The Holy Grail

[P.O.U.M]

I just finished reading The Divinci Code by Dan Brown. I thought the book itself was amazing. But also the historical context of the book caught my attention. It seems as if there is some truth behind the Holy Grail stories.

Anyone have any thoughts on this book or the concept of Mary Magdalene as being the Holy Grail?

[Daymare17]

You shouldn't take the book seriously in the least degree. It's based on a series of "popular scientific" books published since the 1980s that no real scientists take seriously. There are no gospels that say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or had children with her. The "Prieuré de Sion" group wasn't created in the 11th century but in 1956 by a French right wing extremist called Pierre Plantard (http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id84.html). Dan Brown's "critique" of the Church amounts to glorifying secret elitist societies such as the Freemasons and Knights Templar who supposedly "preserved" the ancient rituals of the first Christians. According to Dan Brown these societies raped little children, but it was okay since it was really an ancient ritual that celebrated the holiness of woman.

[P.O.U.M]

You shouldn't take the book seriously in the least degree.

There are still alot of interesting facts.

The "Prieuré de Sion" group wasn't created in the 11th century but in 1956 by a French right wing extremist called Pierre Plantard (http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id84.html). Dan Brown's "critique" of the Church amounts to glorifying secret elitist societies such as the Freemasons and Knights Templar who supposedly "preserved" the ancient rituals of the first Christians.

He does do that. And I did know that the PS was created recently. But I dont care about Secret Societies, though they make for good stories. I also dont care about the Christ bloodline thing. Im more interested in pre-reformation christianity thats blantantly plauged with paganism. And it seems that more than one person has thought that Mary had a little something with Jesus.

Also, there are a few things that Brown points out some really intereting things about Da Vinici's paitings. He was also not the first nor the last to pain Mary next to Jesus in the last supper.

According to Dan Brown these societies raped little children, but it was okay since it was really an ancient ritual that celebrated the holiness of woman.

I seem to have missed that.

[Morag]

However, a lot of people are looking at the lost gospels, the ones written by gnostics which weren't actually "lost" but hidden, and some that were actually lost, and their seeing other rites and other ways of celebrating Christianity. I personally think their all mad, but the draw of ritual can't be overstated. Ritual is an extremely powerful and fulfilling way of remaining involved and connected to something.

Plus, I think there is enough evidence for a ship between Jesus and Magdalene that we can't disregard it out-of-hand- except, of course, unless you can question the existence of either.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by P.O.U.M
There are still alot of interesting facts.

The question is, how can you know that they are "facts" at all when the author has been shown to be full of hokum. It is sad that you are so open to the trash that this book is overflowing with.

He does do that. And I did know that the PS was created recently. But I dont care about Secret Societies, though they make for good stories. I also dont care about the Christ bloodline thing. Im more interested in pre-reformation christianity thats blantantly plauged with paganism. And it seems that more than one person has thought that Mary had a little something with Jesus.

Also, there are a few things that Brown points out some really intereting things about Da Vinici's paitings. He was also not the first nor the last to pain Mary next to Jesus in the last supper.

What is the world coming to when socialists are getting their historical education from pseudo-scientific fiction books by right-wing extremists. Read some real history works like Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire instead. It has many interesting tidbits on the history of the church and is written in a better style than the pulp writer Brown. Even better, read History of Christianity by Kautsky.

I seem to have missed that.

The female main character was abused in elaborate sexual rituals where among others her grandfather, the leader of Prieuré de Sion was a participant. There is drawn a parallel between these abuses and the ritual orgies in "Eyes Wide Shut" by Kubrick. Hoever Dan Brown explains that Kubrick entirely misinterpreted these rituals. They are really great "spiritual" rituals that for millennia have been practiced in secret societies to cherish the holiness of womankind. How horrible.

[P.O.U.M]

The female main character was abused in elaborate sexual rituals where among others her grandfather, the leader of Prieuré de Sion was a participant

Well, you obviously never read the book. Female character was never abused, she just by accident walked into one of the secret rituals wich her grandfather was a particpant in.

The question is, how can you know that they are "facts" at all when the author has been shown to be full of hokum. It is sad that you are so open to the trash that this book is overflowing with.

Never read the book. What can I say. Be a dick if you want. I just happened to have an illustrated verision of the book which has pictures of alot of sites and paintings.

What is the world coming to when socialists are getting their historical education from pseudo-scientific fiction books by right-wing extremists.

Once again ass, I found alot of information intresting in the book. I suppose Brown made up the Council of Nicea, the Rose Line, and even went to extensive lengths to forge new verisions of the last supper. Hell, Im sure he even went so far as to build his own churches to help further his ludicrous stories. Which though interesting are far fetched. But not everything can be discredited with a wave of the hand.

[Morag]

I fully intend to read the book when I get to it. I think I have six or seven books left before its top on my list. I couldn't care less if its filled with crap or not, I've read excerpts and its fascinating! Plus, in the end, what we know about the period all this was "happening" in is next to zilch and almost entirely dominated by standard Christian teachings. If the books show a different series of events, or even a different interpretation, whose to say that's a bad thing?

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by P.O.U.M
Well, you obviously never read the book. Female character was never abused, she just by accident walked into one of the secret rituals wich her grandfather was a particpant in.

True that I never read it, only excerpts. But I'm pretty sure from reading different sources that the book whitewashes ritual abuse in secret societies. I already said that, and you do not address it preferring to latch onto a minor factual error.

Never read the book. What can I say. Be a dick if you want.

Please don't take criticism as a personal insult, it's exasperating. What should I do? Add "In my opinion" before each statement I make and remove all potentially inflammable words? We both know that wouldn't change the gist of the argument.

Once again ass, I found alot of information intresting in the book. I suppose Brown made up the Council of Nicea, the Rose Line, and even went to extensive lengths to forge new verisions of the last supper. Hell, Im sure he even went so far as to build his own churches to help further his ludicrous stories. Which though interesting are far fetched. But not everything can be discredited with a wave of the hand.

Once again, how can you know what is true and what is false? You'll have to check it with a real scientific work, which kind of defeats the point of using the book as historical education.

Now if you just like the book as a work of fiction, that's fine with me, but that's not what the topic is about.

Morag:

If the books show a different series of events, or even a different interpretation, whose to say that's a bad thing?

There are very many individuals and groups who think that Jews and Israel were behind 9/11, and that Israel controls the US government. In fact many people claim that the Jews are behind all the misfortunes in the world. This is certainly a "different" interpretation from the official one, but who's to say it's a good thing?

[Morag]

Daymare:  I was talking about a period we know next to nothing about, not an event that happened within our own lifetimes. There is an enormous difference, and I don't appreciate you twisting my argument to score some silly point. Beyond that, your answer basically advocates never questioning the official version of things, which I find wrong. If you can't tell the difference between a series of events that may have happened 2000 years ago and something that's happening now, I can see why you don't like fiction. It must confuse you terribly.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by Morag
Daymare:  I was talking about a period we know next to nothing about, not an event that happened within our own lifetimes. There is an enormous difference, and I don't appreciate you twisting my argument to score some silly point. Beyond that, your answer basically advocates never questioning the official version of things, which I find wrong. If you can't tell the difference between a series of events that may have happened 2000 years ago and something that's happening now, I can see why you don't like fiction. It must confuse you terribly.

I'm sorry if I offended you, I can assure that I don't mean to offend any people. I didn't advocate never questioning the official version of things - I'm a communist! My point was approximately: Yes, the official interpretations are full of lies and distortions, but the alternative is not seeking more lies but seeking the truth. Truth is a good thing, lies are a bad thing. One lying account is no better than another.

[Morag]

Daymare:  Your right, absolutely, of course. But fiction is fiction; by definition made up. Its a book that makes people think about and question the standard Christian story. If I was a bit offended, and I admit to that, it's because I spend a lot of time writing fiction, not to publish, but just to write. There's a lot of research that goes into the simplest story, and to manage to write from a perspective (I try [badly] for a marxist or feminist perspective) and still tell a credible and interesting story takes so much talent and practice that it shouldn't be discredited because it isn't perfectly the true story.

[P.O.U.M]

I'm sorry if I offended you, I can assure that I don't mean to offend any people

Maybe I misinterupted it, but it seems as if you were making personal attacks.

But yes fiction is fiction. I have no intention of finding the "holy grail" at the museum at Paris. But as Morag said...

There's a lot of research that goes into the simplest story, and to manage to write from a perspective (I try [badly] for a marxist or feminist perspective) and still tell a credible and interesting story takes so much talent and practice that it shouldn't be discredited because it isn't perfectly the true story.

It still seems as if some elements of the story show new light upon christianity. Every place the main character goes to is a real factual church or just a real place in the world. And some of the churches show peculiarites. If this is mere fiction, then I would love to be proven wrong. But there is so much about pre-ferormation christianity that we do not know about. And there are enough paitings to show mary next to Jesus during the last supper. I just want to know the truth.

Even my girlfriend, who is in the middle of reading the book says it can be predictable, but full on information. And she has a negative view of the book from the get go. But the book is just to make you think. Which it did, for me at least. Maybe its just me, but I like to look at everything from a skeptical point of view. I even still do with Lenin and Trotstky. Mayeb I have not read enough, which Im sure I have not. But I like to question everything. And this book raises enough questions. Especially since there is alot of pagainism which I knew from the get go. I do not intend to go pagan. I just like to know the truth. And there is enough pagan in the church that was lost after the reformation. The "Holy Grail" (Mary) seems like there is at least a reasonable doubt that the officiial catholic verision of the story is a complete lie.

[P.O.U.M]

t still seems as if some elements of the story show new light upon christianity.

And yes I realize that most of the story derived from the book "Holly Blood, Holly Grail". Or is was something similar. One of the characters was combination of all three writers from the afore mentioned book. I believe all three attempted to sue Brown for likeness of the character and their theory.

[Guerillero]

Well the book was extremely interesting, but that's all it was, just a comercial book full of loopholes.
      Some of the happenings and historical facts presented in it do not correspond with actual history.

[Morag]

Finally read it! And was kinda disappointed.

My real problem was that Brown's writing didn't interest me and the riddle's weren't as challenging as others had let on (I thought, but then again, I have a secret and not at all repressed love for art history and literature).

Other than that, though, from what I've learned in my studies, there actually was quite a bit of factual accuracies in the book, in the sense that the study of the gospels and all that is a field of study that can be "accurate."

So, POUM, if your still interested in discussing the book, I'd love to, although maybe instead of discussing Mary Magdelene's role as the Holy Grail, perhaps the idea of the "sacred feminine" and how it was explored would be a better topic? Or just discussing any element that we found at all interesting! (I'm on a literary kick again, but suffering really terrible writers' block... *is sad*)