The book just got popular around here this year, hardly heard of it before then. I was thinking about picking up a copy of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".
The book just got popular around here this year, hardly heard of it before then. I was thinking about picking up a copy of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".
My friend at uni told me about it last year. Said her dad had borrowed her the book and I should really get a copy because it was interesting. My grand bought my copy at Woolworths last March and I had it finished afew months later, I read several novels at once. And I had never read anything else on it till end of last year when someone mentioned a movie being made on a forum I was a member of.
I made a thread I think it was last week about purcashing other books that contain material related to DVC. And I was going to get a copy myself and asked if anyone had read it. Some people have read it, there are some other books avaliable. fantasyjunkie told me of a USA magazine that had covered some good stuff on the subject. Im trying to track it down.I was thinking about picking up a copy of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".
The movie looks good, think they coulda got someone better to play Langdon though...*mumbles*
I personally think Tom will be great as Robert. Who would you have chosen? And Im glad McKellen and Reno have been pulled into it. It will be one great movie.
...just about anyone but him...never really like him much. I just wish I had the money to go see it >_<
Im meant to be going home Friday till SundayI really, really wanted to go opening night, but my chances are looking very slim.
Da Vinci is not a person. That's what I'm saying. Da Vinci is not something used to specify a person.Originally Posted by Bert
they're the same person then, he was saying Da Vinci was not the same person, or that's how I read it.
Since when is Da Vanci not a person? Or am I understanding you wrong?
Don't need to be so techincal, that's what he's most commonly known as. It'd be like say William Clinton and Bill Clinton are different people since well Bill isn't really his name.Da Vinci is not a person. That's what I'm saying. Da Vinci is not something used to specify a person.they're the same person then, he was saying Da Vinci was not the same person, or that's how I read it.
Oh. I guess I did misunderstand you >_>
"Da Vinci" is Italian for "Of Vinci". Vinci is a town in Italy.
Therefore, "Leonardo Da Vinci" loosely translates as "Leonardo from Vinci". His actual name was just "Leonardo", but to distinguish him from other Leonardos, he was known as the Leonardo from Vinci.
And I completely disagree with everything the has been said about the Da Vinci Code being fact. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither pro nor anti-Christianity, but most of the information contained in the Da Vinci Code is neither fact, <i>nor does Dan Brown claim it to be</i>. That is the biggest mistake that conspiracy theorists are making, and if they'd actually bothered to read the opening page in the book, would've noticed that it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. There is <i>no</i> mention of the theories addressed by the <i>fictional</i> characters in the book.
Sure, the Catholic Church has gotten all up in arms about it, denouncing it as blasphemy and whatnot; that doesn't mean that they're trying to hide something. They get up in arms over many things (take Harry Potter for example). Sure, the Knights' Templar existed, the Priory of Sion existed (albeit not as it was portrayed in the book, and has been all but proven beyond doubt that it was a fabrication of one man in the '50s), but all they were, were secret organisations. Much in the way the US Delta Force, or whatever the hell goes on at Area 51 is secret. The leaders of countries at war, suprisingly enough, don't want to reveal their strategies and secrets to the enemy, in this case which happened to be the Knights' Templar.
But tell me honestly, if you would believe, or even know of these things about Christianity if you had not read the Da Vinci Code. The book is a work of fiction and there are a select group who have taken it as fact and believed it.
True, the events and characters in The Da Vinci Code are obviously fictional, but the ideas addressed in the book (such as the Priory of Sion and many others) are supported by authentic research in non-fiction books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The Templar Revelations."Da Vinci" is Italian for "Of Vinci". Vinci is a town in Italy.
Therefore, "Leonardo Da Vinci" loosely translates as "Leonardo from Vinci". His actual name was just "Leonardo", but to distinguish him from other Leonardos, he was known as the Leonardo from Vinci.
And I completely disagree with everything the has been said about the Da Vinci Code being fact. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither pro nor anti-Christianity, but most of the information contained in the Da Vinci Code is neither fact, <i>nor does Dan Brown claim it to be</i>. That is the biggest mistake that conspiracy theorists are making, and if they'd actually bothered to read the opening page in the book, would've noticed that it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. There is <i>no</i> mention of the theories addressed by the <i>fictional</i> characters in the book.
Sure, the Catholic Church has gotten all up in arms about it, denouncing it as blasphemy and whatnot; that doesn't mean that they're trying to hide something. They get up in arms over many things (take Harry Potter for example). Sure, the Knights' Templar existed, the Priory of Sion existed (albeit not as it was portrayed in the book, and has been all but proven beyond doubt that it was a fabrication of one man in the '50s), but all they were, were secret organisations. Much in the way the US Delta Force, or whatever the hell goes on at Area 51 is secret. The leaders of countries at war, suprisingly enough, don't want to reveal their strategies and secrets to the enemy, in this case which happened to be the Knights' Templar.
But tell me honestly, if you would believe, or even know of these things about Christianity if you had not read the Da Vinci Code. The book is a work of fiction and there are a select group who have taken it as fact and believed it.
Secondly, the history of the Priory of Sion is greatly convoluted, and you are making the common mistake of confusing the Ordre de Sion with the Priory of Sion. I will not go into the details, but suffice it to say that the name "Ordre de Sion" originated in the 11th century, while the Priory of Sion most likely came about in the 1950s (as you stated). Dan Brown, and many other writers, have chosen to classify both organizations as one for the sake of simplicity or belief that they are the same organization, which seems to be inaccurate according to legitimate research.
Lastly, the ideas and concepts presented in the Da Vinci Code are much older than the publication date of that book. In modern times, literature having to do with the topic of an alternate history to the life of Jesus Christ was made present in the mid 20th century (1950s), shortly before the Priory of Sion was supposedly organized by the recently deceased Frenchman Pierre Plantard (d. 2000). If you consider the ideas and concepts of this alternate history of Christianity to be true (as I do because I know they are fact), then they have been around for a much, much longer time than Dan Brown's prose has. So to answer your question, yes I did know about the ideas in The Da Vinci Code long before Dan Brown even began writing the book, and many other people have known about them as well. The bottom line is that they are no more 'facts' to the fundamentalist Christian than the Bible is 'fact' to an atheist or agnostic.
Oh, and Mary Magdalene is a Goddess that needs to be worshipped. BOW DOWN!!!!
-LYCHON
Last edited by Lychon; 05-18-2006 at 01:34 AM.
Are you aware that Richard Leigh, one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail has since changed his mind about much of the content contained within?
The Ordre de Sion was, until the 1200s, one and the same as the Knights' Templar. The supposed parting of these two organisations is something asserted only by documents from the Priory of Sion (You said yourself that the existence of the Priory before 1956 is unlikely.you are making the common mistake of confusing the Ordre de Sion with the Priory of Sion.
To quote a documentary I saw several days ago, "If you wanted to hide the existence of your organisation, why would you label your secret documents 'Dossiers Secrets' and place them in a famous public library?".
Nonetheless, supposed "sworn duty" of the Order of Sion is to restore the Merovingian dynasty to power - which was created 450 years <i>after</i> the time of Christ - <i>not</i> to protect the Holy Grail, making it a very different organisation to the Priory, who were supposed to have maintained the "truth" behind the Christian bloodline.
Does the fact that Christianity has been embedded and followed for two thousand years not give it more credibility than something that was brought to light 50 years ago, at the most; though most would say it was brought to light in 2003?The bottom line is that they are no more 'facts' to the fundamentalist Christian than the Bible is 'fact' to an atheist or agnostic.
Now I ask you, if you "know" for certain that Mary Magdalene and Jesus married; and a Christian "knows" for certain they didn't, who is right?
I had a long post written about Dan Brown bashing both his irrational critics and supporters. But I found a post at IIDB which sums it up better:
<i>The attention Dan Brown is getting would be like Michael Critchon getting all kinds of publicity because numerous creationist orginizations were objecting to his claims of dinosaurs ever existing while paleontologists from across the nation demand to know where the hell he got the idea that diplodocus had a neck frill and spit poison.</i>
Are you aware that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was written by 3 people? Are you also aware of the fact that much of the research in the book can be relegated to subjective interpretation?
The Ordre de Sion was not necessarily the same as the Knights Templar. (By the way, ‘Knights’ is not written with an apostrophe). It has been insinuated that the Knights Templar were the military arm of the Ordre de Sion, but this is once again a subjective notion which does not have definite support. It is also interesting how you suddenly open up about the Ordre de Sion, while in your first post above you make blatantly erroneous statements by just taking the Priory of Sion into account. In regards to the geneology charts, I never brought those up, but you are correct to state that it was most likely Plantard and his organization that fabricated them.
This is a subjective notion and has no bearing on my argument. You are responding to my last post in an argumentative fashion but you are not actually arguing anything. I never brought up the Dossier Secrets as legitimate documents. You are failing to see the big picture here. The big picture is that there is more to this than one megalomaniac in France who fabricated historical documents to support his claim for the French throne. There is also the mystery as of yet unresolved in Rennes-le-Chateau with Berenger Sauniere; there are the Cathars of the Middle Ages; there are the countless Apocrypha (both of Judaism and Christianity) which recount strikingly different portrayals of Jesus Christ and other individuals in his time; there are the Knights Templar and the question of there rapid acquisition of wealth and power, not to mention the disappearance of their treasure; there are the underlying themes of Arcadia and the Rosicrucian and Freemason involvement in the matter of an alternate history of Christianity; there is the surge of Holy Grail writings and allusions during the Middle Ages which appear to be related to some Christian Apocrypha; there are concepts of the French dynasties and their relations to Christianity’s alternate history; and of course, there is the Ordre de Sion and the Priory of Sion, which you fortunately now acknowledge as being two separate entities.
The research has already been done and if you choose not to believe it, then that is entirely up to you. It hasn’t been proven of course, but neither has the Bible. Some people prefer one view, and some people prefer the other. I am limited to what I can say in this post because I do not want to reveal some of my own research, but I can tell you that Sion, France, Jesus Christ, and Mary Magdalene are much more related than the false writings of Pierre Plantard.
The oncoming of the French Merovingian dynasty 450 years after the time of Christ is irrelevant because descendants of Christ could have intermarried in this dynasty, therefore further sheltering and protecting any kind of ‘bloodline’ within a royal kingdom. The history of the Merovingian’s is not complete, therefore making assumptions about their ‘creation’ and calling them an ‘organization’ is completely mistaken. Also, the Priory of Sion has never made its intentions fully clear, and even if the Dossiers Secrets and other documents (such as Le Serpent Rouge) were proven to be fabrications of Pierre Plantard, the true intention of the organization may still remain unclear (especially now since Plantard has passed away). The bloodline of Christ, however, does play a central role in all of these cryptic enigmas, and it warrants much more than a careless dismissal of Plantard’s short-lived organization.
Christianity has greater credibility because of tradition and traditional beliefs. People who have believed one story their entire lives are not about to abandon their dreams and belief systems for something they just heard. You are confusing credibility with truth, which is actually a rather interesting sophism, but overall quite unoriginal. You must also remember, that if the bloodline of Christ and the organizations surrounding it are true, then that version of Christianity is much, much, older than the organization of the first Christian Church. For example, Scientology is about 40 years old, but yet you see previous Christians and members of other religions subscribing to it, despite Christianity being much older. Age has little to do with what we are after: the truth.
Belief and faith create different concepts of ‘facts’ and ‘knowledge.’ No one is ‘right’ until something is PROVEN right or something is proven wrong. Since we are talking about religion here, that is unlikely to happen. Therefore, no one is actually ‘right,’ but some people ‘know’ that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus Christ and that she rules. In the same manner, some people 'know' that The Da Vinci Code is all bull and that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
P.S. BOW DOWN TO MARY MAGDALENE like a Mo'Smurfer!!!!
-LYCHON
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
