Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I had written this yesterday for the thread about the movie "The Passion the Christ" but it is very relevant to this subject.

All right, warning: long post here, I apologize beforehand. Also, if you have any questions, objections, arguements, whatever, feel free to email me at CerisRavalon@hotmail.com. I would be happy to clear anything up as best I can.

Forthe historical accuracy of the Bible, let me make a breif arument explaining why the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are historically accurate. Most of what I have to say here is drawn from "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel. I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone.

I'm pretty sure that no one here will argue with statement that Jesus really existed.
One thing of note is that the 4 Gospels were written anonymously. They were not signed. However, the uniform testimony of the anchient Christian chruch was that the Gospels were written by Matthew (one of the 12 disciples), John Mark (a close companion of the disciple Peter), Luke (the 'beloved physician' of Paul), and John (one of the 12 disciples). From this we can be assured that the Gospels are recorded on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.

Some people claim that there was so much time between when Jesus died and when the Gospels were written that legend could have crept in. Here I will focus upon the dates of when the Gospels were written. I will state that most scholars agree that Jesus died in 30 A.D. Now the Gospels of Luke was written with the Book of Acts as a 2 volume set. Acts is the story of the apostles after the death of Jesus. At the end, when talking about Paul, it appears unfinished with Paul being under house arrest in Rome. One question would be "What happens next?" This indicates that the Book of Acts was written before the death of Paul, which was in 62 A.D. Since the Gospel of Luke was written at the same time, or before, Acts, it was written at the latest by 62 A.D. This is only 32 years after the death of Jesus. Also, the Gospel of Luke includes parts of the Gospel of Mark, so this means that the Gospel of Mark was most likely written in the 50's. Compared to all other anchient biographies, this is like a news flash. There is simply no way that legend could creep into the texts in only 30 years.

Also, for the ideas that Jesus was divine, that he died, and was resurrected, it goes back even fruther. In 1 Corinthians 1:15, (which was written during the 50's) Paul cites an creed of the early Church which states that Jesus died for eveyone's sins, that he was buried, that he was resurrected on the third day, and that one time after he was ressurected he appeared to 500 people at the same time. Paul states he received this creed when between when he was converted and when he first met with the disciples in Jerusalem. These two events happened around 32 and 35 A.D., respectively. This means that the belief that Jesus was resurrected goes back to within five years of his death! No way legend could spring up in only five years.

Some people object that the authors of the Gospels could have lied about events in order to make Jesus look like he was the Son of God. Fine, then let's look at motive: All but one of the 12 disciples was brutally murdered for their belief in Jesus. Every single one of them stayed true to their belief, even to the grave. Tell me, do you honestly think that men who lied about their belief (that Jesus was the Son of God) would die for it?

As for the idea that the Gospels were changed later by other people, allow me to refute that. Some of the earlier copies we have about the Gospels are strips of papyrus(early forms of paper used for scrolls) that date from approximately 200 A.D. which contain about 2/3 of the Gospel of John. However, the earliest scrap of parchement that we have with some of the Gospel on it is a strip that contains 8 verses from chapter 18 of the Gospel of John. This strip has been dated to between 100 to 150A.D. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920. Compare this to say, the main biography of Alexander the Great, which wasn't recorded until at least 100 years after his death and the closest copy we have dates from around 200 years after his death. Also, we have more early copies of the New Testament than anyother document in history. If you take into account all the manuscripts that were direct copies, you will find that we have over 24,000 manuscripts from that time. From this we can cross reference them to show that they agree with each other 99.5% of the time. As Sir Frederic Kenyon (a studier of anchient papyri and the former director of the British Museum) said, "in no other case [in history] is the interval of time between the composition of a book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament"

As for the Gnostic Gospels, the biographies of Jesus that are not included in the New Testament, they were all written after 140A.D. and are much more fanciful in their writings about Jesus.

At 3/5/04 04:43 AM, TheMason wrote: If the NT is silent on this point it is probably because Peter, an ascetic, could not necessarily promote celibacy when his own Lord had a spouse and off-spring.

Well..... that would certainly explain the 18 year gap between Jesus teaching at the Temple at age 12, and then being Baptised by John at 30.

At 3/5/04 03:00 PM, Proteas wrote: Well..... that would certainly explain the 18 year gap between Jesus teaching at the Temple at age 12, and then being Baptised by John at 30.

That gap was probably when jesus got hosed after the water to wine thing

Wow, is no one going to even respond to my post?

At 3/5/04 03:50 PM, kada wrote:

At 3/5/04 03:00 PM, Proteas wrote: Well..... that would certainly explain the 18 year gap between Jesus teaching at the Temple at age 12, and then being Baptised by John at 30.

That gap was probably when jesus got hosed after the water to wine thing

Wow, the face of ignorance shows itself. The water to wine miracle was performed after Jesus was baptized at age 30, not before. If he had done it before, people would have thought him demon possesed (it didn't stop them from thinking that way of him afterward though).

At 3/5/04 04:18 PM, kada wrote: Wow, is no one going to even respond to my post?

No, partly because they (me included) have already read it in your "Passion of the Christ" thread, so it's nothing new.

At 3/5/04 04:43 AM, TheMason wrote: There has been other texts recently uncovered by archeologists that suggest that actually Christ was married to the Magdelene (and before anyone says she is a prostitute is merely going along with a fallacy caused by the careless words of an 12C Pope).

No where in the Bible does it say that Mary M was a prostitute. I was taught in (Catholic) grade school that she was a "woman of sin" and that she was the one Jesus saved from being stoned (again, no proof). It wasn't until I took a scripture class in (Catholic) college that this myth was debunked by my (Catholic priest) professor. Many of the students in the class also thought the same things about Mary M.

One of these customs is marriage in teenage years. So by the time Christ started his ministry at 33 he had probably been married for over 15 years and had children of his own.

There is a theory that the Holy Grail is not an actual object, but the bloodline of Jesus Christ himself, and Mary M was his wife. A church (I forget where exactly, but I want to say France) that believes this. First time I heard about this was in a "marriage and family" class taught by the same professor I mentioned above, but I have also seen this on TV--Discovery or History channels, maybe. Anyone have any more info about this?

Mainly it depends on your religion, i think.

At 3/6/04 10:40 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: No where in the Bible does it say that Mary M was a prostitute. I was taught in (Catholic) grade school that she was a "woman of sin" and that she was the one Jesus saved from being stoned (again, no proof). It wasn't until I took a scripture class in (Catholic) college that this myth was debunked by my (Catholic priest) professor. Many of the students in the class also thought the same things about Mary M.

True, it doesn't say she was a prostitute. It doesn't say too much at all about her, except that she was there at Jesus' crucifiction, and there when they went to annoint his body on the third day.
Personally, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church, and they never taught us that Mary of Magdelene was a "woman of sin," my impression was that she was just a friend of the family.

There is a theory that the Holy Grail is not an actual object, but the bloodline of Jesus Christ himself, and Mary M was his wife. A church (I forget where exactly, but I want to say France) that believes this. First time I heard about this was in a "marriage and family" class taught by the same professor I mentioned above, but I have also seen this on TV--Discovery or History channels, maybe. Anyone have any more info about this?

I always thought that the Holy Grail was actually the cup that Jesus drank out of at the Last Supper. I can't say I've ever heard the blood line of Jesus being referred to as "The Holy Grail," it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Mason? Any thoughts on this?

At 3/6/04 10:40 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 3/5/04 04:43 AM, TheMason wrote:

There is a theory that the Holy Grail is not an actual object, but the bloodline of Jesus Christ himself, and Mary M was his wife. A church (I forget where exactly, but I want to say France) that believes this. First time I heard about this was in a "marriage and family" class taught by the same professor I mentioned above, but I have also seen this on TV--Discovery or History channels, maybe. Anyone have any more info about this?

Yes, there is a book out there called Holy Blood, Holy Grail that discusses this. However, it can become a thick read in some parts where it discusses early Gaul/Frankish/French history and the Merovingian bloodline.

What catholic college did you attend? I went to St. Louis University myself for awhile.

Regardless of what Holy Grail is supposed to be, the best thing to come out of the it: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

At 3/6/04 05:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/6/04 10:40 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

:: I always thought that the Holy Grail was actually the cup that Jesus drank out of at the Last Supper. I can't say I've ever heard the blood line of Jesus being referred to as "The Holy Grail," it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Mason? Any thoughts on this?

I have a few, first the legend kindof morphed into a search for a chalice. However, I think the idea of a chalice is symbolic, and/or a way to discuss the Templar's finds in code. For arguments sake let's all just assume that Mary M. and Jesus were married and on at least one occassion He impregnated her. Would that child not be of Christ's blood? Then would it not follow that Mary M. then was a vessel that held the blood of Christ? Is not a cup/chalice/grail a vessel to hold a liquid?

At 3/5/04 05:33 AM, Ceris wrote:

Forthe historical accuracy of the Bible, let me make a breif arument explaining why the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are historically accurate. Most of what I have to say here is drawn from "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel. I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone.

I recommend Ehrlmann's Lost Christianities for anyone interested in the dynamics of the history of the early part of Christendom.

One thing of note is that the 4 Gospels were written anonymously. They were not signed. However, the uniform testimony of the anchient Christian chruch was that the Gospels were written by Matthew (one of the 12 disciples), John Mark (a close companion of the disciple Peter), Luke (the 'beloved physician' of Paul), and John (one of the 12 disciples). From this we can be assured that the Gospels are recorded on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.

The problem with this argument is that there was not ONE ancient Christian church with a uniform testimony, but MANY with equally diverse views of the faith. What you are arguing here is merely the uniform testimony of the group that managed to curry political favor with Rome and then force its way into power.

As for the idea that the Gospels were changed later by other people, allow me to refute that. Some of the earlier copies we have about the Gospels are strips of papyrus(early forms of paper used for scrolls) that date from approximately 200 A.D. which contain about 2/3 of the Gospel of John. However, the earliest scrap of parchement that we have with some of the Gospel on it is a strip that contains 8 verses from chapter 18 of the Gospel of John. This strip has been dated to between 100 to 150A.D. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920. Compare this to say, the main biography of Alexander the Great, which wasn't recorded until at least 100 years after his death and the closest copy we have dates from around 200 years after his death. Also, we have more early copies of the New Testament than anyother document in history. If you take into account all the manuscripts that were direct copies, you will find that we have over 24,000 manuscripts from that time. From this we can cross reference them to show that they agree with each other 99.5% of the time. As Sir Frederic Kenyon (a studier of anchient papyri and the former director of the British Museum) said, "in no other case [in history] is the interval of time between the composition of a book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament"

I will not argue that fact that Christians began putting pen to paper as quickly as possible. HOWEVER, Luke ended at about 16:22 according to our earliest copy of the Gospel. If no one added anything to the Gospels, why is it that this one now goes to what 22? (Sorry I do not have my Bible handy enough for exact # of chapters.) Secondly, our complete manuscripts of the NT only comes from about 300-450AD, well after the Orthodox church established itself in Rome. The damage would have already been done. Earlier than that, what as you yourself describe, our only frame of reference is scraps of paper about the size of credit cards. This is not enough evidence to support, one way or another, that these texts were changed between 62AD and 450 AD.

Also as for copying of the manuscripts. The process is not flawless, and the manner of writing was also different back then. For example: backthenscribesdidnotusespacesbetweenwordsonlybetweensentences nordidtheyusepunctuationtoindicatetheendofasentence

Try copying by hand a text that looks like that (much longer of course, like almost 1,000 pages) without error. In fact it has been shown that the scribes made significantly more errors than just .5% of the time.

As for the Gnostic Gospels, the biographies of Jesus that are not included in the New Testament, they were all written after 140A.D. and are much more fanciful in their writings about Jesus.

Actually the archeological evidence shows that many of these texts were created at the same time as the orthodox texts. The reason we do not study them today and there is such furor over them is that the Church in Rome did to the other churches (in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, JERUSALEM) and civilizations they thought were a threat: burned what they did not like or that they feared. The Nag Hammdi texts for example only exist because the Bishop of the church in Egypt thought they had significant religious value that they should be saved from the fires ordered by Rome.

You must realize, Christian tradition today is based upon a group that managed to consilidate their power in Rome and survive the persecutions. For example; the Roman church moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to coincide with the feast day of Constantine's Sun God and moved Christmas from January 6 to December 25 (the day of the feast celebrating the Roman Sun God's birth). Now I know the argument that Constantine converted, that is a nice myth. However, the historical evidence suggests that his conversion did not happen until he was on his death bed, and that the decision to convert may have been made for him.

At 3/9/04 02:59 AM, Ceris wrote: Regardless of what Holy Grail is supposed to be, the best thing to come out of the it: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Followed closely by Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade!

At 3/9/04 04:50 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/6/04 05:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/6/04 10:40 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

:would it not follow that Mary M. then was a vessel that held the blood of Christ? Is not a cup/chalice/grail a vessel to hold a liquid?

So what your saying is that Mary herself is the Holy Grail, so King Arthur was seeking a woman who been in hiding for years and years. And if that is true then the Templars could have dranked Mary's blood(don't mean to be gross here).

At 3/9/04 07:35 PM, IceStalker wrote: So what your saying is that Mary herself is the Holy Grail, so King Arthur was seeking a woman who been in hiding for years and years. And if that is true then the Templars could have dranked Mary's blood(don't mean to be gross here).

I don't know what your on sir, but lay off it for a while. Mary of Magdelene was human, not immortal.

I can understand the bit about Mary's decesenteds and such being considered the Holy Grail, but it doesn't explain why the Templar's would have said something to the effect of "We found it," (refering to the Grail) as if they were talking about an object instead of a person.

At 3/9/04 09:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/9/04 07:35 PM, IceStalker wrote: So what your saying is that Mary herself is the Holy Grail, so King Arthur was seeking a woman who been in hiding for years and years. And if that is true then the Templars could have dranked Mary's blood(don't mean to be gross here).

I don't know what your on sir, but lay off it for a while. Mary of Magdelene was human, not immortal.

I meant her decendents, not herself.

I can understand the bit about Mary's decesenteds and such being considered the Holy Grail, but it doesn't explain why the Templar's would have said something to the effect of "We found it," (refering to the Grail) as if they were talking about an object instead of a person.

I was disproving the guy who said that the Mary was the grail, I dont think someone would kill someone and drink their blood.

At 3/9/04 09:18 PM, IceStalker wrote: I was disproving the guy who said that the Mary was the grail, I dont think someone would kill someone and drink their blood.

Then why bring it up? This is the dark ages we're talking about, people did a lot worse than just drinking one another's blood.

No one's immortal, and can only be by joining the bush campaign, such great people there, only good i hear from them. i wish i could be immortal or a jipsy. But Osama isn't a real person and neither is Dubya. They edit pictures of monkeys (bush) and and squashes (osama). I don't believe the crusades really happened. I think that one happened but not anywhere near like how they say. I say google-it. the-shrikes going to ban me for 7 days just for posting this, so see ya!

At 3/9/04 09:18 PM, IceStalker wrote:

At 3/9/04 09:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/9/04 07:35 PM, IceStalker wrote: So what your saying is that Mary herself is the Holy Grail, so King Arthur was seeking a woman who been in hiding for years and years. And if that is true then the Templars could have dranked Mary's blood(don't mean to be gross here).

I don't know what your on sir, but lay off it for a while. Mary of Magdelene was human, not immortal.

I meant her decendents, not herself.

I can understand the bit about Mary's decesenteds and such being considered the Holy Grail, but it doesn't explain why the Templar's would have said something to the effect of "We found it," (refering to the Grail) as if they were talking about an object instead of a person.

I was disproving the guy who said that the Mary was the grail, I dont think someone would kill someone and drink their blood.

You actually did a VERY poor job, or rather you did nothing close to disproving my point. What I was saying was that it was probably code for 1) the bloodline and 2) perhaps the remains of Mary M. Also, not just the remains, but there are theories that with the remains are documents from the early church that would rock the foundation of Roman/Western-based Christianity.

You sir, either read just a little too much into the point I was trying to make, or cannot understand simple metaphor.

As for the bit about King Arthur:

1) If Christ's blood held the key to an immortality of the flesh, then he himself would still be around physically instead of dying on the cross. Thus it follows that unless Arthur was a contemporary of Mary M. between Zero AD and say 68 AD, she would be dead.

2) If he did quest for the Grail, and assuming that it was Mary M. just for argument sake, then he was seeking a connection to a blood line that would have held AWESOME political power at the time. (Which is the secret, as some claim, between the power held by the Merovingian bloodline in France.)

To digress just a bit to the original topic of the Templars and ruling the world, why is that if they have come to dominate world events that this means they are inheriently evil? Could this secretive council not be a good thing?

Remember, Hitler's regime ruthlessly oppressed secret societies in Germany and conquered territories in the 1930s & 40s. Perhaps they stand on the vanguard between progress and despotism? Hell just yesterday a Masonic temple in Turkey was attacked by Islamist terrorists.

As for the Templars being immortal from discovering the Holy Grail, I doubt that. I would guess that if there still exists an unbroken Templar leadership, it is either a hereditary position and/or seeks out the most worthy to join their ranks.

Ok I did do a poor job disproving you. I will be mature and admit it it. I didnt understand your metaphor.
I also hear that Mary M. was supposedly as powerful as christ so that could explain why they got together and stuff.

At 3/12/04 06:23 PM, IceStalker wrote: Ok I did do a poor job disproving you. I will be mature and admit it it. I didnt understand your metaphor.
I also hear that Mary M. was supposedly as powerful as christ so that could explain why they got together and stuff.

How do you mean powerful? Political/economically or do you mean Divine power?

Most of the theories I've heard about the M. is that she came from a family with royal blood and money. Thus when they were married it fused the Royal blood of the House of David with that of another Jewish King, fulfilling an ancient prophesy. Also she bankrolled Christ's ministry. If this is how you mean powerful, yes this is what I believe is likely. However, I do not believe that the M. could turn water into wine and raise the dead as Jesus did.

At 3/14/04 02:54 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/12/04 06:23 PM, IceStalker wrote: Ok I did do a poor job disproving you. I will be mature and admit it it. I didnt understand your metaphor.
I also hear that Mary M. was supposedly as powerful as christ so that could explain why they got together and stuff.

How do you mean powerful? Political/economically or do you mean Divine power?

I wasnt sure and I just heard it, i didnt really ask but I did just guess divine because I dont know that much about her.

Anyone not having visited the Holy land, the Vatican, Rome and central Europe in general, I strongly recommend the personal investment of time and money.

Take the time to map the history and you will know which tours to take. Yes the paid path is littered with the cheesy distractions, but pay attention to the details and look for the "free and easy" offers to fill in with museum and local interest time.

Sounds like a Bomb in terms of cash, I was able to cover 15 countries in 2 months on less than CAN$2K. This includes hotel stays. Hostels and B&Bs will give you a better deal.

History really is interesting when realized from perspective not just the classroom (dark room behind computer screen)

At 3/5/04 04:49 AM, TheMason wrote:

Actually the Templars were formed much later, about 900-1,000 years after Christ. They enjoyed the favor of the established Church and went to fight in the Crusades where they became defenders of Jerusalem and begun archeological excavations under the Temple Mount.

At the time the Templars were formed, people had access to the Biblical texts the church in Rome wanted them to have access to.

What anyone failed to mention was that the order of the Templars was at first chaste and was bound by vows of poverty. In fact, they were not even allowed to bathe, thus discouraging people from wanting contact with them all together. As the order grew in numbers, so do it its influence. The templar knights rid themselves of their previous scruples and became richer than kings, undermining their authority and that of the pope himself. Long story short; they were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Whatever order existing today, be it a derivative of the heretic Templars or not, should not be mistaken with the original.

At 4/6/04 09:38 AM, Ruination wrote:

At 3/5/04 04:49 AM, TheMason wrote:

::

What anyone failed to mention was that the order of the Templars was at first chaste and was bound by vows of poverty. In fact, they were not even allowed to bathe, thus discouraging people from wanting contact with them all together. As the order grew in numbers, so do it its influence. The templar knights rid themselves of their previous scruples and became richer than kings, undermining their authority and that of the pope himself. Long story short; they were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Whatever order existing today, be it a derivative of the heretic Templars or not, should not be mistaken with the original.

I am just curious, where do you draw your information from? It seems to contradict somewhat the histories of the Order that I have read.

From what I understand, soon after they formed they made a discovery in Jerusalem that gave them great power over the Pope and even helped them to even appoint kings.

I have never heard that they were astetics, or took vows of poverty, chastity and uncleanliness.

Pick up a book, why don't you? An actual reference... not a spin-off of some sci-fi hit.

At 4/7/04 04:23 PM, Ruination wrote: Pick up a book, why don't you? An actual reference... not a spin-off of some sci-fi hit.

Funny thing, I thought I was about to have a discussion with someone who may be literate and open-minded.

I guess I was wrong. Chances are I have read more on (or relating to) this subject than you ever will. Furthermore, several of my sources pre-date (if you are refering to what I think you are) the "sci-fi hit" you discuss.

At 4/16/04 01:51 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/7/04 04:23 PM, Ruination wrote: Pick up a book, why don't you? An actual reference... not a spin-off of some sci-fi hit.

Funny thing, I thought I was about to have a discussion with someone who may be literate and open-minded.

Whoa, burn! Anyways, im back and there really isnt much here on the templars recent doings (for lack of a better word). Mostly about the Holy Grail which I know enough now.