Full Version: excalibur, hoyl grail
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
i wonder were it could be??
QUOTE(inuronin @ Dec 24 2004, 07:49 PM)
i wonder were it could be??
[right][snapback]421622[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]421622[/snapback][/right]
Yay banned!
wasnt excalibur thrown back in the lake it came from, or given back to nimue, lady of the lake?
and the holy grail? well if it really exists its probably somewhere in some monastery, btw where did it come from? was it the cup that jezus drank from at his last meal?
can't remember
and the holy grail? well if it really exists its probably somewhere in some monastery, btw where did it come from? was it the cup that jezus drank from at his last meal?
can't remember
QUOTE(sultanmuratova @ Jan 4 2005, 08:16 PM)
wasnt excalibur thrown back in the lake it came from, or given back to nimue, lady of the lake?
and the holy grail? well if it really exists its probably somewhere in some monastery, btw where did it come from? was it the cup that jezus drank from at his last meal?
can't remember
[right][snapback]436748[/snapback][/right]
and the holy grail? well if it really exists its probably somewhere in some monastery, btw where did it come from? was it the cup that jezus drank from at his last meal?
can't remember
[right][snapback]436748[/snapback][/right]
the holy grail was the cup used in the last supper
or... Mary Magdelene 
I was under the impression that both of these items were invented during the medival period, as an object of pursuit for the knights, and as part of the legend of Camelot. I am not a student of this period, however, and could well be wrong.
Excalibar was King Arthurs magic sword, and the holy grail was pursued by the Knights Templar, it was the cup of Jesus, used at the Last Supper, or Mary Magdelene.
(source DaVinci Code)
(source DaVinci Code)
what makes a cup so speacial if it was used by jesus? does it have magical powers hahahaha
QUOTE(themannamedpatty @ Jan 4 2005, 10:21 PM)
what makes a cup so speacial if it was used by jesus? does it have magical powers hahahaha
[right][snapback]436911[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]436911[/snapback][/right]
It sure did when Indiana Jones found it in The Last Crusade.
Yeah Indiana Jone found it, damn those Nazis lose it somewhere in the trench! 
May CR know where it is since he know where everything is
May CR know where it is since he know where everything is
Unexplained--The Da Vinci Code is almost wholly based upon a speculative "non-fiction" book titled: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", in which the researchers present possible correlations between factual history and ancient legends pertaining to the "Holy Grail".
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
As far as the exact location of the "Holy Grail", one theory states: supposedly there is an ancient "holy" man who resides over a church/monastery somewhere in Africa--I'm pretty sure it was Africa--who claims to be the guardian of the chalice of Christ. I have heard (only heard; not read or seen) that this cup, which according to legend, was used at the last supper and later caught droplets of blood from a crucified Jesus, is capable of healing and other such miracles. I would have to do some real research into this story to be able to say anything more on the subject.
dcman32
dcman32
QUOTE(dcman32 @ Jan 5 2005, 04:07 AM)
As far as the exact location of the "Holy Grail", one theory states: supposedly there is an ancient "holy" man who resides over a church/monastery somewhere in Africa--I'm pretty sure it was Africa--who claims to be the guardian of the chalice of Christ. I have heard (only heard; not read or seen) that this cup, which according to legend, was used at the last supper and later caught droplets of blood from a crucified Jesus, is capable of healing and other such miracles. I would have to do some real research into this story to be able to say anything more on the subject.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437087[/snapback][/right]
dcman32
[right][snapback]437087[/snapback][/right]
There is speculation that the ark of the covenant is in Ehtiopia. However, there is some debate if the grail is among the contents of the ark.
So if you find and aquire the...
Spear of Destiny, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, Excalibur, Piece of the True Cross, and the Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwhich... You become an all powerful immortal demi-god?
Spear of Destiny, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, Excalibur, Piece of the True Cross, and the Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwhich... You become an all powerful immortal demi-god?
QUOTE(Athenian @ Jan 5 2005, 06:40 PM)
So if you find and aquire the...
Spear of Destiny, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, Excalibur, Piece of the True Cross, and the Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwhich... You become an all powerful immortal demi-god?
[right][snapback]437827[/snapback][/right]
Spear of Destiny, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, Excalibur, Piece of the True Cross, and the Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwhich... You become an all powerful immortal demi-god?
[right][snapback]437827[/snapback][/right]
Well several of those who have had the spear did pretty dang well for themselves.
Lots of interesting stuff out there about the spear.
well, as the story goes, he who drinks from the grail shall become immortal. Or so thats whet the legend/story/myth/biblical story is.
as for the excalibur, if it did exhist, i would devote my life to find it. Seriously, can u imagine holding up the sword excalibur, it would almost be as good as holding up the stanley cup!
as for the excalibur, if it did exhist, i would devote my life to find it. Seriously, can u imagine holding up the sword excalibur, it would almost be as good as holding up the stanley cup!
I am reading the "Quest for the Holy Grail", I recommend the book to everyone who is interested in this. I have not finished it yet, but from what I have read so far my impression is that the Holy Grail is not simply the cup brought by Joseph of Arimathea to the British Islands but is a state of mind and the quest for the Grail is some kind of purification of the soul and finding your inner self. The story says that Galahad was the only one who had a pure soul and was able to see the real nature of the Holy Grail...
QUOTE(dcman32 @ Jan 4 2005, 08:57 PM)
Unexplained--The Da Vinci Code is almost wholly based upon a speculative "non-fiction" book titled: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", in which the researchers present possible correlations between factual history and ancient legends pertaining to the "Holy Grail".
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437077[/snapback][/right]
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437077[/snapback][/right]
kidding
My bad. I thought you were actually interested in the subject
Well at least the intoxicating mystery of the Holy Grail helped me decide my screename a few years back.
But seriously, dcman nailed the mythology. I use it as a core in my various fanfic writings.
-Windgrail
But seriously, dcman nailed the mythology. I use it as a core in my various fanfic writings.
-Windgrail
I think everybody has been looking for the rone thing....
During the time of christ,a "grail" was what they called a sort of ladder.You see,with the way the barial chambers were built,they had to lower the bodys into their final resting place.To do this,they would use a grail...but,as they sometimes do,the meaning of the word changed over time.
So I belive the Holy Grail is the simply the ladder that Jesus's body was lowered into his grave with,or at least it makes sence to me.
.....something to think about.
During the time of christ,a "grail" was what they called a sort of ladder.You see,with the way the barial chambers were built,they had to lower the bodys into their final resting place.To do this,they would use a grail...but,as they sometimes do,the meaning of the word changed over time.
So I belive the Holy Grail is the simply the ladder that Jesus's body was lowered into his grave with,or at least it makes sence to me.
.....something to think about.
Holy topic ressurection Batman!
Could you use that Holy Ladder to go where no man has gone before? 
Think about how powerful the holy grail must be.
It allowed for jesus to be reincarnated some time in the future (the second coming)
Now that is powerful if it allows things that are only possible in other religions
It allows the drinker to mix and match religious attributes.
Mind you it didn't do much for the disciples cos they all died and aren't expected to come back.
No wait duh
silly me
its only got any power if its used to catch your blood when youre hanging off a cross.
Bit like the spear of destiny only having power because it has christs blood on it.
See thats why the catholic church is against cloning experiments.
The world would be awash with saviours again just like it was during the time of jesus.
They really hate it when we get a choice don't they
It allowed for jesus to be reincarnated some time in the future (the second coming)
Now that is powerful if it allows things that are only possible in other religions
It allows the drinker to mix and match religious attributes.
Mind you it didn't do much for the disciples cos they all died and aren't expected to come back.
No wait duh
silly me
its only got any power if its used to catch your blood when youre hanging off a cross.
Bit like the spear of destiny only having power because it has christs blood on it.
See thats why the catholic church is against cloning experiments.
The world would be awash with saviours again just like it was during the time of jesus.
They really hate it when we get a choice don't they
Sorry to say it but the Grail is a plot device. It never existed. I base this on a few points. First the only mention of any special object called the grail begins in the 1100s in the story of Parcival. Originally it had nothing to do with King Arthur, or Jesus Christ. Later romantic authors tied it to the last supper and the crucifiction. Dan Browne's fantasy is a load of liberal nonsense that contradicts history on so many levels its not even funny. Also the Templars didn't search for the grail. They're lots of myths about what the Templars did mostly invented by secret societies wanting to put on airs(the modern Priori claims that it started the Templars, the Masons claim to be the remnants of the Templars to give jsut two examples) or paranoid conspiracy theorists with entirely to much time on there hands.
As for Excalibur its probably in a lake some where or possibly the Ocean. I believe Arthur was a real person(although probably blown very very far out of purportion) and its not unreasonable to think he had a sword supposedly magical called Excalibur.
As for Excalibur its probably in a lake some where or possibly the Ocean. I believe Arthur was a real person(although probably blown very very far out of purportion) and its not unreasonable to think he had a sword supposedly magical called Excalibur.
what i always wondered, was, that if jsus's followers really thought he was god, why didn't they follow him to the bathroom. i picture something like a monty python move "look, i have some of his urine! it passed through the master's body and must be holy!" if it happened, you don't hear of it! then again, maybe his feces looked like the virgin mary, or the holy ghost, or moses! the possibilities are endless, i'm serious. you hear weird stories about specimens of saint's blood, so..., even the buddhists have a shrine containing one of gautama's teeth, supposedly.
QUOTE(Bio-Mage @ Mar 25 2005, 01:47 AM)
Could you use that Holy Ladder to go where no man has gone before?
[right][snapback]540697[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]540697[/snapback][/right]
ummm....I hope not!
dont remeber but did excalibur have any special powers?
i dunno, but i went to the excalibur once in las vegas, it was fun.
i never saw it there, but i saw a bunch of hot women.
and hookers as well.
i never saw it there, but i saw a bunch of hot women.
and hookers as well.
QUOTE(Athenian @ Jan 5 2005, 12:40 PM)
So if you find and aquire the...
Spear of Destiny, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, Excalibur, Piece of the True Cross, and the Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwhich... You become an all powerful immortal demi-god?
[right][snapback]437827[/snapback][/right]
Spear of Destiny, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, Excalibur, Piece of the True Cross, and the Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwhich... You become an all powerful immortal demi-god?
[right][snapback]437827[/snapback][/right]
It's kinda like Voltron or power rangers put em all together and you get ultra messiah, a giant holy object with ass kicking powers second to none.
QUOTE(KevinM @ Mar 26 2005, 12:20 AM)
Sorry to say it but the Grail is a plot device. It never existed. I base this on a few points. First the only mention of any special object called the grail begins in the 1100s in the story of Parcival. Originally it had nothing to do with King Arthur, or Jesus Christ. Later romantic authors tied it to the last supper and the crucifiction. Dan Browne's fantasy is a load of liberal nonsense that contradicts history on so many levels its not even funny. Also the Templars didn't search for the grail. They're lots of myths about what the Templars did mostly invented by secret societies wanting to put on airs(the modern Priori claims that it started the Templars, the Masons claim to be the remnants of the Templars to give jsut two examples) or paranoid conspiracy theorists with entirely to much time on there hands.
As for Excalibur its probably in a lake some where or possibly the Ocean. I believe Arthur was a real person(although probably blown very very far out of purportion) and its not unreasonable to think he had a sword supposedly magical called Excalibur.
[right][snapback]541710[/snapback][/right]
As for Excalibur its probably in a lake some where or possibly the Ocean. I believe Arthur was a real person(although probably blown very very far out of purportion) and its not unreasonable to think he had a sword supposedly magical called Excalibur.
[right][snapback]541710[/snapback][/right]
uhuh.
funny cos in a lot of the older arthurian legends his sword doesn't have a name at all
Excalibur is a plot device, a symbol of kingship the same as the trident in sumeria and the eye of horus in egypt
next you'll be telling us that robin of the hood was a real person too
and dick turpin was a nice guy
>next you'll be telling us that robin of the hood was a real person too
and dick turpin was a nice guy<
And P. O'Neil is a real person, but not as nice a guy as Ned Kelley.
and dick turpin was a nice guy<
And P. O'Neil is a real person, but not as nice a guy as Ned Kelley.
QUOTE(DJ_Quinn @ May 13 2005, 12:10 PM)
>next you'll be telling us that robin of the hood was a real person too
and dick turpin was a nice guy<
And P. O'Neil is a real person, but not as nice a guy as Ned Kelley.
[right][snapback]619927[/snapback][/right]
and dick turpin was a nice guy<
And P. O'Neil is a real person, but not as nice a guy as Ned Kelley.
[right][snapback]619927[/snapback][/right]
http://www.richardponeil.com/justice.htm
seems he exists in arizona anyway
only in america eh?
lol
lol
I belive the grail is a holy bloodline
QUOTE(dcman32 @ Jan 4 2005, 09:57 PM)
Unexplained--The Da Vinci Code is almost wholly based upon a speculative "non-fiction" book titled: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", in which the researchers present possible correlations between factual history and ancient legends pertaining to the "Holy Grail".
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437077[/snapback][/right]
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437077[/snapback][/right]
um u need to read first angels and demons, before the davinci code
QUOTE(HekticMind @ May 15 2005, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE(dcman32 @ Jan 4 2005, 09:57 PM)
Unexplained--The Da Vinci Code is almost wholly based upon a speculative "non-fiction" book titled: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", in which the researchers present possible correlations between factual history and ancient legends pertaining to the "Holy Grail".
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437077[/snapback][/right]
If you get a chance, check out: "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" or it might be titled: "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" (I can't recall off hand), which was originally aired on the History Channel, but is also available at your local Blockbuster. It is very informative. It has interviews with "Da Vinci Code"author Dan Brown, one of the authors/researchers who co-wrote "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and quite a few other people who have varying opinions on the subject.
Funny: the co-writer of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is almost indignant in his stand that he is neither a believer, nor a disbeliever in the "true" meaning/history of the "Holy Grail"; he simply proposed possible interpretations. It seemed to me that he was not very fond of Dan Brown's fictionalized version of his alternate history; I think Dan Brown believes in this controversial alternate history more than one of the men who helped bring this subject to light. You should watch it, though, and make your own decision.
Also, there is a book titled: "Bloodline of Christ", which is another book dealing with the facts and myths of what the "Holy Grail" really is, and what it means to history.
This is a very interesting subject. If you haven't had the chance to see that program, or read either of these books: do so!--especially if you enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code". I think you'll enjoy them--not to mention, it will help clarify certain misconceptions and myths that the "Da Vinci" code, at times, mishandled for literary reasons.
BTW--I am personally unsure what to think of the "Holy Grail", there is evidence for multiple interpretations. Unless it is found, or somehow incontrovertible proof shows it to be just a myth, I don't think we will ever know for sure what it really is/was and it's location most likely will never be known...and, perhaps, that is how it should be.
dcman32
[right][snapback]437077[/snapback][/right]
um u need to read first angels and demons, before the davinci code
[right][snapback]622391[/snapback][/right]
lol mr critic with 6 posts.
i might watch how this develops
could prove interesting ?
where does your area of expertise lie dcman ?
hehe
QUOTE(PadawanOsswe @ May 14 2005, 08:29 PM)
I belive the grail is a holy bloodline
[right][snapback]622055[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]622055[/snapback][/right]
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was an interesting read, but I had a hard time beleiving all of the evidence and swallowing the assumptions of the authors' hypothesis.
The Merovingian Kings of France where just not that important or influential.
The Priori of Scion, whose secret mission it was/is to return the French crown to the decendents of the Merovingian bloodline?
Thje Priori of Scion was the inner snctum of the Knights Templar. I beleive the documents cited by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln are forgeries, especially the one showing all of the Grand Masters.
The existance of king Arthur himself is controversial. He lived in the Dark Ages, and there are just a few mentions to him, like a monk called Nenius who said tomething like:
At that time a great number of Saxons were invading Britain. Then Arthur and the British kings fought the Saxons. He was their battle leader. The pagans fled that day and many of them were slaughtered. A twelfth battle took place at Mount Badon in which a single attack of Arthur killed 960 men. No other man took part in the massacre. In all those battles Arthur was the victor.
Arthur seems to have been the leader of some warriors, maybe mercenaries, but not a king himself.
600 years after his death the monks started to write about him. In 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him and invented some things, many picked from the oral British tradition, legends which were derivations of ancient Celtic myths. People believed they were facts. For example, he sets the battle of Camlann in 542, when Arthur would have been more than 100 years old...
Later on, there were poems written on the 'facts' in Monmouth's book. In 1180 a poem invented the court at Camelot, and the search for the Grail was in a 1190 poem. Other things were added, like knights, ladies, Merlin and such.
Arthur became popular when Malory wrote "La Mort d'Arthure" (Arthur's Death -remember that back then English language was seen as the plebs language, the nobles used French) in 1485. That is, nearly 1000 years after the real man called Arthur lived.
So there was some man called Arthur, and he was some kind of battle leader. But that's all historical truth there is. Excalibur, Morgana, the Grail, Merlin and such were all invented.
Furthermore, if you compare king Arthur's legend with other legends you'll see that most heroes had their magical weapon, but nobody here is pretending (I hope...) that Thor's hammer existed, nor did Roland's sword, Apollo's bow or Sigfried's ring.
At that time a great number of Saxons were invading Britain. Then Arthur and the British kings fought the Saxons. He was their battle leader. The pagans fled that day and many of them were slaughtered. A twelfth battle took place at Mount Badon in which a single attack of Arthur killed 960 men. No other man took part in the massacre. In all those battles Arthur was the victor.
Arthur seems to have been the leader of some warriors, maybe mercenaries, but not a king himself.
600 years after his death the monks started to write about him. In 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him and invented some things, many picked from the oral British tradition, legends which were derivations of ancient Celtic myths. People believed they were facts. For example, he sets the battle of Camlann in 542, when Arthur would have been more than 100 years old...
Later on, there were poems written on the 'facts' in Monmouth's book. In 1180 a poem invented the court at Camelot, and the search for the Grail was in a 1190 poem. Other things were added, like knights, ladies, Merlin and such.
Arthur became popular when Malory wrote "La Mort d'Arthure" (Arthur's Death -remember that back then English language was seen as the plebs language, the nobles used French) in 1485. That is, nearly 1000 years after the real man called Arthur lived.
So there was some man called Arthur, and he was some kind of battle leader. But that's all historical truth there is. Excalibur, Morgana, the Grail, Merlin and such were all invented.
Furthermore, if you compare king Arthur's legend with other legends you'll see that most heroes had their magical weapon, but nobody here is pretending (I hope...) that Thor's hammer existed, nor did Roland's sword, Apollo's bow or Sigfried's ring.
The Grail was just a lie to motivate people to do business for the church. Nothing else...
QUOTE(Hoopoe @ May 16 2005, 03:18 PM)
The existance of king Arthur himself is controversial. He lived in the Dark Ages, and there are just a few mentions to him, like a monk called Nenius who said tomething like:
At that time a great number of Saxons were invading Britain. Then Arthur and the British kings fought the Saxons. He was their battle leader. The pagans fled that day and many of them were slaughtered. A twelfth battle took place at Mount Badon in which a single attack of Arthur killed 960 men. No other man took part in the massacre. In all those battles Arthur was the victor.
Arthur seems to have been the leader of some warriors, maybe mercenaries, but not a king himself.
600 years after his death the monks started to write about him. In 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him and invented some things, many picked from the oral British tradition, legends which were derivations of ancient Celtic myths. People believed they were facts. For example, he sets the battle of Camlann in 542, when Arthur would have been more than 100 years old...
Later on, there were poems written on the 'facts' in Monmouth's book. In 1180 a poem invented the court at Camelot, and the search for the Grail was in a 1190 poem. Other things were added, like knights, ladies, Merlin and such.
Arthur became popular when Malory wrote "La Mort d'Arthure" (Arthur's Death -remember that back then English language was seen as the plebs language, the nobles used French) in 1485. That is, nearly 1000 years after the real man called Arthur lived.
So there was some man called Arthur, and he was some kind of battle leader. But that's all historical truth there is. Excalibur, Morgana, the Grail, Merlin and such were all invented.
Furthermore, if you compare king Arthur's legend with other legends you'll see that most heroes had their magical weapon, but nobody here is pretending (I hope...) that Thor's hammer existed, nor did Roland's sword, Apollo's bow or Sigfried's ring.
[right][snapback]623924[/snapback][/right]
At that time a great number of Saxons were invading Britain. Then Arthur and the British kings fought the Saxons. He was their battle leader. The pagans fled that day and many of them were slaughtered. A twelfth battle took place at Mount Badon in which a single attack of Arthur killed 960 men. No other man took part in the massacre. In all those battles Arthur was the victor.
Arthur seems to have been the leader of some warriors, maybe mercenaries, but not a king himself.
600 years after his death the monks started to write about him. In 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him and invented some things, many picked from the oral British tradition, legends which were derivations of ancient Celtic myths. People believed they were facts. For example, he sets the battle of Camlann in 542, when Arthur would have been more than 100 years old...
Later on, there were poems written on the 'facts' in Monmouth's book. In 1180 a poem invented the court at Camelot, and the search for the Grail was in a 1190 poem. Other things were added, like knights, ladies, Merlin and such.
Arthur became popular when Malory wrote "La Mort d'Arthure" (Arthur's Death -remember that back then English language was seen as the plebs language, the nobles used French) in 1485. That is, nearly 1000 years after the real man called Arthur lived.
So there was some man called Arthur, and he was some kind of battle leader. But that's all historical truth there is. Excalibur, Morgana, the Grail, Merlin and such were all invented.
Furthermore, if you compare king Arthur's legend with other legends you'll see that most heroes had their magical weapon, but nobody here is pretending (I hope...) that Thor's hammer existed, nor did Roland's sword, Apollo's bow or Sigfried's ring.
[right][snapback]623924[/snapback][/right]
I agree with all your points but one
English language was seen as the plebs language.
says you.
you're just upset because of what we did to your pretty sailing boats 103 years later
QUOTE(marduk @ May 16 2005, 06:35 PM)
QUOTE(Hoopoe @ May 16 2005, 03:18 PM)
The existance of king Arthur himself is controversial. He lived in the Dark Ages, and there are just a few mentions to him, like a monk called Nenius who said tomething like:
At that time a great number of Saxons were invading Britain. Then Arthur and the British kings fought the Saxons. He was their battle leader. The pagans fled that day and many of them were slaughtered. A twelfth battle took place at Mount Badon in which a single attack of Arthur killed 960 men. No other man took part in the massacre. In all those battles Arthur was the victor.
Arthur seems to have been the leader of some warriors, maybe mercenaries, but not a king himself.
600 years after his death the monks started to write about him. In 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him and invented some things, many picked from the oral British tradition, legends which were derivations of ancient Celtic myths. People believed they were facts. For example, he sets the battle of Camlann in 542, when Arthur would have been more than 100 years old...
Later on, there were poems written on the 'facts' in Monmouth's book. In 1180 a poem invented the court at Camelot, and the search for the Grail was in a 1190 poem. Other things were added, like knights, ladies, Merlin and such.
Arthur became popular when Malory wrote "La Mort d'Arthure" (Arthur's Death -remember that back then English language was seen as the plebs language, the nobles used French) in 1485. That is, nearly 1000 years after the real man called Arthur lived.
So there was some man called Arthur, and he was some kind of battle leader. But that's all historical truth there is. Excalibur, Morgana, the Grail, Merlin and such were all invented.
Furthermore, if you compare king Arthur's legend with other legends you'll see that most heroes had their magical weapon, but nobody here is pretending (I hope...) that Thor's hammer existed, nor did Roland's sword, Apollo's bow or Sigfried's ring.
[right][snapback]623924[/snapback][/right]
At that time a great number of Saxons were invading Britain. Then Arthur and the British kings fought the Saxons. He was their battle leader. The pagans fled that day and many of them were slaughtered. A twelfth battle took place at Mount Badon in which a single attack of Arthur killed 960 men. No other man took part in the massacre. In all those battles Arthur was the victor.
Arthur seems to have been the leader of some warriors, maybe mercenaries, but not a king himself.
600 years after his death the monks started to write about him. In 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him and invented some things, many picked from the oral British tradition, legends which were derivations of ancient Celtic myths. People believed they were facts. For example, he sets the battle of Camlann in 542, when Arthur would have been more than 100 years old...
Later on, there were poems written on the 'facts' in Monmouth's book. In 1180 a poem invented the court at Camelot, and the search for the Grail was in a 1190 poem. Other things were added, like knights, ladies, Merlin and such.
Arthur became popular when Malory wrote "La Mort d'Arthure" (Arthur's Death -remember that back then English language was seen as the plebs language, the nobles used French) in 1485. That is, nearly 1000 years after the real man called Arthur lived.
So there was some man called Arthur, and he was some kind of battle leader. But that's all historical truth there is. Excalibur, Morgana, the Grail, Merlin and such were all invented.
Furthermore, if you compare king Arthur's legend with other legends you'll see that most heroes had their magical weapon, but nobody here is pretending (I hope...) that Thor's hammer existed, nor did Roland's sword, Apollo's bow or Sigfried's ring.
[right][snapback]623924[/snapback][/right]
I agree with all your points but one
English language was seen as the plebs language.
says you.
you're just upset because of what we did to your pretty sailing boats 103 years later
[right][snapback]624231[/snapback][/right]
lol
However, as you may have guessed by what I put as the place I'm from, I am a Catalan independentist. Back then, although you'll always hear "Spain", such a thing didn't exist, there were just several kingdoms who shared a king. Catalonia was "independant" just until 1714, at the very end of the SPanish Sccession War, when it was conquered by Castile. So I don't regret at all the Spaniards being beaten by your men, mwahahaha
In case you're interested on the end of Catalonia, here's a couple of links:
From the Catalan point of view
From Wikipedia
And by the way, I am certain that err, certain king (I seem to remember it was Edward III, but I'm not sure...) on his death bed called his sons and made them swear that they'd never use that "language the plebs spoke". Tried to find it, but it's late and tomorrow I'm getting up early
if the holy grail is in ethopia,
why cant noone see it or take a pic of it??
why cant noone see it or take a pic of it??
It is burried beneath Rosslyn Chapel.
u mean in scotland?
QUOTE(The Roswell Man @ May 17 2005, 02:07 PM)
u mean in scotland?
[right][snapback]625749[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]625749[/snapback][/right]
I do mean Scotland roswell. Have you been to Rosslyn?
no, but i hear its a possible site for the grail still in uk due to the templar knights leaving it there for a while....
QUOTE(The Roswell Man @ May 17 2005, 02:11 PM)
no, but i hear its a possible site for the grail still in uk due to the templar knights leaving it there for a while....
[right][snapback]625758[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]625758[/snapback][/right]
That is the legend of the Sinclairs, decendents of the Templars who built Rosslyn and still survive today.
Some of the Templars also escaped to the New World, were they settled in Nova Scotia and are rumoured to have hidden some of their bounty on Oak Island.
QUOTE(DJ_Quinn @ May 17 2005, 03:16 PM)
QUOTE(The Roswell Man @ May 17 2005, 02:11 PM)
no, but i hear its a possible site for the grail still in uk due to the templar knights leaving it there for a while....
[right][snapback]625758[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]625758[/snapback][/right]
That is the legend of the Sinclairs, decendents of the Templars who built Rosslyn and still survive today.
Some of the Templars also escaped to the New World, were they settled in Nova Scotia and are rumoured to have hidden some of their bounty on Oak Island.
[right][snapback]625761[/snapback][/right]
Oak Island ?
i thought that was the vikings, or blackbeard, or the spanish, or the aztecs
etc
etc
UFOs dump site etc. etc.... 
The roswell man speak the truth. 
The roswell man speak the truth.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.