor to the plausibility of this book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.15.68 (talk • contribs) .
Neutrality Dispute?
A disputed neutrality notice was added without explanation or justification. I am therefore removing it. Loremaster 2 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
- I will replace this with the correct notice as soon as I find which notice that is. —Phil | Talk 09:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Arguments against the thesis
Can I add the arguments John Locke used in the first of the Two Treatises of Government about not knowing Adam's heir to my previous comments: there is equally no way of determining Jesus' heir.
Did any of the dark age local royal families claim descent from Jesus - rather than local chief gods? Jackiespeel 18:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Holy Blood, Holy Grail sheds light...a different perspective 02/15/2006
In regards to my resent research on the subject of Christianity, it led me to a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail": by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. This has a truly been a fascinating look at the history behind Christianity. What is fascinating is that no one is truly certain of that history, and yet, assumptions are made on both sides and a generation of people have been affected by this religion (including myself.)
Honestly, it has affected me so much so, that I feel as though I’m breaking up with a long-term boyfriend by questioning it all. A friend said to me,
“It is better to have been raised in a religion, like Christianity, to protect you from yourself. However, it is not good to die in the same religion.”
I’m not sure if I agree with him. I think it is not good to be raised in a religion because some never leave or even question the belief system, and the ones that do question it or leave are forever haunted by it. Granted, a few may leave and be completely free of it, and I say bravo to them; I hope to be free of it as well someday.
In short, what I went through it is nothing less than brainwash, true or not. And now I am attempting to undue all previous conceptions. Fortunately, each day it gets a little easier to swallow. There is so much information provided and hidden in this world which argues who exactly Jesus was. Some claim the information hasn’t been revealed for society’s sake because there would be mass pandemonium. I think this could be unfortunately true. Honestly, we should be able to make up our own minds and not be led down a path.
But there are two parts to any controlling relationship, the controller and the one being controlled. The one being controlled is just as guilty because they allowed themselves to be controlled. This is also true in abusive situations. If you really wanted to fight for your life or find confidence in yourself, you would. But, for some, they chose to be the victim. Or as far as religion is concerned, they chose to believe in something to have answers to the “why” questions. Here I must ask, why do we have to have answers at all?
Although, I have come to these conclusions on my own, I fortunately have others who share in my findings and agree with me. One being my love. I must quote him here because he has mastered living life without needing to have all the answers. He said to me, “Heather, I never said it would be easier on this side.” He’s absolutely right. Even so, it is more free, surprisingly, than when I was “saved” and lived in a religion where you just “know” and “believe.”
If you haven’t read it, read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail": by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. It is very meticulously researched and amazingly put together, but there are many presumptions, which the writers confess to making as well. I must say, though, the presumptions aren't any more far-fetched than the presumptions made by the Bible.
I read every book now as pure fiction because I will never see the proof. The more I read and the more I research, the more it will lead me to searching for proof by a cross-reference here and there, which I simply don’t have time for. So, what is my answer? I am going to live. Simply put, and attempt to do so in such a way where I stop asking “why?” I am going to just take life as a gift.
I will end this with a quote that states my conclusion well, and that is this:
It doesn’t matter if I was “saved” or not. My eggs were in a basket that may not exist.
Fiction?
Under the dewey decimal system (at my local library) this book is 232.9 in the non-fiction section. Unless I am mistaken, this book would be considered a work of non-fiction, whether or not the information is true. Talamor 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Pax Romanus' post
This does not pertain directly to HBHG. However, I feel it is a fact worth mentioning in this particular discussion room- for all who are interested. The speculations and hypotheses which compose this novel do oppose accepted ideas of Christianity as a whole. However, they confront more directly and are associated more closely with European Catholicism. I will assert, here, that Old Testament-New Testament Christianity is not Catholicism. In fact, Christainity is truly not a religion at all. It is a relationship with God which is founded upon three simple things- Forgiveness from God (which Jesus paid for with His life) love from God (which He offers willingly, on account that He made us for His Own glory) and a relationship with God (which He offers to us to strengthen us every day). As you have assuredly already withdrawn- the Templar Knights, Rennes-le-Chateau, Gisors, the Prieure documents, and les Dossiers secrets, all have nothing whatsoever to relate to this relationship with God. They are modern man's conjections, founded upon ancient conjections and faded papyrus documents written by groups that we would consider today to be cults. I admire the authors of HBHG for their reseraching fervor and for their rich secular knowledge. I recently saw a TV interview with one of the authors where he said, "I neither believe nor disbelieve anything." So, at the root of it all, these men are not so different- they are as unsure as everyone else. I do hope that, with further research they will find that no historical text is as solid and thorough as God's Word itself. I'm a Christian, not foaming at the mouth to attack this novel, but I stand to say: There is a profound, life changing Truth that exists in this world. And it is no secret- it is open to everyone. It is the hope and forgiveness that God offers to us all. Pax Romanus.
Hoax?
A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. To trick people, the creators have to believe that their claims are false. I don't believe this is the case here. I can see good arguments for this being pseudohistory, but not for it being a hoax. Does anyone mind if I remove the hoax reference? KalevTait 00:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- After looking into it a bit more I've discoverd that it's claim of hoax is based on it being created by Pierre Plantard. Instead of removing the word hoax, I'll edit to make it clearer who was the originator of the hoax. KalevTait 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
