Originally posted by Lana
You see conspiracies in EVERYTHING, Deano. Can't you just accept that maybe things actually are as they seem?And you should know that if you post stuff that clearly shows very little understanding of something (like this thread) you're going to get called out as being wrong.
im not afraid of being wrong
Deano this conspiracy is real just not the one you wanted, its all made up including the Priory of Sion. reposted due to being at the bottom of the page.
As his vehicle to power, Plantard casts his eyes upon a nearby mountain called "Sion" and decides to call his tiny group of followers the "Priory of Sion" [Cracking DaVinci's Code by James L. Garlow and Peter Jones (Victor, Colorado Springs, 2004), here cited as: "CDC", p.112]. A year later, unsucessful, Plantard revises his plan [SDVC p.79], much as Hitler had done after his early setbacks. Casting his gaze beyond the local Sion, Plantard next devises a grand scheme of unprecedented chutzpuh:
Pierre Plantard begins to stake a claim that he is a biological heir of the Messianic throne of Jesus [SDVC pp.77,80]. He changes his name to Pierre Plantard St. Claire [CDC p.113] and produces an impressive series of forged genealogies to link himself to Jesus and Mary Magdalen [SDVC pp.77,80].
None of it is true, of course. Plantard forges the documents and fabricates the history [SDVC pp.77-80; CDC p.113]. He has recruited a couple of people to help him, but the entire thing (except for two 19th-century texts [SDVC p.80]) is a hoax, as he will eventually admit under oath in a French court in 1993 [CDC p.113].
Heres the truth
Article by Joe Nickell sums it up well
The record bestseller, Dan Brown’s 2004 The Da Vinci Code, has renewed interest in the quest for the Holy Grail, restyling the medieval legend for a public that often gorges itself on a diet of pseudoscience, pseudo-history, and fantasy.
Unfortunately, the book is largely based on obscure, forged documents that have now deceived millions.
The adventure tale begins with Paris police summoning Robert Langdon, an Indiana Jones type, to the Louvre to view the corpse of curator Jacques Saunier. Saunier has been murdered in bizarre circumstances. Soon Langdon and beautiful cryptanalyst Sophie Neveau lead readers on a page-turning treasure hunt across France and England, propelled by a series of puzzles and clues. Along the way, the pair search for a hidden "truth" that challenges mainstream Christianity. Brown drew heavily on the 1982 bestseller, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (1996), with Lincoln as the conceptual author.
Brown’s novel is predicated on a conspiracy theory involving Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Supposedly the old French word sangreal is explained not as san greal ("holy grail"😉 but as sang real ("royal blood"😉. Although that concept was not current before the late Middle Ages, Holy Blood, Holy Grail argues that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, with whom he had a child, and even that he may have survived the Crucifixion. Jesus’ child, so the "non-fiction" book claims, thus began a bloodline that led to the Merovingian dynasty, a succession of kings who ruled what is today France from 481 to 751.
Evidence of the holy bloodline was supposedly found in a trove of parchment documents, discovered by Bérenger Saunière, the priest of Rennes-le-Château in the Pyrenees. The secret had been kept by a shadowy society known as the Priory of Sion which harked back to the era of the Knights Templar and claimed among its past "Grand Masters" Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Victor Hugo.
Brown seizes on Leonardo—borrowing from "The Secret Code of Leonardo Da Vinci," chapter one of another work of pseudo-history titled "The Templar Revelation." This was co-authored by "researchers" Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, whose previous foray into nonsense was their claim that Leonardo had created the Shroud of Turin—even though that forgery appeared nearly a century before the great artist and inventive genius was born!
Among the "revelations" of Picknett and Prince, adopted by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code, is the claim that Leonardo’s fresco, Last Supper, contains hidden symbolism relating to the sang real secret. They claim, for instance, that St. John in the picture (seated at the right of Jesus) is actually a woman—Mary Magdalene!—and that the shape made by "Mary" and Jesus is "a giant, spreadeagled ‘M,’" supposedly confirming the interpretation. By repeating this silliness, Brown provokes critics to note that his characterizations reveal ignorance about his subject.
Alas, the whole basis of The Da Vinci Code—the "discovered" parchments of Rennes-le-Château, relating to the alleged Priory of Sion—were part of a hoax perpetrated by a man named Pierre Plantard. Plantard commissioned a friend to create fake parchments which he then used to concoct the bogus priory story in 1956. (See Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, 2004.)
Of course, Dan Brown—with the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation—was also duped by the Priory of Sion hoax, which he in turn foisted onto his readers. But he is apparently unrepentant, and his apologists point out that The Da Vinci Code is, after all, fiction, although at the beginning of the novel, Brown claimed it was based on fact. Meanwhile, despite the devastatingly negative evidence, The Da Vinci Code mania continues. Perhaps Brown should go on his own quest—for the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes...
Most of the things in the book can not be proven and are just theory's but a lot of historians agree that they are very possible theory's. I had a very long discussion about this book in my history class and although we didn't reach a real answer we did come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing real to suggest that the book is fake or real for that matter.
We do know that the church was lying on several things that are mentioned in the book and looking at things logically you could come to the conclusion that what Brown claims is true. On the other hand you could just think the biblical story is true, or find yourself hanging somewhere in the middle having no idea what is true.
Fact is however history is written by the victor, and most of our history comes from the church, what are they going to do make themselves look better or tell the truth?
Originally posted by Fishy
Yes...Most of the things in the book can not be proven and are just theory's but a lot of historians agree that they are very possible theory's. I had a very long discussion about this book in my history class and although we didn't reach a real answer we did come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing real to suggest that the book is fake or real for that matter.
We do know that the church was lying on several things that are mentioned in the book and looking at things logically you could come to the conclusion that what Brown claims is true. On the other hand you could just think the biblical story is true, or find yourself hanging somewhere in the middle having no idea what is true.
Fact is however history is written by the victor, and most of our history comes from the church, what are they going to do make themselves look better or tell the truth?
🙄 Psion is a fake it was admitted in court.
Its rubbish, a rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was also rubbish and based on fakery
Originally posted by whirlysplat
🙄 Psion is a fake it was admitted in court.Its rubbish, a rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was also rubbish and based on fakery
Priory of Sion is indeed most likely fake. Strange is however there have been a few shows on TV here about people who have researched the same things and they talked about it as if it was real.. Very strange, also admitting to it being false had no real purpose to the people that created it. Maybe morale purpose but thats about it. Still the Priory is far from the most important thing that is claimed in the book if you ask me.
Who cares about people that could be the descendent's of Jesus, what is is important is the question if Jesus was truly the son of god, if Jesus was married or not things like that. Who cares about grandchildren. Its not like we learn about the possible descendants from Julius Caesar that could be alive now either, they aren't really important.