the holy grail

[daleroy]

is the holy grail real and what is it and in whitch country would it most likely be in

[jno]

maybe, if you accept that Christ was real, and that there was a last supper, and that he used a cup or plate there, and that it survived. Given all that, it could be anywhere, possibly held by a secret society of albino killer monks.

info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_grail

[RavenD]

If you believe Jesus was real, which I do. Then there was a grail but it does not hold any supernatural powers as it's only a cup, the only difference being Jesus drank from it. It's Jesus who is important and who is the saviour of man, not a crappy old cup what he drank from.

[daleroy]

if the grail did exist would it not be an inportent historical object

[jno]

yes it would: an authentic relic of the founder of a great worldwide religion. But I can't see how it would actually be authenticated.

[Tatty Rollox]

...... well, at http://tinyurl.com/ko3mc is Mary Magdelene holding The Holy Grail, and at http://tinyurl.com/r3ofc is The Last Supper. But where is The Holy Grail at The Last Supper? .......

[Tatty Rollox]

Thank you for the star. Must do better.

[Nummy]

if you believe Jesus was real? He was definitely real...there's Roman census' and records showing his existence.

Now whether you you believe he's the son of God? that's a completely different story!!

[daleroy]

sorry tatty rollox it's just that those were an artist depition and nither one was there and would not know what he ate or drank frome but I do like the artist

[jno]

There are no contemporary records of Jesus' existence. He appears in the Bible itself, of course, but the gospels and letters of Paul date from about 20 years after his death. A Roman named Josephus also mentions him after his death, but without actually confirming his existence. The gap is quite curious - you'd think that if someone had been seen by many people to have risen from the dead, someone would have mentioned it at once rather than waiting 20 years. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that the Christian religion could have been spun round a totally fictitious person.

[Clanad]

Actually, jno, evidence supports an early oral tradition for testimonial confirmation of the events. The first book written in the New Covenant was, most probably James, written by the brother of Yeshua. During the earthly lifetime of the Messiah, James would not or could not accept that his own half-brother was the prophesied Ha Massiach. Evidence supports James as being written about 43 to 48 AD. More importantly are these lines from Paul's (nee Saul of Tarsus) First Letter to the Corinthians written near 48 to 50 AD: in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 we find an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses traveled within the region and taught many concerning the events. So much so, that Luke records in his second book, Acts, that as many as 3,000 people came to faith on one day. This also confirms the extensive oral transmission of events before the setting to pen in writings. By the way, I, for one, appreciate your reasoned approach to the subject...

[kevb0444]

Hi. I saw a Doc on the telly last month and they said The "Holy Grail" wasn't a cup but was really Mary Magdalene. She was said to be the "human receptacle (receptacle was also know as a cup or a grail) for Jesus' blood line" They also said Mary Magdalene had a bigger part in the Bible but complete gospels ( like the gospel of Thomas) which supported this where removed at the Council of Nicea.

[kevb0444]

Also the Holy grail was said to have been origanily know as the San Graal. But it's now belived the translation was mixed up slightly because if you put the G from "Graal" on to the end of "San" you get "Sang Raal" which means "Blood Royal" or the blood line of Christ. Mary was said to heve escaped to Egypt after Jesus was killed. Mary then went from Egypt to Southern France with a young girl which some say was her child and some her servant.

[jno]

thank you Clanad; I try not to assume that those who don't share my point of view are idiots. I'm sure you are right about the oral tradition. We mustn't assume that Roman times were like ours, with thousands of newspapers every day recording current events. And yet it still seems strange - given the extraordinary nature of the deeds attributed to Jesus - that nobody seems to have written them down any where, or at the very least that nothing of this nature has survived, for so many years afterwards. But who knows - perhaps something will be discovered in a cave tomorrow. I do doubt, though, that it will be the Holy Grail. Kev, have you been reading any Dan Brown lately?

[daleroy]

you will have to aceus the question I'm not very smart but who is Dan Broun

[jno]

Dan Brown is the author of The Da Vinci Code, which covers a lot of the ideas mentioned in Kev's post while accusing the church of a centuries-long cover-up of the 'fact' that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a family. Clanad is better equipped than I am to analyse these.

[claireyfairy]

Hmmm this line of questioning could lead to a serious religious debate.

According to the Da Vinci code the holy grail is the remains of Mary Magdeline who was the wife of Jesus Christ. Mary Magdeline has been denounced by the church as being a prostitute but actually comes from royal blood (the tribe of benjimen i believe). Althou this is a 'fictional' novel I have to say that it strikes me as a lot more believable than the bible. (Althou has to be said great book if it's taken as a series of short fictional stories).

[spudqueen]

A more radical explantion is that the Holy Grail is in fact a very important relic of the gods that we once had but have now lost (or like the Ark of the Covenant is somewhere in safe storage.)

I actually believe that the Holy Grail is in fact something that the Bible refers to as 'The Ancient of Days' and which is itself often interpreted (wrongly in my opinion) as being God himself.

If you google 'Sassoon' and 'Ancient of Days' then all will be revealed and you will find that there is quite a lot written about the 'ancient of days' in the early jewish scriptures such as the Kabbalah and The Torah: this tends to make me think the 'Ancient of Days' and the 'Holy Grail' are one and the same.

If it is, then the whole thing makes sense and for me this a refreshing change.

Mr Spudqueen