Arcadia Discussion Zone

QUOD d Autem

The words aren't separated, so seperate them as you chose.

Be that as it may the Dagobert text is the Codex Bezae and was altered by De Cherisey to include the raised letters and no doubt the strange layout the Shepherdess parchment is another thing altogether and written by someone else.

Therefore the Codex Bezae saga is irrelevant.

It's been seen before. St Brendan's Island San Borondón

It comes and goes apparently.

Latest pictures

It's coming up again. Volcanic action

Roscoe wrote:



Why do you believe this Roscoe?

Regards,

Spartacus

John chapter 12 is related to the mystery as described in HBHG. Mary Magdalenes role as the one annointer of Jesus as Messiah (read King), has been muddled by editers, and this scripture, if understood properly, puts all of the other 4 versions of the annointing into perspective. If he is not annointed King, the bloodline becomes irrelevant. The only other scripture that could be as relevant may be John chapter 2, but, because of editing, IMHO, does not name "The Magdalene".


As for the Shepherdess text and the Tombstone text being composed at the same time, can't you see that I dropped that argument?

Thanks for that, rain, and yes I have read P.O.S. I had just yesterday recieved a copy of the Tisseyre article from SESA, proving that the tombstone was at least drawn in 1906, but at this point I'm no longer sure what else that proves. Did you say Tisseyre was a freemason?

Wayward wrote:



As described in HBHG is the key point here. Are you 'certain' that the so-called 'Jesus bloodline' was something that was meant to be part of the narrative produced by Plantard et al in the 1960s? I have some doubts about that, but again I stand to corrected if you or anyone else is willing to debate it with me...

Wayward wrote:



Well, if you have, I think it is worth pointing out that that wasn't specifically my purpose. As I said, I'm no expert on these matters. I was merely debating the issue with you.

If indeed my thoughts on the issue are valid, you can thank me later for increasing your understanding of the point in question...

Regards,

Spartacus

Only to agree with you, really, on this point, because I don't believe the Plantard narrative, as you put it, ever intended this, and the notion that it did was another of the errors in the Howells book on the PdS (as I think you yourself highlighted on the thread about that book). Plantard's intention was merely to establish a familial connection back to Merovingian times, so the idea that his supposed bloodline might date back even further, and be even more illustrious, was something of a bonus to his project, I guess.

My recollection of the way that played out was that the HBHG guys - either when they interviewed him as part of the third Chronicle film, Shadow of the Templars, or else subsequently, when doing interviews for The Messianic Legacy, my memory is vague on that - put to him the idea that this might be about a sacred, holy bloodline, dating back to Biblical times, to which he gave a very non-commital answer, along the lines of, "Well, this was all a very long time ago, one can't really be sure, but who knows, etc."

I'm sorry I can't remember which of the Lincoln, or Lincoln / Baigent / Leigh books this exchange is recounted in, but I know that my reaction on reading that was to imagine a little lightbulb going off in Plantard's head, as he first processed this unexpected twist in the plotline he had created, and then decided to play along with such a serendipitous piece of good fortune. In other words, I read the subtext in his reply as being, "Yes, if you like"!

So, my personal view on that would be that whilst the HBHG authors may not have been the first to argue the notion of a holy bloodline, they were the first to do so in respect of the mystery of Rennes and Plantard's Priory, and that connection, again in my view, was a completely mistaken conflation between material released by the PdS pertaining to a bloodline, and rumours about a significant religious burial in the vicinity of RLC.

So no, I don't believe that was ever intended to be part of Plantard's narrative, and he probably couldn't believe his good luck when other people suggested to him, and subsequently to the wider world, that it was.

Yes, but supposedly Tisseryre belonged to other groups as well, which is not hard to conceive of considering the French seem to belong to multiple organisations, it's like a cultural imperative with them.
Also I was just reading that the annotations at the bottom of the article should be able to make the Tisseryre article more comprehensible. (check make sure you have them) - I don't have the original document or it's annotations, and this only my opinion but from the interview J.L.C. also seems to be suggesting that it might be a Roman à clef.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the reply. I'd love to answer you in full right now but I have to do real stuff. So briefly, I'd agree with almost everything you wrote. However, off the top of my head, I do think that Plantard went as far as actually rejecting (is that too strong a word maybe!?) the whole JC/MM bloodline concept at one time or another. Tomorrow I will try to dig that out (if it exists).

Regards,

Spartacus

I am not sure if Plantard et al, as you say, meant the Jesus bloodline to be part of the story at the time. But it looks like Sauniere did, and if Sauniere did, Plantard probably knew about it, hinted at it, and used a related text as part of his plot, IMHO. Of course if Plantard did invent the Priory, then the old, "da Vinci Code argument" surfaces again.
And yes it seems your thoughts were valid, at least on the parchment. The Tisseyre text does not prove the shepherdess parchment is older then 1906. It is not much later and I do thank you for increasing my understanding.

This is a copy of the original document and it has no annotations. I had heard that before, about the text (a roman a clef). I also have a translation of the text, but that might alter any hidden meaning. IMHO, I still believe Tisseyre made the trek. Remember he had other SESA members with him, it seems it would be doubtful if they would publish the text knowing it didn't take place.

I don't think funny stuff with the Bloodline of Jesus is a new idea

I think we need to look at the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church for Jesus Bloodline funny business

just looking at Matthew and Lukes genealogies of Jesus

makes one shake your head

they are different
and yet they are in the New Testament approved by the Vatican

I'm surprised Mark and Matthew didn't put theirs in and they were all different

and yet there is so much smoke in people's eyes that the arguments continued for centuries

I would say the major culprit of smoke and deception in the Bloodline of Jesus and Mother Mary is the Vatican
and for good reason

and that is the REAL point of all this ...WHY the coverup?

The handwriting is different in each case.

Wayward wrote:



What leads you to believe that Sauniere was a 'bloodliner'?


Wayward wrote:



Can you elaborate please?

Regards,

Spartacus

As far as the bloodliner, lets back up a bit (I know what I said, get back to that later), the text the author of the shepherdess parchment used as a carrier, John 12, gives a special significance to "The Magdalene" (as Roscoe says, that is the way her name is always rendered in the scriptures). Myself, and many others, including my friend Margaret Starbird, have said that Jesus bestowed the title Tower of the Flock, on her, IMHO, to give her the authority to annoint him (nobody else so annointed him). Sauniere built the "Tower Magdalene", again IMHO to mimic the scripture at Micah 4:8. This and some other anomalies within the church lead me to believe that Sauniere respected the annointing, again mentioned in John 12.


If Plantard invented the priory, then he named Leonardo da Vinci, as one of the Grand Masters. Leonardo created the "Last Supper". Did Plantard know about the discussion, John is Mary? A good question, yes?


I should mention that Ms. Starbird, is not actually a friend as such, although I have communicated with her, and I do respect her opinions, at the same time not fully agreeing with her.

I am not sure if Plantard et al, as you say, meant the Jesus bloodline to be part of the story at the time.

What you have to look at is where Lincoln et al jettisoned off into the Bloodline theory and why.

In their book HBHG they clearly had done all this research but had come to the conclusion that they were 'missing something'.

They could not see why Rennes-le-Chateau had been linked to a treasure near or at Rennes, or why Sauniere was also linked to it. These 'motifs' of 'treasure' and 'bloodlines' had come from Priory information. Now, when i say Priory, i mean Plantard and de Cherisey.

Lincoln et al decided to go back over their old notes and research to see what it was that they had 'missed'

On page 281 they said: 'Gradually certain pieces of the puzzle were beginning to fall into place. If Godfroi was of Merovingian blood, a number of seemingly disconnected fragments ceased to be disconnected ......and yet the really crucial connection continued to elude us. We still could not see why the Merovingian bloodline should be so important .....we still could not see why a modern Merovingian Monarchy .....warrented such urgent endorsement. Quite clearly we were overlooking something'.

Now, one has to analyse where Lincoln et al went to find that 'something' they were overlooking.

They noted that in some Priory documents the Merovingian pedigree was 'older than the siege of Troy ....According to certain of the Priory documents, the Merovingian pedigree could in fact be traced back to the Old Testament'. The Old Testament tribe constantly referred to was the Tribe of Benjamin. But even here, Lincoln et al still thought they were overlooking something.

The authors speculated that there was one motif, one item, 'admittedly fabulous' that weaved in and out of their research. Bear in mind this 'fabulous' item never figured in Priory documents - but only the research the HBHG authors were doing. And this fabulous motif was the Holy Grail. It is from there that Lincoln et al progressed to a bloodline theory. And it is very easy to see why - from the Grail - they got to a Jesus bloodline.

In itself it is not a new idea. The people Plantard were mixing with in his early years (the occult circles) definitly already subscribed to a bloodline of Jesus, and specifically to the idea that Jesus had a son - and he came to France.

But Plantard never talks of a bloodline from Jesus etc etc. Not that i have read anyway.

In HBHG, Lincoln et al mention the French side of the 'story'. This is that there is an important burial in the area of the Razes. This local legend is that the mummified body of Jesus lies there. Where did that legend ever come from? So the French slant is the 'very important burial' - the English slant is the 'Jesus married Mary Magdalene'. Cherisey goes on no end about this 'very important burial'.
The authors of HBHG never investigated the legends of the area that Jesus was buried there .....


But it looks like Sauniere did, and if Sauniere did, Plantard probably knew about it, hinted at it, and used a related text as part of his plot, IMHO. Of course if Plantard did invent the Priory, then the old, "da Vinci Code argument" surfaces again.

There is absolutly no evidence that Sauniere supported a Jesus married Mary Magdalene scenario, and the bloodline thesis. None whatsoever.

And yes it seems your thoughts were valid, at least on the parchment. The Tisseyre text does not prove the shepherdess parchment is older then 1906. It is not much later and I do thank you for increasing my understanding.

Because of my friendship with a researcher who i believe has satisfactorily 'deciphered' the Dagobert parchment (and it does not matter about the provenance of the parchment, what matters is the knowledge therein) i can now accept that there is evidence that Boudet may have been involved in the parchments. Now, i find myself feeling very vulnerable actually saying this - because it sounds so crazy - but i now believe it is possible. However, we have not even looked in depth at the larger parchment - we have tentatively started looking now ....

This and some other anomalies within the church lead me to believe that Sauniere respected the annointing, again mentioned in John 12.

Should you not be looking at why the annointing was important???? And Magdalene did not do the anointing anyway. It was Mary of Bethany. However, i do accept that internal evidence in the Gospel of John does support the idea that Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene (and some early church fathers accepted this identification). But surely the important bit here is the anointing .... why was Jesus being anointed .....? For his death? For his kingship? In a Jewish sense? How many anointing' s were there? And why is it important to the author of John?
As regards Sauniere, he was priest of the church of Mary Magdalene. One need go no further about why all things Magdalene were highlighted in and outside his church.
Mary Magdalene is an important person in the life of Jesus. Sauniere was a priest.


If Plantard invented the priory, then he named Leonardo da Vinci, as one of the Grand Masters. Leonardo created the "Last Supper". Did Plantard know about the discussion, John is Mary? A good question, yes?

Not really.
I would think between them Plantard and de Cherisey knew a hell of a lot of information. But none of it was new. They had pilfered it from elsewhere.
They invented the Priory but i think were just a new group following the tradition of many groups before them.

Of course the annointing was important (you must have missed what was said a page or two back). Reading all of the references to an annointing with oil in the "Old Testament Scriptures" that, as a Rabbi, Jesus would have known very well, you can see that all Jewish Kings were annointed to their Kingship with oil. If Jesus was to be a Messiah (read King), he needed to be annointed with oil. If you read of the 5 versions of the annointing in the cannonical gospels you can see they are actually of one annointing by one person, Mary, "The Magdalene". Whoever edited these scriptures, did not want a woman being the annointer, therefore lessened the importance of it by having some different woman dump perfume on him every time he sat down to eat.
If Jesus called "The Magdalene", the tower of the flock, or the Magdala, as Luke says, doesn't that make Sauniere's "Tour Magdala", even somewhat interesting, and why not "Tour Madeleine"?


There was always a question of a marriage, it didn't begin with HBHG. It just wasn't mentioned aloud earlier because of certain circumstances.
I am not arguing for the bloodline here Sandy (although IMHO, it did happen), I am only saying that it had been talked about since the very beginning of Christianity.

bergeredearcadie

They exposed a underground ....who would have ever thought that
Mary Magdalene would be the key

Mary Magdalene would be the key

I dont think so.

I also do not think so. She is used as a symbol. It is une grande ironie that she is now also used as a symbol for la politique des genres.

Some people see it and then some don't

Tertius this rebellion has been going on longer than Starbird and Da Vinci Code and HBHG and Plantard

its goes back to when a pope declared her a prostitute

I take it you know that Spartacus was the adopted name of Adam Weishaupt, the Jesuit educated founder of the Bavarian Illuminati?

And a Paraclete is a helper, usually spiritual.

So is the founder of The New World Order & Utopian Globalism your spiritual helper?

The Illuminati had five goals, including:


Looks like they're well on course. So do you subscribe to this philosophy?

It is une grande ironie that she is now also used as a symbol for la politique des genres.

Tertius,

If she is used in this way it is because it is undeniable that the 'Church' - such as it is - has suppressed the role of women in its institution. I guess its the oldest 'old boys' club.
And the Church has, imo, done this against the tenet's of the religion it is promoting.

"By at least the beginning of the 1970's the first examples of Liberation theology were developing. Various groups (blacks, Latin Americans, farm labourers and others ie poor minorities) which had continually experienced prejudice, disadvantage or unjust conditions, began trying to understand their oppression and their hopes for liberation in the light of the Gospels. Too often, the Jesus who was presented to them reflected the image of their oppressors. They began searching for their God, who would help them in their struggle against the unjust conditions, who would liberate them as in the messianic promise of Luke 4:18. 'For the spirit of the Lord ..... has anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives ....to set free those who are downtrodden .....' Women's theology is to be seen against this backdrop - women are expressing themselves more and more in their struggle against oppression of a male-orientated society."

The male centredness of Christianity and theology is something which is still doubted by many males and some females within the church, but every book published dealing with women and Christianity and theology makes it more and more difficult for the opponents.

Hi Richard,

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Richard wrote:



According to Howells (perhaps we should start calling him Howler) Plantard actually told BLL about the Jesus bloodline. However, AFAIK, it was the other way round! HOWEVER it is, IMHO, very important to remember that Plantard did NOT just try to merely establish a familial connection to Merovingian times. Remember that the Priory Documents also try to create a historical pedigree for the Merovingians that claims an ancient Jewish connection of a particular kind. IMHO this distinction is key.

Richard wrote:



Off the top of my head, that's nearly right, except that Plantard made sure to add something that reminded the observer of the Jewish nature of any supposed bloodline. He said something along the lines of - 'Well, this was all a very long time ago, one can't really be sure, but it is important to remember that Jesus had brothers' - I think that was what was said (again I stand to be corrected).

Richard wrote:



Agreed.

Richard wrote:



I agree, IMHO the Jesus bloodline was never intended to be part of Plantard's narrative. However, I don't believe that Plantard was at all pleased with the way his narrative was hijack by the 'bloodliners'. In the end he completely changed the manufactured 'pedigree' of the Priory of Sion to, IMHO, distance himself from the 'bloodline' claims!

Regards,

Spartacus

If so, couldn't the Dagobert and Shepherdess 'parchments' simply have been composed by the same person (say, for example, de Cherisey) and then transcribed by two different people (say, for example, Plantard and de Cherisey)?



Regards,

Spartacus