Arcadia Discussion Zone

The following exercise helped illuminate the Jesus Bloodline hypothesis for me; perhaps you will find it useful.

After reading “The Holy Blood Holy Grail” in 1982, I was left with the distinct impression that Plantard had been the source of Lincoln, Baigent, and Liegh’s Jesus Bloodline hypothesis. A few years ago I heard that the Priory of Sion had been exposed as a Plantard and De Sade hoax, and so I believed that the evidence supporting the bloodline theory had been discredited. I was therefore surprised to discover Bruce Burgess proclaiming the Jesus Bloodline theory to be proven by his discovery of Mary Magdalene’s mummified body in Rennes-le-Chateau? Of course, such an important assertion cannot be taken seriously without compelling evidence, which unfortunately we don't have, so must ignore this claim for now. Following a recent discussion about the Bloodline theory I mentioned my assumption that the source of this hypothesis was Plantard. It wasn’t until later that I began to doubt this recollection from 26 years ago. So I decided to do what is becoming a repetitive chore nowadays, I checked my facts.

In order to obtain an overview of the Bloodline theory I began to search the internet and quickly selected a Wikipedia article on the subject. To my surprise it revealed that Lincoln and Co had not been the first to suggest that Jesus had had a descendant. An Australian journalist named Donovan Joyce in his 1973 book “The Jesus Scroll” proposed that Jesus had survived the crucifixion, had married and had a child with Mary Magdalene, and had died at Masada. Andreas Feber-Kieser also explored this idea of a surviving Jesus having children in his 1977 book “Jesus died in Kashmir”, where he suggests that he married and had children with a Kashmiri woman. The fact that I was abroad with the army until 1978 explained my ignorance of these publications and the uproar they were causing. It was time to examine my copy of “The Holy Blood Holy Grail”. I began by examining its index, Bibliography, and references to see what the authors had to say about the fact that others before them had speculated upon a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their having had children. Only the “The Jesus Scroll” was cited in the bibliography, together with two brief references from it. The first is found on page 312 and concerns the release of barabbas - “One modern writer has proposed an intriguing and plausible explanation. He suggests that Barabbas was the son of Jesus, and Jesus a legitimate king”. The second reference come from page 318 where they discuss Jesus surviving the crucifixion – “an Australian journalist has put forward an intriguing and persuasive argument that Jesus died at Masada”. I failed to find any acknowledgement that it was Joyce who had first postulated that Jesus had married, and had had a child, with Mary Magdalene!

A search through selected paragraphs of the book revealed that the only original idea proffered by the authors was that Mary Magdalene was from the tribe of Benjamin. It was this one crucial deduction that enabled the author’s to propose a hereditary link between Mary Magdalene, the Merovingians, and the present day Priory of Sion. Given its importance, I began to search for the evidence upon which it was based. I found it on page 307, “In the new testament there is no indication of the Magdalene’s tribal affiliations. In subsequent legends, however, she is said to have been of royal lineage. And there are other traditions which state specifically that she was of the tribe of Benjamin”. That’s it, no references to these “subsequent legends” or “other traditions”, only the bold statement “that she was of the tribe of Benjamin”?

If we look at this lineage issue from the other perspective, the Merovingians, we discover on page 234-5 that the author’s based their suggestion that the merovingians were descended from the tribe of Benjamin upon clues found in the Dossiers secrets. It was these clues that led the author’s to the tribe of Benjamin; to suggest the same ancestry for Mary Magdalene, and so propose a “Sang Real” or a Royal Bloodline rising from Jesus. Whether intentional or not, Plantard had been the source of the Jesus Bloodline hypothesis.

The fact that the Jesus Bloodline theory was roundly criticized at the time for its spurious evidence is a matter of record. Dan Brown’s fictional “Da Vinci Code” in 2003 and the claimed discovery of Jesus’ tomb in 2007, and now the claimed discovery of Mary Magdalene tomb in France by Bruce Burgess, have each extended the life of what is, a discredited hypothesis. In 2005 Tony Robinson’s hosted channel 4’s “The Real Da Vinci Code” where Arnaud De Sade, the son of Gerard De Sade, asserted that his father and Plantard had made up the Priory of Sion and its history.

So are we about to announce the death of the Jesus Blood hypothesis? Perhaps, once Bruce Burgess has submitted his findings to scrutiny.

The Priory of Sion is another matter. I think the existence of a secret faction within society is evident. It may however take the exposure of its secret to reveal its members. It doesn’t look likely that the Priory of Sion was ever associated with this mysterious faction, but then Plantard may have believed that it was.

..

'*'

My apologies, I should have been more specific.

What I suggest (from my brief examination) is that the “Merovignian bloodline” hypothesis is discredited; a suggestion I base upon the fact that the Priory of Sion documents have been declared “fiction”, by the publisher himself. If there is an argument that states otherwise I would love to here it.

Importantly, I do not argue either way the possibility of a marriage between Jesus and Magdalene, or that they had a child. I just haven’t seen anything conclusive on the subject.

I agree with those who place Mary Magdalene at the centre of this mystery; the early Gnostic church did, and so did Sauniere. As have many others.

Can you tell me where I can obtain a copy of “On the Origins of the Magdalene Legend”?

..

Are these descendants referring to a royal bloodline or something unique about their family blood?

Was it Plantard who referred to their blood as sacred?

What are their interpretations of the Holy Grail?

You can find my interpretation of the Grail in my article here on Arcadia entitled - The Secret Origins of Religion and Civilisation.

Thanks for the link to your article, I'll watch out for it

It can de dated further it back even further than that if you count Vintras and Boullan, defrocked priests like Louis Martin. Martin's depiction of Jesus was as an atheist and socialist reformer like himself, who cared nothing about religion. His Mary Magdalene, along with Lazarus and Martha, were pagans; and the child of Jesus and Magdalene was St. Maximin.



Like, perhaps, Vintras and Boullan?

TCP

Which ones do you speak to, Sandy?

TCP

..

..

This is good...

Are we nearing the true mystery of RLC; a religious revelation concerning the true nature of Jesus?

My take on that, would be that Jesus' divinity was marked by his "transfiguration", the high place where he begins to emenate a divine radiance.

The various trials and tribulations suffered prior to this event are important, as are the things that happened afterwards, because some of them can be explained by his assumed divine radiance.

If you look around the church of Sauniere, and others throughout christendom, you will find saints in groups. Is it merely a coincidence that many of these saints emanated the same divine radiance! The lives of the others do exhibit some interesting theological and ritual features, but I am behind in my analysis of these.

For me, the common denominator here is the victims blood, which the evidence suggests is the source of this rare bodily radiance.

At the centre of the RLC mystery is the Sangraal, the Holy Grail, or Holy Blood. My research into ancient ritual phenomena has led me to RLC as I consider that its secret predates christianity; hence Saunieres and Boudets fascination with megalithic sites.

I'm unable to access the members list so can you tell me who I am talking to? You guys appear to know each other.

John

John,

Very interested in everything you (and others) have posted above, and in your article elsewhere on this site, but I would respectfully question the above statement. In fact, don't the two sentences in the paragraph above contradict each other?

Surely the "Sangraal / Holy Blood" idea only features in the RLC mystery because Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh chose to put it there, as a hypothesis at the end of HBHG (subsequently popularised still further by being turned into a novel by Dan Brown, and now perpetuated by "Bloodline"). I think it's a red herring, myself. There may well be a bloodline component to the mystery, but I don't believe it has anything to do with Christianity.

However, I am much more inclined to agree that the secret pre-dates Christianity, and relates in some way to the megalithic sites around RLC.

Your arguments are very interesting indeed, and require a more thoughtful response than I am able to provide at this time, but I will endeavour to add more to this particular debate in due course, and will continue to follow this thread with great interest.

Richard

Bingo.

We appear to be both converging from different directions to the same conclusion.

Blue Apples?

Hi Richard

Thanks for your comments.

Were back to Plantard I’m afraid and the ideas he disseminated. This is clearly where the bloodline of Lincoln, Baigent, and Leigh originated – this was their erroneous take on the secret of the Holy Grail. It was the authors who drew a tenuous link between the medieval Holy Grail legends and the Merovingians (see page 269), another erroneous link in the Jesus bloodline theory.

The Grail legends suggest that the Templar’s are its protectors. The Templar's, along with the Grail legend, originate in Troyes. The Templars are linked to the Cathars and the RLC region. If this knowledge was retained in the region by its royalty, then Sauniere might have discovered, or been initiated, into its secret. He may have utilised this knowledge to obtain his fortune. Perhaps it was this that caused displeasure in the Vatican? Whatever the secret, it appears that it was shared by other priests in the region.

I do believe that, whether by design or otherwise, the Jesus Bloodline theory has deflected researchers from the true RLC mystery, in that it has confused the role of Jesus in all of this. I think researchers need to refocus upon the region where the mystery appears. They need to identify the key factors again, like Sauniere’s placement of the statues; I believe he is telling us something important because if you look around the key churches of Christendom you will find these same saints grouped together in side altars, designed and paid for by the elite in society! The iconography is Christian, but the faith behind it appears different?

Roscoe… are you telling me I’m not alone in the universe?

John

Sorry about that bergeredearcadie, I missed your point about others prior to Lincoln and Co suggesting a Jesus bloodline!

I take on board what you and TCP both say and find it interesting that we are talking about disaffected priests about the time of Sauniere. Would this information have been available to Plantard?

Is there an English translation of Doumergue's book?

John

Ah, but did it? This is what I'm not clear on. Plantard certainly tried to insert the idea of a Merovingian bloodline into the mystery, as the Priory documents and genealogies make clear, and Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh duly picked this up and ran with it. But a bloodline of Christ?

As Bergeredarcadie rightly points out, such an idea pre-dates HBHG, but I'm not at all sure that it was on Plantard's radar - at least, not until Henry Lincoln put it to him, at which point Plantard shrugged and said something like, "Well, that may be true, but who knows, it was all a very long time ago". One can almost envisage the lightbulb going off in his head, as he disseminated this piece of welcome news, and wondered how to weave it into his story.

By the way, I'm not one of those who writes Plantard off as a fraud or a charlatan, and I mean no disrespect to his memory in what I have written above. I believe him to be a key player in the mystery, in possession of certain secrets, and he's someone I take seriously, but there are times when Sion seem to follow this story, rather than lead it. And times when they clearly use invention, for whatever purpose.

Similarly, and with further relevance to this thread, Gino Sandri categorically denied a few years ago that Sion had anything whatsoever to do with a bloodline of Jesus and yet now he crops up in the "Bloodline" film, where presumably (I obviously haven't seen it) he does align himself with this idea. Again - leading the story or following it? Very, very odd.

I was with you all the way for two paragraphs! BLL added the Jesus bloodline thread to the RLC mess, not Plantard who was simply trying to pretend that he was descended from royalty.

However, I am one of those who writes Plantard off as a fraud and a charlatan. He tacked RLC on to his existing fun and games after coming across Corbu's stories.

hello john........read on

I agree with those who place Mary Magdalene at the centre of this mystery; the early Gnostic church did, and so did Sauniere. As have many others.

Hello John,
The Holy Grail is an "Enlightened state of Consciousness".. the union of opposites of light and sound...John the Baptist magdelene seed...
therefore the bloodline is passed on in spiritual truth to families of this lineage , the christ ...messiah would have been a Gnostic Cabalistic saviour..Mary Magalene symbolizes the divine truth in Gnosis .. the feminine principle... therefore whether jesus (gnostic) and magdalene had children or not does not matter , what matters is the truth and reality...

However there is a bloodline which has a synthesis of this seed in them , giving them a higher level of consciousness..RLC is but a staging point to this truth....The Gnostic serpent wheel is on the Earth now and is preparing for 2012 and stargates.....based on reality and truth...linked to higher intelligence..IT IS TIME TO LOOK FORWARD..
blue

More like millions upon millions, Roger; the mathematical probability that everyone living today regardless of location (excepting uncontacted tribes in remote pockets around the globe) is a Merovingian descendant, not just once but many times over, is irrefutable. Just as everyone on this forum descends through multiple lines from Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, and Mohammed, who among us is more Merovingian versus Carolingian, versus Mongol, versus Sayyidi?

You're absolutely correct, the origins of the Merovingian family and of the Frankish tribes in general is rarely touched on in RLC genre publications, likely because the facts don't gel with the modern myths. There is a gap of several centuries between the time that Magdalene purportedly came ashore in southern Gaul and when the first Merovingian might have dipped a toe in the Mediterranean Sea that makes closing the generational gap rather difficult. Not many alternative authors have tried to close this gap; the few who have relied on characters from literature, which created an interesting effect since they were all over the map.

TCP

That's precisely the scenario I see, spot-on. Now, when (or if) you see the Bloodline film, watch Haywood's interview very carefully and see if you can spot the same telltale flashes of inspiration. And he uses the same sort of not-entirely-dismissive response very effectively yet cautiously, as if you know he's putting the question on a back burner until he can revisit and hopefully re-work the story around it. It's creepy.

TCP

The bloodline is co-joined every fourteenth generation. They marry back into their own bloodline.

Read the first 17 verses of the New Testament which begins with the line:

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Yep looks to me like they're about to describe a bloodline.

Incidently if you follow the sequence on after Jesus (just for fun) you get Meroveus appearing at a fourteenth generation interval.

And here's another piece:

Revelation 12:5-6

5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

If you divide 1260 days by 14 you get 90 - the gestation period for the average human.

14 gestation periods or 14 generations if you like.

That's all quite interesting, except the average gestation period for humans is 266 days, not 90.

TCP

Hey you're right

I'll crack open the champagne, the old days are over. Who knows it may well become a habit with you. Here's hoping.

I tell you what you'll remember the first 17 verses of the New Testament now won't you?

It's an interesting argument, but what time period are you using to define a generation, may one ask? The standard measure in the past would have been about twenty years, but one would have to increase that somewhat in contemporary times, to allow for greater life expectancy.

Just for fun, as you suggested, and using a twenty year measure, I just calculated the generational distance between Christ and Meroveus. Given that there is a gap of about four hundred years between the supposed birth of Christ in Zero AD, and the supposed appearance of Meroveus in - using the twenty year measure, and taking his (supposed) son Childeric's assumed birth date of 437 - let's say 417 or so, that comes to twenty generations, and not fourteen. For there to be fourteen generations between these two individuals, one would need a twenty-eight year generational span, which is closer to what it is calculated to be now, but greatly in excess of what it would have been in the Dark Ages.

So I'm not quite sure, therefore, how you get to fourteen generations.

Can you expand on this at all?