Arcadia Discussion Zone

Tim,
I did see the Sextus Julianus quotes in Eusebius, but (maybe stupidly, as I didn't check if Sextus was quoted elsewhere) I saw it in the same light as the Hegesippus quotes in Eusebius. IE A later personage (Eusebius), who appears to be involved in what should/should not be in the bible, quoting 'other' sources (from within the same organization) that have now been lost. I think I see the Eusebius testimony a bit like a Labour (UK) supporter of Tony Blair quoting Mandelson or Alastair Campbell without those original documents being there (or similar scenario for Maggie Thatcher).
I know I project my ideas back (it's difficult not to), but the bible and history has taught me about lineages. It is all about who your father/mother was. Royalty particularly are obsessed with it, the Jewish priesthood ditto. The Gospels 'prove' the importance of this, as even though Jesus is the 'Son of G_d', they still feel the need to show he was of a 'mortal' royal (or maybe priestly see below) line (as if being G_d wasn't qualification enough).

So I still don't see, given that some much trouble was gone to to prove how 'royal' the family was, that after Jesus/James/Jude/Simon...blah nothing seems to exist to show the ongoing Royal family. I know SP will now say, I'm just repeating this, but I still don't see that Eusebius/Hegesippus.. does this. . There was so much 'change' going on at the time of Eusebius that without again knowing 'motive', the quotes could be intentionally misleading. They could be to discredit, they could be to prove, they could be to...who knows?
I also don't see that for all the trials and tribulations that Jews had been through (according) to the OT and how they still kept a direct priesthood of the line, that they would not have kept meticulous records - even if the older records had been intentionally or unintentionally destroyed.
I'm not saying the Desposyni didn't exist at all, just that the evidence seems scant. In fact in one way I want the Desposyni to have existed - as I'll explain below.

The other question (or set of related questions) that I'll throw in here (just so I can't be accused of repeating), is ... weren't the Jews particularly fussy about their priesthood? Isn't it also 'true' that Christianity was a Jewish religion and that it was corrupted and that the true 'Jerusalem' church was simply a break away Jewish sect? Christianity was Jewish. So for any of Mary/Joseph's children to assume a priestly role, wouldn't they have to prove a tie back to Levi/Aaron? Hence again the genealogy.
But isn't it also 'true' that there were two 'Jewish' recognised priesthoods? The OT explains how Moses/Aaron as Levites established Aaron and it also talks of Abraham and Melchizedek (was what, 500+ years before the founding of the Aaronic priesthood?). This priesthood was slightly different to the Aaronic priesthood, as Melchizedek was both priest and king.
To me, the promotion of Jesus seemed to be more along those lines. King of The Jews and Priest. Melchizedek. The follow on then is how Melchizedek is interpreted as a name and how that seems to fit with the Qumran scrolls and the 'teacher of righteousness' - taken (possibly) to refer to James. Would that then follow, that Jesus and his family were from a line of mortal Priest-Kings going back to 2000BC.
Isn't this 'priest-king' thing also what separated the stories of the Merovingians from other 'Royal' dynasties? I know this is retro-fitting them back - and I'm there asking for evidence of this - but wouldn't it then make sense if the Merovingians were the extension of that line - so the line does continue, and not just 'vanish'?

I'm not quite sure how I managed to get here from LDV - six degrees of separation?

I think (as I said earlier), if we're looking at Jesus/MM, then we have to understand why and what relevance it has. To me, if Jesus was of a line of priest kings, then if he married MM and had children, that is what would be expected.

All conjecture (and conspiracy theory) of course and nothing new, but still a way of explaining the whole scenario (and maybe justifying a 'hidden bloodline' theory? Although why a line of priest-kings (or any 'royalty' for that matter) is any more 'special' than you or me still baffles me)

PS the obvious thing here is also that the priest-king line isn't 'Jewish' as we know it. It just seems to come from 'nowhere' at the time of Abraham - and is obviously well established as Abraham recognises the priestly role of Melchizedek.

Hi jlockest,

jlockest wrote:



IMHO it is probably better to quantify terms such as 'the Jews'. While some Jews might have been 'fussy about their priesthood' obviously not all were. And I don't just mean individually, but also as groups.

jlockest wrote:



IMHO that might be an overly simplistic view. Christianity BEGAN within a Jewish framework (unless of course you believe the claims of Lynn Picknett ) but very quickly became something distinct. Whether what that was can be termed 'corrupted' depends of course on which side of the divide you stand. The original Jewish Christians would seem IMHO to be either Jews who believed Jesus was the (edited to add) PHYSICALLY EXISTENT Messiah, AND/OR Jews who believe He was a (edited to add) PHYSICALLY EXISTENT rightful royal claimant (with all that that entailed during that period) (this raises obvious questions about the claim that Jesus didn't actually exist...why was there any Jewish Christians if Jesus was a literary invention?) So, for Jews who rejected the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, any original Jewish Christian sect would be a 'corruption'. However, for those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the 'corruption' was obviously those in 'denial'...

jlockest wrote:



IMHO THE earliest ChristianitIES began as Jewish sects but very quickly developed their own distinctive characteristics. But it should also be noted that some Jews would obviously claim that Christianity was ALWAYS inherently distinct from Judaism, right from its very beginnings, because of its acceptance of Jesus as THE Messiah. It is a matter of perspective, obviously...



It might also be worth your while examining the Hasmonean claim to the High Priesthood...

jlockest wrote:



Wasn't the supposed divinity and religious authority of ancient royalty fairly common in ancient times (I think...I stand to be corrected on that)?

However the above scenario may have been what Plantard and co were (somewhat confusedly IMHO) attempting to claim (at least at one stage of their developing myth!)... a theme picked up by and elaborated on by BLL etc. However the Priory Documents claim specifically that the Merovingians were descended from the Tribe of Benjamin...

Regards,

Spartacus

There is a growing school of thought that Jesus was a myth out of which a religion grew. In other words Jesus was a god but not real. There are many Jesus stories that pre-date the 1st century. There is also the OT Joshua (=Jesus) - he could have been the basis of a long lived Jesus myth.

We consider Osiris, Mithras, Dionysius and all the others to be myths - but long lived religions were based on them.

Also, there could have been an historical figure and because of his geneology/birth right might have been considered the Messiah or a king and the extant Jesus/Joshua myths conflated with him along with other ancient soteriological elements which have been evident in most of the major precursor religions.

Boy O boy, SP, there's a lot of opinion in there.

At least you're certain about your moniker.

How come you lambast everybody else for not providing sources and evidence?

Is there one rule for the righteous and another for the great unwashed?

Surprise, surprise.

SP,
I won't quote your post is that ok?

Jews - I think here I'm trapped by my Sunday School brain. I originally thought that the term applied to all the people lead by Moses. I later qualified that to the people of the tribe of Judah. I see in one of the links here (or maybe on that Eisenman link I posted) that it has been latterly used as a term of denigration because of Judas. Also, I think there could also be confusion by the split in the tribes, with the northern tribes of Israel, and the southern tribes of Judah - that encompassed both Judah and Benjamin (and the smattering of Levi) - whether the south then became Jews and the north Israel, I think is largely irrelevant. To me though, it generally refers to all those people who hold/held the Torah as their VSL. (which presumably limits it to when sometime after the first Temple? Although that doesn't preclude an earlier version from Moses time some, what 600 years earlier?).

Jewish Priesthood - when I then say they were 'fussy', then the rule for being a Priest is established in the OT (Torah). Odd that when Levi as a tribe is selected, that Moses would seem to be the ideal candidate, effectively making him closer to the 'priest king' role, but instead, his brother and thereafter his offspring are allocated the role. Presumably the 'king' role is still held by G_d at this point in the story.

Two Priestly Routes - to me then the Hasmoneans may stake a claim, but that can only be done by either linking back to Mechizedek or Levi - two routes nevertheless. The 'Jews' then to see both as valid.

Kings / Priests - again, I don't know whether this was common. I thought that kingship was conferred rather than inherited by right of birth. I'll check the OT again, but I thought G_d kicked up a fuss when the Jews wanted a king - basically asking 'why do you need one when you've got Me?' BUT it seems the Melchizedek role (some say that Melchizedek was simply the title of the man) was some form of hereditary thing. I also thought that all 'monarchs' ruled by 'divine right', but I wasn't aware that this meant that they were also priest (just how they obtained their authority).

I think the implication here, and maybe why both the state and church would be concerned by such a person is simply this combined role. The priest/king, not the church/Pope then talks with the voice of G_d. So you could then potentially see that such a person would have been seen as a threat to both Rome and the existing order of Jews in Jerusalem.

Whether Paul then intentionally misunderstands the role of this 'messiah', or, simply out of expediency, tries to make the 'role' closer to what pantheistic religions already understand, who can say.

To me, that was the only way that the 'bloodline' thing then made any sense. The Piso bit could also fall into place (no more than a set of spin doctors today) - with the 'original' teachings maybe being given a slant that could allow the newly found religion to be placed under a different control. The control, if based on Melchizedek, couldn't move - it had to stay within the lineage.

That is why I've been so keen to see if anyone had info in the line AFTER Jesus other than the 'church' line. Lineage is all.


Having said all that, there have been a couple of programs lately (BBC - UK) by 'learned' people that focus on the pantheistic nature of Jewish belief anyway - so I don't know where that leaves us. Unless, to prove any point we have to dispute/re-test everything that has ever been written.

Fascinating though isn't it? What (if anything) did Sauniere find - a proof of lineage? Whose? And why would any lineage be relevant today when Republics rule and monarchies are on the decline?

Could it though (I know nowt of the Koran), unite Islam, Judaism and Christianity?

Edited: sorry - from the Wiki:
Melchizedek is mentioned twice in the Hebrew Bible. The first occurs at Genesis 14:18-20, part of the larger story of Genesis 14:17-24 which tells how Abram returns from defeating king Chedorlaomer and his associates and meets with the king of Sodom, at which point:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.[6]

The second is in Psalm 110:4, celebrating some victory or conquest of an unnamed king of the Davidic dynasty. The king is said to be a "priest forever" and a successor of Melchizedek, and the text is translated (KJV):

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hi jlockest,

jlockest wrote:



All very valid, but it's not exactly what I was banging on about...

jlockest wrote:



My point was that 'the Jews' were and are quite a factional bunch...what is 'fussy' to some, is absolutely essential to others, and of absolutely no consequence to others, a situation that is applicable to previous periods…

‘The Jews’ is not IMHO a particularly accurate descriptive term, that is nevertheless unfortunately used repeatedly, particularly in a negative way. Perhaps this is simple hair-splitting, but I meant it sincerely in the context of your observations, which is why I mentioned the Hasmonean claim.

For example, if you said ‘the English’ are ‘fussy’ about their Queen… well some of them might be, but others certainly couldn’t give a monkey’s, and some are actively hostile to the very concept of a 'Queen'…

Regards,

Spartacus

SP,
Can you do that? Can you compare being English to being Jewish? Wouldn't it be better to compare say being Protestant to being Jewish?

Isn't what I said earlier more the case - ie that being Jewish is a religion and a state? So, to be Jewish is more about using the Torah as the VSL, than necessarily originating from a certain location?

Maybe I should have said then that the Jewish religion is 'fussy' about its priesthood? IE the Torah states how it originated and how it is passed on?

Again, I'm no Biblical/religious scholar, so was just putting up what I thought was the case.

Good points hotspur.

You're correct, I don't read all the posts (if they are not part of a dialogue I'm directly involved in) and so I stand corrected.

TCP

Eusebius cites direct quotes from the works of S. Julius Africanus and Hegesippus; the fact that these are now lost has no bearing on their value as source materials in Eusebius' time, as obviously they were not lost when he transcribed them. I'm not sure what his role as a canonical scholar (not compiler) has to do with the matter at hand, namely citations in his Historia Ecclesiae, which was not commentary on the canon, but was a history of the early church. If there is some suggestion here that Eusebius tinkered with genealogical data to downplay the role or significance of Jesus' relatives, I can't imagine why he would have included these citations at all.



The Gospel genealogies are obviously conflicting and very difficult to interpret through a Christian gloss. For one thing, they both culminate in Joseph, and to orthodox Christians Joseph wasn't Jesus' father; so by what I consider a very contrived formula they seek to differentiate between Joseph's wholly immaterial genealogy in Matthew, and Mary's genealogy in Luke. Also, by noting the inclusion (twice) of the name Levi in Luke's version, some well-meaning but ill-informed Biblical scholars conclude that Mary was a Levite, ergo Jesus was a kohan, or hereditary priest. Thus in Jesus we have an assumed confluence of royal and priestly lineage. A few problems arise from this formula:

a) Luke's genealogy shows descent from David through his son Nathan, while the royal lineage passed through the descendants of his brother Solomon. Nathan was never a king and thus his descendants were not kings.

b) If Luke's genealogy actually culminates with Mary, even if there was an established line of royal descent (through Solomon and not Nathan) Mary could not pass this on to her own son, as the succession excluded females.

c) Tribal affiliations were determined according to the twelve sons of Jacob; therefore despite the double appearance of the name Levi in Luke's genealogy, these two individuals are positioned many generations after these tribal affiliations were established. Luke's genealogy shows descent from Jacob's son Judah, not Jacob's son Levi, some (not all) of whose male descendants form the kohanim, or priestly caste. A kohan must be born the son of a father who is both a Levite and a kohan, it is non-transmissible through mothers. Thus if Luke's genealogy is Mary's, as Christian scholars have been assuming for centuries, even if she was a Levite, her son would not be, and could thus not be a kohan.



Likely because the House of David had ceased to reign many centuries before Jesus was born, thirteen generations before in fact (I know, Matthew cites fourteen between Jeconiah/Jehoiachin and Jesus, but it's only fourteen if you count Jesus as the fourteenth so it's not technically "between"). But again, this is Matthew's version that Christians hold to be Joseph's bloodline of descent, which to a Christian would have nothing to do with Jesus.

If, for the sake of argument, we hold that Joseph really was Jesus' biological father and Matthew's genealogy is accurate, we can see a closer degree of royal descent than in Luke's version but there are mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account. Thirteen generations up from Jesus we find the name of the second-to-last king of Judah, Jeconiah/Jehoiachin. From there down we see a chronological list this king's male descendants, but none of them are kings. Unlike the British royal family where primogenture determines the right to succession by order of birth, the Judean kings didn't use this formula. Each king picked his own successor from among his sons, it was not automatically determined by which son was eldest. Likewise with formerly reigning European royal houses that used primogeniture to determine their succession, the claimant or head-of-house is still designated by this method. We don't know by what method, if any, the House of David might have used to determine a claimant and head-of house, if any at all as the succession rights were discretionary to the reigning monarch. Without a sitting king to pick which son would succeed him, and owing to the fact that their kingdom was demolished thirteen generations before Jesus, I don't know how anyone could possibly determine that Jesus was "the" solely rightful heir. A descendant, yes, but likely one of thousands after thirteen generations had passed.



Why conclude a perfidious "motive" on Eusebius' part at all? Might it not have been easier just to exclude any mention of these people at all? Or to make an attempt to discredit them more obvious? Neither S. Julius nor Hegesippus called these two grandsons of Judah impostors. If that was Eusebius' goal, he didn't pull it off very successfully.



Bear in mind the number of times the Jews had been driven out of their homeland into a life of exile and deprivation, or were comquered. There were plenty of opportunities for records to have been destroyed. In S. Julius, he mentions some who committed their "begats" to memory.



If by "fussy" you mean exclusionary, then yes. The kohanim or priestly caste came from the tribe of Levi (although belonging to the tribe of Levi didn't automatically make one a priest) and descended from Aaron.



That's my understanding.



Yes. But where is it stated in scripture that Jesus assumed a priestly role? He was a rabbi (teacher), not a kohan (priest).



I wouldn't classify Melchizedek as "Jewish" per se, but rather as a Jebusite. The OT doesn't mention two distinct Jewish lines of priesthood existing concurrently, and Melchizedek existed before there were "Jews".



I guess it would depend on who was doing the promoting. The two genealogies don't point in that direction at all.



Before Clovis' conversion to Catholicism, the Merovingian chieftains were pagan and served their tribal gods in a "priestly" role, yes. After Clovis' conversion, no - the Merovingian monarchs played no sacerdotal role. "Priest-King" suggests a concurrence of roles and that is a misnomer in their case.



That's a pretty big "if". By Jewish standards, and according to the two NT genealogies, Jesus could not have been a kohan as he wasn't a Levite or a descendant of Aaron. If there was some other hereditary line of priests that Jesus' supporters were promoting then there doesn't seem to be any indication of it in the NT.



But don't you think that theories and conjecture should be based on something tangible, and not just taking advantage of perceived holes in, or insufficient analysis of, the narrative itself? I mean, should the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does it state unequivocably that Jesus had thirty-two teeth in his head be sufficient reason to speculate or theorize about how many teeth he actually had? Should we assume that because the narratives say nothing at all on the matter we can safely conclude that he didn't have a full set of teeth?



Yes, in Jewish teaching Melchizedek is a Jebusite who worships the same god that Abram/Abraham worships. The timeframe is pre-Jewish, so from that standpoint neither Melchizedek nor Abraham were Jews. They weren't even technically Hebrews.

TCP

Ancient Rabbis were married, Jesus was a Rabbi.



The Wedding at Cana.

Tim,
Isn't that the rub? If I ask for something tangible for the Desposyni there is something - but it is from the 'party line' . If there is such scant evidence, from a time that is well documented, what chance going back 500 years earlier than that? And even worse, do I become selective? IE If I take Eusebius as gospel, do I then by default have to take the Gospels as gospel? So Jesus must be the 'Son' of G_d (sorry, because of Nicaea, G_d himself)? And If I do doubt that Jesus is G_d, then doesn't that throw the whole nature and motive behind that narrative and Eusebius' into question?
So on one hand it is valid to say '....yes, but the documents no longer exist...', and on the other hand '...show me proof....'. What I can do, is show that Melchizedek held a special place in the Abramic/'Jewish' story (which may all be fiction), and then show he was still important at the point of Psalms according to the OT - so what a range of 1500 years? I can show the priest-king. I can show that for whatever reason Rome felt it necessary to control what was read about the events in Palestine in the 1st century.

Then we have schools of thought that say the the whole Abram/'Jewish' story is a myth anyway, what record is there of the Israelites leaving Egypt, - then there are people who have for years pointed to the pantheisitic nature of the OT - as I said, even a biblical scholar was on the box the other day, pointing out these 'anomalies'. The worship of Baal, Baal as El...El as G_d...

What is actually known? Archaeology isn't exactly proving the OT, BUT what is odd, is that we do know that the a group of people were exiled from the area and that the Temple was sacked. We have a vague idea that the OT was compiled about the time of the people being exiled. Were these a random selection of people trying to establish a national identity or a nation trying to document their history?

What I'm getting at, is that large parts of the 'Jewish' 'story' is an unknown. There isn't any 'proof' for most of it - even down to whether they even worshipped a single god (the OT goes to great pains to show for years they didn't anyway). Can I prove Abram? Moses? Jacob? Judah? Not a hope as yet (until something 'tangible' is found). This is again why I asked earlier, what people here believed - as if no one here actually believes in any of this aren't we really discussing the plot of a book (or two)?

We then come closer to the present, and then have Eisenman then saying (refer http://roberteisenman.com/articles/juda ... nukkah.htm):
The most interesting points that emerged from the necessarily-curtailed discussion were how few "orthodox Gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc.) had come to light from that period (the Second Century -- the single example cited being one possibly-identifiable fragment from the papyrus trash heaps of Egypt from the Gospel of John) and how many heterodox ones had, on the other hand, appeared. Did this mean that more people at that time were reading "sectarian" Gospels rather than "orthodox" ones (i.e., those declared "orthodox" at Church Conferences in the Fourth Century starting with Constantine and his Bishop Eusebius and onwards)? The answer of the more conservative members of the Panel (Chair Williams of the U. of Washington, DeConick, and even Robinson, et. al.) was, not really, but that, in any case, the newly-discovered "Gospel of Judas" was less historical than the orthodox.

At this point, since there were no other questions, I raised my hand and asked, "What makes you think any of them are historical and not just retrospective and polemical literary endeavors of a kind familiar in the Hellenistic World at that time? Why consider one superior to the other and not simply retrospective theological repartee expressed in a literary style? The Gospel of Judas was clearly a polemical philosophical text, but so too probably were all the others. Why not consider all a kind of quasi-Neoplatonic, Mystery Religion-oriented literature that was still developing in the Second Century and beyond as the Gospel of Judas itself clearly demonstrates?"

A sort of hushed silence fell on the three hundred or so persons present in the audience, but despite Chair Williams’ attempt to intervene, I continued: "Why think any historical or even representative of anything that really happened in Palestine in the First Century? Why not consider all Greco-Hellenistic romantic fiction or novelizing with an ax to grind – in the case of the "orthodox" anyhow (and to some extent the Gospel of Judas), incorporating the Pax Romana of the earlier great Roman Emperor Augustus, as other literature from this period had; and, of course, the Anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish legal attachments which were the outcome of the suppression of the Jewish War from 66-73 CE?"

"The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were masters of such man/God fiction and the creation of such characters as Osiris, Dionysus, Asclepius, Hercules, Orpheus, and the like, as the works of Hesiod, Euripides, Virgil, Ovid, Petronius, Seneca, Apuleius, et. al. also vividly attest. Why not consider all simply part of this man-God/personification literature -- in this instance, incorporating the new Jewish concept of "Salvation"/ "Yeshu'a" in Hebrew – and nothing more?" At this point, Chair Williams finally did succeed in getting in an answer on behalf of what he described as "the whole Panel," to the effect that "Tradition affirmed they were" which he probably considered sufficient for someone like myself, one of the only non-Christians or persons of Jewish background in the room who might have enough knowledge to say something meaningful or precise enough to matter.

Scary eh? That the whole of what the West has based it's religion on - may be according to some, all fiction from the OT onwards. So Sauniere found something that proved it was all a fiction? Can't prove that either.

I honestly don't think that Sauniere and a blood line are linked and I don't know what Sauniere found and I do follow that the whole RLC thing may be a 'story' in its own right - but for some weird reason, I still 'feel' there is something behind this. A Mulder - the 'truth' is out there feeling.
Whether Sauniere found something that can bring down western religion - I don't think it would take much (if indeed any of 'this' is even based on religion).

What I think I'm saying in all the above, is that the very nature of all this and the lack of evidence across the board, virtually any theory can be applied. I agree that those theories need to be proven to become 'fact' - but because of the nature of what we're talking about, things are accepted as fact without 'proof' anyway. I wasn't taught about a fictional Moses, a fictional Jesus, a fictional Jacob. I was taught that as fact.

So people coming up with theories is good (theory is just fact awaiting proof), as sooner or later one of the theories (IMHO) will be on the right track and be the thread that finally unravels all this. On the other hand, I can understand the frustration at trying to show people evidence that disproves (or at least throws in a major doubt as to) their theories.

(But if we're here simply to discuss what is possibly behind the LDV painting, the I'll stick with my - 'Jesus as Melchizedek' as a good a way as any of creating a conspiracy theory around the 'facts'! .)

...PS... I just re-read and saw that you also said:
That's a pretty big "if". By Jewish standards, and according to the two NT genealogies, Jesus could not have been a kohan as he wasn't a Levite or a descendant of Aaron. If there was some other hereditary line of priests that Jesus' supporters were promoting then there doesn't seem to be any indication of it in the NT.

What about the book of Hebrews? Isn't that book about Christ in the order of Melchisedec is good enough so shows that is what was thought? Or do you see that as only Pauline and not representative at all?

I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point though, as as I've said I don't see that a bloodline (in itself) is what all this is about. IF though (that is a big if) Sauniere had found something that proved that the NT/Niceaen 'interpretation' was a concocted story based on 'fact' (what is better than 'spinning' the truth as we've found out recently - take 'fact', alter a few things, create a half 'truth' and hey presto, something that is believable), then maybe the implication of what a blood line may mean is what we should be looking to? (As I was trying to say clumsily earlier)

I hope it’s ok if I comment on this point. It’s in a longer post actually addressed to Tim.

But I couldn’t help thinking of poor Dr Bartlett. I can’t imagine that even in his wildest dreams he ever thought that when he wrote that letter to Henry Lincoln, he would be paradoxically sowing the seeds of a new religion.

It never ceases to amaze me (having once been in the same boat myself) that people who agonize over the historicity of Jesus and whether the bible is history, and over the existence of God, are perfectly willing to suspend disbelief in regards to HBHG (and “ L’Or de Rennes”).

You have only to spend a little time checking out the sources of HBHG to discover how it has earned the description of “pseudo-history”, and to realise that it was written by unscrupulous and reckless authors who were solely interested in propagating their own “hypothesis”.

The real interest of RLC, IMHO, is this insight it provides into the genesis of religious belief and the origins of superstition, into how gullible we are, and how easy it is for us to be manipulated by authors (including an actor and script-writer) who write an attractive blend of fact and fiction, and relay second- hand the thoughts of the little known Dr Bartlett.

Paddy

The relationship between myth and the process of myth creation and religion is an interesting one and probably at the core of understanding the evolution of a religion.

According to the the 2001 Australian Census, 70,000 people are members of the Jedi faith. The Canadian Census of the time counted 20,000 members. This of course begs the obvious question, how many of these people are teasing the Census takers and how many are actually serious in their declaration of faith in the Jedi religion. No doubt many of these people are genuine in the adherence to the Jedi way of life and code.

To bring this point home, this week I read in one of the local dailies that a different kind of service was to be held in a Uniting Church church with the complete complicity of the parish reverend. Worshippers dressed as Wookies, warlocks and vampires have been invited to attend the service at which readings fro the Lord of the Rings and Hary Potter etc. etc will be presented. It has been tagged the "Sci-Fi and Fantasy Friendly Church Service".

The idea is purely to get more bums on the pews and fill the church for once.

The members of the "normal" congregation, as it is, are in a state of consternation - some saying it is blasphemous and promoting witchcraft.

So here we have a near moribund religion, hitching it's wagon to modern idioms to attract new members, hoping to introduce the old faith to a new crowd. You wonder how big a leap it would be for Jediism and the like to be incorporated into the Christian canon.

It is almost as if we are being shown a possible mechanism by which new religions grow out of old ones - such as Christianity emerging from Judaism.

Who's to say that in 50 or a 100 years it will be a platitude to say Jesus was a Jedi.

Butt in as much as you like - more than welcome.

Don't you think though, that whether there is anything behind RLC or not, that a lot of people have become 'more aware' of 'history' because of it? As I said earlier, I went to a C of E school and was taught Religious Knowledge as a subject for what, 8 years? It was taught as fact. I had no reason to doubt any more than I doubted my maths teacher. Why would I? I saw churches all around and realised this had been believed for centuries - so if there was something erroneous with the religion, wouldn't it have been picked up by all those intelligent men over the centuries and debunked then?

To me the 'history' of the bible itself was then an eye-opener - let alone then realising that the characters involved in 'creating' that book, all had a vested interest in promoting their version. Maybe not even that clicked home until I realised that people haven't changed in essence for thousands of years. They were not less intelligent - they wanted the same things and power and greed were exactly the same. You then see how the Bible came together in a different light - what was the motive if it was not control? You seen then the 'spin' - as Eisenman says, the Greeks/Romans/Egyptians had centuries of perfecting creating the myth (unless you want to argue that Osiris, Zeus, Aphrodite, Neptune etc existed?).
Hasn't the 'common' man always just believed what he's told? If he's told to be meek and all will come to him in the next world, isn't that a great control mechanism? Isn't that what effectively occurred around the 4th century? An old order vanished, and a new control came into being - the end result is the same. The opium of the masses (now who said that?).

So to me, the great benefit of HBHG wasn't in what it said, but in what it got people to do. Question.

RLC may be a fiction - so might the RCC.

I stopped believing in Jesus as G_d years back - simply as I couldn't follow how/why an omniscient, omnipotent G-d needed to manifest in flesh to understand what his creation was going through. Let alone, creating this 'manifestation' in a small part of the world, and letting the 'message' drift out over millenia to the four corners (if ever). That also then ignores the issue of what happens to the people who lived before, those who are deaf dumb and blind, those who die at birth....blah. Let alone then questioning the religion based on that character that professes peace, love and poverty that in reality has caused millions to die, 'hated' vehemently those who opposed it, and that is one of the wealthiest organizations the world has known. Why not simply plant a thought in every humans mind? Don't compromise free will. Just a thought.

I say the above simply to ask then what is worse, 'believing' in what might be a fiction at RLC, or believing in a fiction that may be organised Christian religion? What has caused most damage over the centuries?

PS I'm actually not sure that 'people' believe in RLC - as there is nothing to believe per se - but I think a lot of people think there may be something behind the events and a few are trying to see if they can find anything amongst the conflicting stories. Much the same as a few people are trying to glean some 'truth' about what actually happened in 1st century Palestine, and then 3 centuries later. Refer back to what I said earlier about 'belief'.

PPS Again, I'm not trying to intentionally knock other people's beliefs. I'm happy if all the world wants to believe a Tree is G_d or G_d is in a stone. I honestly don't care. I'd rather have a good person who believes in an amulet, than an evil person who believes in Jesus. I only object, when any belief is forced onto anyone and used to control. Pointing that out isn't knocking the persons belief - does that make sense?

.

Aha, but what if I don't make seven years? What if I only last another 3?

.

It's about time someone pulled the plug on this weirdo and sent him back to the sewer

.

Halle frigin lulia

Your going to not make it. Your going to be deceived until the end and follow this false king and burn in hell forever when the true King returns at the end of the 7 years.

Err, have we fallen into a time blip?

Are we really currently living in the Middle Ages? Where the bloody Pope and his Catholics frightened everyone about burning in hell? Grrrr.

Mind you, whats interesting is this:

"The modern English word Hell is derived from Old English hel, helle (about 725 AD to refer to a nether world of the dead) reaching into the Anglo-Saxon pagan period, and ultimately from Proto-Germanic *halja, meaning "one who covers up or hides something"

That did amuse me - perhaps the ancient orgin of the word Hell means 'one who covers up or hides somethng'.

.

.