You are on page 1of 40

Scribd

* Explore
* Community
Upload a Document
Search Books, Presentations, Business, Academics...
* LoginSpinner_mac_gray
* rockycriss
o My Home
o View Public Profile
o My Documents
o My Collections
o Messages
o Settings
o Help
o Log Out
1
First Page
Previous Page
Next Page
/ 58
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Fullscreen
Exit Fullscreen
Select View Mode
View Mode
BookSlideshowScroll
Readcast
Add a Comment
Embed & Share
Readcast
Preferences saved
Reading should be social! Post a message on your social networks to let others k
now what you're reading. Select the sites below and start sharing.
Check_27x27Transparent
Check_27x27TransparentLink account
Check_27x27TransparentLink account
Readcast this DocumentTransparent
Readcast Complete!
Click 'send' to Readcast!
edit preferences
Set your preferences for next time... Choose 'auto' to readcast without being pr
ompted.
rockycriss
Link account
Link account
AdvancedCancel
Add a Comment
View commentsSpinner_24x24
Share & Embed
Link / URL:
Embed Size & Settings:
* Width: Auto
* Height: (proportional to specified width)
* Start on page:
* Preview View:
More share options
Add to Collections
Download this Document for Free
Auto-hide: on
The Hidden History of Jesus
and the Holy Grail
HOME PAGE| SUBS INFO| BACK ISSUES| PRODUCTS LIST| ORDER FORM
The early Christian Church leaders adopted scriptures
and teachings
that would obscure the truth about the royal bloodline of
Jesus.
Part 1
(Go to Part 2; Go to Part 3)
Ext ract ed from Nexus Magazine, Volume 5, Number 2 (February-
March 1998).
PO Box 30, Maplet on Qld 4560 Aust ralia.e d it or @ne x us ma g a z ine .c om
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at :h t t p :/ / www.n e x us ma g a z in e .c o m
From a lect ure present ed by
Sir Laurence Gardner, Kt St Gm, KCD
Aut hor of Bloodline of t he Holy Grail
at The Ranch, Yelm, Washingt on, USA
30 April 1997
Videot ape t ranscribed by Rut h Parnell
The Hidden History of Jesus
and the Holy Grail
HOME PAGE| SUBS INFO| BACK ISSUES| PRODUCTS LIST| ORDER FORM
The early Christian Church leaders adopted scriptures
and teachings that
would obscure the truth about the royal bloodline of
Jesus.
Part 3 - (final)
Ext r act ed f r om NEXUS Magazine, Volume 5, Number 4 (J une-J uly
1998).
PO Box 30, Maplet on Qld 4560 Aust ralia.e d it or @ne x us ma g a z ine .c om
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at :h t t p :/ / www.n e x us ma g a z in e .c o m
From a lect ure present ed by
Sir Laurence Gardner, Kt St Gm, KCD
Aut hor of Bloodline of t he Holy Grail
at The Ranch, Yelm, Washingt on, USA
30 April 1997
Videot ape t ranscribed by Rut h Parnell
W
(Back t o Part 1)
(Back t o Part 2)
e know f r om t he Gospel chr onology t hat t he Bet hany second-
mar r iage anoint ing of J esus by Mar y Magdalene was in t he week
before t he Crucifixion. And we know t hat at t hat st age Mary was
t hree-mont hs pregnant and t heref ore should have given birt h in t he
f ollowing Sept ember.
So, what do t he Gospels t ell us about event s in Sept ember AD 33? I n f act ,
t he Gospels t ell us not hing, but t he st ory is t aken up in The Act s of t
he Apost les which det ail for Sept ember t he event which we have come t o know
as "t he Ascension".
The one t hing t hat t he Act s do not do, however, is call t he event "t he
Ascension". This was a name given t o t he r it ual when t he Roman Chur ch
doctrines were established over three centuries later. What the text act ually s
ays is: "And when he had spoken t hese t hings...he was t aken up, and a cloud r
eceived him out of t heir sight ." I t t hen cont inues t hat "a man in whit e"
said t o t he disciples: "Why st and ye gazing up int o
heaven? This same J esus...shall so come in like manner as ye have seen
him go." Then, a lit t le lat er in t he Act s, it says t hat "heaven" must
receive J esus unt il "t he t ime of rest it ut ion".
Given t hat t his was t he very mont h in which Mary Magdalene' s child
was due, is t here perhaps some connect ion bet ween Mary' s
conf inement and t he so-called Ascension? There cert ainly is, and t he
connect ion is made by virt ue of t he t ime of rest it ut ion.
Not only were t here rules t o govern t he marriage ceremony of a
Messianic heir, but so t oo were t here rules t o govern t he marriage
it self . The rules of dynast ic wedlock were quit e unlike t he J ewish f amily
norm, and Messianic parent s were f ormally separat ed at t he birt h of a chil
d. Even prior t o t his, int imacy bet ween a dynast ic
husband and wif e was only allowed in December, so t hat birt hs of heirs would
always f all in t he mont h of Sept ember-t he mont h of At onement , t he holie
st mont h of t he J ewish calendar.
I ndeed, it was t his very rule which J esus' s own parent s (J oseph and Mary)
had t hemselves broken. And t his was t he reason why t he J ews were split in o
pinion as t o whet her J esus was, in f act , t heir t rue
Messiah.
When a dynast ic child was conceived at t he wrong t ime of year, t he
mot her was generally placed in monast ic cust ody f or t he birt h so as t o
avoid public embar r assment . This was called being "put away pr ivily",
and Mat t hew st at es quit e plainly t hat when Mary' s pregnancy was
discover ed, "J oseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing t o
make her a public example, was minded t o put her away pr ivily".
I n t his inst ance, special dispensat ion for t he birt h was grant ed by t he
archangel Simeon who at t hat t ime held t he dist inct ion of "Gabriel", being
t he angelic priest in charge. Bot h t he Dead Sea Scrolls and t he Book of Enoc
h (which was excluded f rom t he Old Test ament ) det ail t hat t he "archangels
" (or chief ambassadors) were t he senior priest s at Qumran, ret aining t he t
radit ional t it les of "Michael", "Gabriel",
"Raphael", "Sariel", et c.
I n t he case of J esus and Mary Magdalene, however, t he rules of
wedlock had been obeyed t o t he let t er, and t heir first child was
properly conceived in December AD 32, t o be born in Sept ember AD
33.
From t he moment of a dynast ic birt h, t he parent s were physically
separat ed-f or six years if t he child was a boy, and f or t hree years if
t he child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at t he
designat ed t ime of rest it ut ion. Meanwhile, t he mot her and child would
ent er t he equivalent of a convent , and t he f at her would ent er "t he
Kingdom of Heaven". This Kingdom of Heaven was act ually t he Essene High Monast
ery at Mird, by t he Dead Sea, and t he ceremony of ent ry was conduct ed by t
he angelic priest s under t he supervision of t he
appoint ed Leader of t he Pilgrims.
I n t he Old Test ament book of Exodus, t he I sraelit e pilgrims were led int o
t he Holy Land by a "cloud"-and in accordance wit h t his cont inued Exodus ima
gery, t he priest ly Leader of t he Pilgrims was designat ed wit h t he t it le
"Cloud".
So, if we now read t he Act s verses as t hey were int ended t o be
underst ood, we see t hat J esus was t aken up by t he Cloud (t he Leader
of t he Pilgrims) t o t he Kingdom of Heaven (t he High Monast ery). And
t he man in whit e (an angelic priest ) said t hat J esus would ret urn at t he
t ime of rest it ut ion (when his Eart hly marriage was rest ored).
I f we now look at St Paul' s Epist le t o t he Hebrews we discover t hat he exp
lains t he said Ascension event in some great er det ail, f or Paul t ells of ho
w J esus was admit t ed t o t he Priest hood of Heaven when he
act ually had no ent it lement t o such a sacred of f ice. He explains t hat J e
sus was born (t hrough his f at her J oseph) int o t he Davidic line of J udah-a
line which held t he right of kingship but had no right t o
priest hood, f or t his was t he sole prerogat ive of t he line of Aaron and
Le vi.
But , says Paul, a special dispensat ion was grant ed, and he t ells t hat
"f or t he priest hood being changed, t here is made of necessit y a
change also of t he law". As a result of t his express "change of t he
law", it is explained t hat J esus was enabled t o ent er t he Kingdom of
Heaven in t he priest ly Order of Melchizedek.
So, in Sept ember AD 33, t he f irst child of J esus and Mary Magdalene
was born, and J esus duly ent ered t he Kingdom of Heaven. There is no ref erenc
e t o t his child being a son (as t here is f or t he t wo subsequent birt hs),
and given t hat J esus ret urned t hree years lat er, in AD 36, we know t hat Ma
ry must have had a daught er.
By f ollowing t he chronology of t he Act s, we see t hat in Sept ember AD
37 a second child was born; and t hen anot her in AD 44. The period
bet ween t hese t wo birt hs t o t he second rest it ut ion in AD 43 was "six ye
ars", which denot es t hat t he AD 37 child was a son. This f act is also convey
ed by t he use of crypt ic wording-t he same crypt ic wording
af f orded t o t he AD 44 child-so we know t hat t his t hird child was also
a son.
I n accordance wit h t he scribal codes det ailed in t he Dead Sea Scrolls, ever
yt hing crypt ic wit hin t he New Test ament is set up beforehand by some ot her
ent ry which explains t hat t he inherent message is "f or
t hose wit h ears t o hear". Once t hese codes and allegories are
underst ood, t hey never ever vary. They mean t he same t hing every
t ime t hey are used, and t hey are used every t ime t hat same meaning is
required.
For example, t he Gospels explain t hat J esus was called "t he Word of
God": "And t he Wor d was made f lesh, and dwelt among us...f ull of
grace and t rut h." J ohn goes t o great lengt hs t o explain t he relevance
of t his def init ion, and subsequent ent ries give det ails such as "t he
Word of God st ood by t he lake" and "t he Word of God was in Samaria".
Messages conveying inf ormat ion about f ert ilit y and new lif e are
est ablished in t he Parable of t he Sower whose seed "bore fruit and increased"
. Thus, when it is said t hat "t he Word of God increased", "t hose wit h ears t
o hear" would recognise at once t hat "J esus
increased"-t hat is t o say, he had a son. There are t wo such ent ries in
t he Act s, and t hey f all precisely on cue in AD 37 and AD 44.
Probably t he most misrepresent ed book of t he New Test ament is The
Book of The Revelat ion of St J ohn t he Divine-misrepresent ed by t he
Church, t hat is; not by t he book it self . This book is quit e unlike any
ot her in t he Bible. I t is dubbed wit h t errible supernat ural overt ones,
and it s st raight f orward imagery has been savagely corrupt ed by t he
Church t o present t he t ext as some f orm of f oreboding or prophecy of
warning! But t he book is not called "The Prophecy" or "The Warning".
I t is called "The Revelat ion".
So, what does t he book reveal? Chronologically, it s st ory f ollows The
Act s of t he Apost les, and t he Book of The Revelat ion is, in f act , t he
cont inuing st ory of J esus, Mary Magdalene and t heir sons, part icularly t he
elder son, J esus J ust us. I t f ollows his lif e and det ails his marriage, a
long wit h t he birt h of his own son. This much-misunderst ood New
Test ament book is not a f oreboding or a warning as t he f earf ul Church
would have us believe. I t is pr ecisely what it says it is: a r evelat ion.
As we saw earlier, ordained priest s of t he era were called "fishers"; t heir h
elpers were called "fishermen", and bapt ismal candidat es were called "f ishes"
. J esus became an ordained f isher when he ent ered t he Kingdom of Heaven, but
unt il t hat t ime (as explained by St Paul) he
held no priest ly of f ice.
I n t he rit e of ordinat ion, t he of f iciat ing Levit e priest s of t he
Sanct uary would administ er f ive loaves of bread and t wo f ishes t o t he
candidat es, but t he law was very f irm in t hat such candidat es had t o be ci
rcumcised J ews. Gent iles and uncircumcised Samarit ans were on no account af f
orded any such privilege.
I ndeed, it was t his part icular minist erial rit ual which J esus had
f lout ed at t he so-called "f eeding of t he f ive-t housand", because he
presumed t he right t o grant access t o his own new liberal minist ry by
of f ering t he loaves and f ishes t o an unsanct if ied gat hering. Apart
f rom event ually becoming a f isher, J esus was also ref erred t o as "t he
Christ "-a Greek def init ion which meant "t he King". I n saying t he name
"J esus Chr ist ", we ar e act ually saying "King J esus", and his kingly
herit age was of t he Royal House of J udah (t he House of David), as
ment ioned numerous t imes in t he Gospels and in t he Epist les of St Paul.
From AD 33, t herefore, J esus emerged wit h t he dual st at us of a
"Pr iest Chr ist " or , as is mor e commonly cit ed, a "Fisher King". This
def init ion, as we shall see, was t o become an heredit ary and dynast ic
of f ice of J esus' heirs, and t he succeeding "Fisher Kings" were
paramount in t he hist ory of t he Grail bloodline.
Prior t o t he birt h of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was
exiled f r om J udaea f ollowing a polit ical upr ising in which she was
implicat ed. Along wit h Philip, Lazarus and a f ew ret ainers, she t ravelled
(by arrangement wit h King Herod-Agrippa I I ) t o live at t he Herodian
est at e near Lyon, in Gaul (which lat er became France).
From t he earliest t imes, t hrough t he mediaeval era, t o t he great
Renaissance, Mary' s f light was port rayed in illuminat ed manuscript s
and great art works alike. Her lif e and work in France, especially in
Provence and t he Languedoc, appeared not only in works of European
hist ory but also in t he Roman Church lit urgy-unt il her st ory was
suppressed by t he Vat ican.
Mar y Magdalene' s exile is t old in The Book of The Revelat ion which describes
t hat she was pregnant at t he t ime. I t t ells also of how t he Roman aut hor
it ies subsequent ly persecut ed Mary, her son and his
heirs: "And she, being wit h child, cried...and pained t o be
delivered...and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads...and
seven crowns...st ood bef ore t he woman...f or t o devour her child... And
she brought f ort h a man-child...and t he woman f led int o t he
wilderness... And t he dragon was wrot h wit h t he woman, and went t o
make war f orever wit h t he remnant of her seed...which...have t he
t est imony of J esus Chr ist ."
I t was t o Gaul t hat Mary was said t o have carried t he Sangréal (t he
Blood Royal, t he Holy Gr ail); and it was in Gaul t hat t he f amous line of
J esus and Mary' s immediat e descendant heirs, t he Fisher Kings,
flourished for 300 years.
The et ernal mot t o of t he Fisher Kings was "I n St rengt h"-inspired by
t he name of t heir ancest or, Boaz (t he great -grandfat her of King
David), whose name similarly meant "I n St rengt h". When t ranslat ed
int o Lat in, t his became "I n Fort is", which was subsequent ly corrupt ed
t o "Anf ort as", t he name of t he Fisher King in Grail romance.
We can now ret urn t o t he Grail' s t radit ional symbolism as a chalice
cont aining t he blood of J esus. We can also consider gr aphic designs
dat ing back well beyond t he Dar k Ages t o about 3,500 BC. And in doing
t his, we discover t hat a chalice or a cup was t he longest -st anding symbol o
f the female. I ts representation was that of the Sacred Vessel-t he vas ut erus
, t he womb.
And so, when f leeing int o France, Mary Magdalene carried t he Sangréal
in t he Sacred Chalice of her womb-just as t he Book of The Revelat ion
explains. And t he name of t his second son was J oseph.
The equivalent t radit ional symbol of t he male was a blade or a horn,
usually represent ed by a sword or a unicorn. I n t he Old Test ament ' s
Song of Solomon and in t he Psalms of David, t he f er t ile unicor n is associa
t ed wit h t he kingly line of J udah; and it was f or t his very reason t hat t
he Cat hars of Provence used t he myst ical beast t o symbolise t he Grail bloo
dline.
Mar y Magdalene died in Pr ovence in AD 63. I n t hat ver y year , J oseph
of Arimat hea built t he f amous chapel at Glast onbury in England as a memorial
t o t he Messianic Queen. This was t he f irst ' above-ground' Christ ian churc
h in t he world, and in t he f ollowing year Mary' s son J esus J ust us dedicat
ed it t o his mot her. J esus t he Younger had in
f act been t o England wit h J oseph bef ore, at t he age of t welve, in AD
49. I t was t his event which inspired William Blake' s f amous song,
J er usalem: "And did t hose f eet in ancient t ime, walk upon England' s
mount ains green."
But who was J oseph of Ar imat hea, t he man who assumed f ull cont r ol of af f
airs at t he Crucif ixion? And why was it t hat J esus' mot her, his wif e and
t he rest of t he family accept ed J oseph' s int ervent ion wit hout
quest ion?
As lat e as t he year 900, t he Church of Rome decided t o announce t hat J osep
h of Arimat hea was t he uncle of J esus' mot her Mary. And f rom t hat t ime, p
ort rayals of J oseph have shown him as being rat her elderly at t he Crucif ixi
on, when Mot her Mary was herself in her f if t ies. Prior t o t he Roman announ
cement , however, t he hist orical records of J oseph depict ed a much younger m
an. He was recorded t o have died at t he age of 80 on 27 J uly AD 82, and t hus
would have been aged 32 at t he t ime of t he Crucif ixion.
I n fact , J oseph of Arimat hea was none ot her t han J esus Christ ' s own
brot her, J ames, and his t it le had not hing what ever t o wit h a place
name. Arimat hea never exist ed. I t t herefore comes as no surprise t hat
J oseph negot iat ed wit h Pilat e t o place J esus in his own f amily t omb.
The heredit ary "Arimat hea" t it le was an English corrupt ion of t he
Graeco-Hebrew st yle ha-Rama-Theo, meaning "of t he Divine Highness",
or "of t he Royal Highness" as we' d def ine it t oday. Since J esus was
t he senior Messianic heir-t he Christ , Khrist os or King-t hen his younger
brot her was t he Crown Prince-t he Royal Highness, Rama-Theo. I n t he Nazarene
hierarchy, t he Crown Prince always held t he pat riarchal t it le of "J oseph"
-just as J esus was a t it ular "David" and his wif e was a
"Mar y".
I n t he early fift h cent ury, J esus and Mary' s descendent Fisher Kings becam
e unit ed by marriage t o t he Sicambrian Franks, and f rom t hem emerged a whol
e new ' reigning' dynast y. They were t he not ed
Merovingian Kings who f ounded t he French monarchy and int roduced
t he well-known f leur-de-lys (t he ancient J ewish symbol of
circumcision) as t he royal emblem of France.
From t he Merovingian succession, anot her st rain of t he f amily
est ablished a wholly independent J ewish kingdom in sout hern France:
t he Kingdom of Sept i-mania, which we now know as t he Languedoc. And
t he early princes of Toulouse, Aquit aine and Provence were all
descended in t he Messianic bloodline of t he Holy Grail. Sept imania was
grant ed t o t he Royal House of David in 768, and Prince Bernard of
Sept imania lat er married a daught er of Emperor Charlemagne.
Also f rom t he Fisher Kings came anot her import ant parallel line of
succession in Gaul. Whereas t he Merovingian Kings cont inued t he
pat rimonial ' male' herit age of J esus, t his ot her line perpet uat ed t he m
at riarchal herit age of Mary Magdalene in a ' f emale' line. They were t he dyn
ast ic Q ueens of Avallon in Burgundy, t he House del Acqs-
meaning "of t he wat ers", a st yle grant ed t o Mary Magdalene in t he
early days when she voyaged on t he sea t o Provence.
Those f amiliar wit h Ar t hur ian and Gr ail lor e will by now have
recognised t he ult imat e signif icance of t his Messianic f amily of t he
Fisher Kings, t he Queens of Avallon and t he House del Acqs (corrupt ed
in Ar t hur ian r omance t o "du Lac").
The descendant heirs of J esus posed an enormous t hreat t o t he Roman
High Church because t hey were t he dynast ic leaders of t he t rue
Nazarene Church. I n real t erms, t he Roman Church should never have exist ed a
t all, f or it was no more t han a ' hybrid' movement comprised of various pagan
doct rines at t ached t o a f undament ally J ewish base.
J esus was bor n in 7 BC and his bir t hday was on t he equivalent of 1
March, wit h an ' of f icial' royal birt hday on 15 Sept ember t o comply
wit h dynast ic regulat ion. But , when est ablishing t he Roman High Church
in t he f ourt h cent ury, Emperor Const ant ine ignored bot h of t hese
dat es and supplement ed 25 December as t he new Christ ' s Mass Day-t o
coincide wit h t he pagan Sun Fest ival.
Lat er, at t he Synod of Whit by in 664, t he bishops expropriat ed t he
Celt ic f est ival of East er (Eost re), t he Goddess of Spring and Fert ilit y,
and at t ached a wholly new Christ ian signif icance. I n so doing, t hey
changed t he dat e of t he Celt ic fest ival t o sever it s t radit ional
associat ion wit h t he J ewish Passover.
Christ ianit y, as we know it , has evolved as a ' composit e religion' quit e
unlike any ot her. I f J esus was it s living cat alyst , t hen Christ ianit y
should right ly be based on t he t eachings of J esus himself -t he moral
and social codes of a f air-minded, t olerant minist ry, wit h t he people as
its benefactors.
But ort hodox Christ ianit y is not based on t he t eachings of J esus: it is
based on t he t eachings of t he Roman Church, which are ent irely
different . There are a number of reasons for t his, t he foremost of
which is t hat J esus was deliberat ely sidest epped in f avour of t he
alt ernat ive t eachings of Pet er and Paul-t eachings which were
t horoughly denounced by t he Nazarene Church of J esus and his
brother J ames.
Only by removing J esus f rom t he f ront line could t he Popes and
cardinals reign supreme. When f ormally inst it ut ing Christ ianit y as t he
st at e religion of Rome, Const ant ine declared t hat "he alone" was t he t rue
"Saviour Messiah", not J esus! As f or t he Bishops of Rome (t he Popes), t hey
were grant ed an apost olic descent from St Pet er-not a legit imat e Desposyni
c descent f rom J esus and his brot hers, as was ret ained wit hin t he Nazarene
Church.
The only way f or t he Roman High Church t o rest rain t he heirs of Mary
Magdalene was t o discredit Mary herself and t o deny her bridal
relationship with J esus. But what of J esus' brother J ames? He, too,
had heirs, as did t heir ot her brot hers, Simon, J oses and J ude. The
Church could not escape t he Gospels which st at e t hat J esus was t he
Blessed Mot her Mary' s "f irst -born son", and so Mary' s own
mot herhood also had t o be repressed.
As a result , t he Church port rayed Mot her Mary as a virgin, and Mary Magdalen
e as a whore-neit her of which descript ion was ment ioned in any original Gospe
l. Then, just t o cement Mot her Mary' s posit ion
out side t he nat ural domain, her own mot her, Anna, was event ually said
t o have borne her by way of "I mmaculat e Concept ion"!
Over t he course of t ime, t hese cont rived doct rines have had
widespread effect . But , in t he early days, it t ook rat her more t o
cement t he ideas because t he original women of t he Nazarene mission
had a signif icant f ollowing in t he Celt ic Church-women such as Mary
Magdalene, Mart ha, Mary J acob-Cleophas and Helena-Salome who had
run schools and social missions t hroughout t he Medit erranean world.
These women had all been disciples of J esus, and close f riends of his
mot her, Mary, accompanying her t o t he Crucif ixion, as conf irmed in t he
Gospels.
The Church' s only salvat ion was t o deny women alt oget her; t o deny
t hem not only right s t o ecclesiast ical of f ice, but t o deny t hem right s
t o any st at us in societ y. Hence, t he Church declared t hat women were all h
eret ics and sorceresses!
I n t his, t he bishops were aided by t he words of Pet er and Paul, and on
t he basis of t heir t eachings t he Roman High Church was enabled t o
become wholly sexist . I n his Epist le t o Timot hy, Paul wrot e: "I suf f er n
ot a woman t o t each, nor t o usurp any aut horit y over t he man, but t o be i
n silence." I n t he Gospel of Philip, Pet er is even quot ed as saying t hat "W
omen are not wort hy of lif e". The bishops even quot ed t he
wor ds of Genesis, wher ein God spoke t o Eve about Adam, saying "He
shall rule over t hee".
The Church Fat her Tert ullian summed up t he whole Roman at t it ude
when writ ing about t he emergent disciples of Mary Magdalene: "These heret ical
woman! How dare t hey! They are brazen enough t o t each, t o engage in argumen
t , t o bapt ise... I t is not permit t ed f or a woman t o speak in chur ch...n
or t o claim...a shar e in any masculine f unct ion-least of all in pr iest ly o
f f ice."
Then, t o cap it all, came t he Roman Church' s most amazing document , The Apos
t olic Order. This was compiled as an ' imaginary' conversat ion between the apo
stles after the Last Supper. Contrary to the Gospels, it supposed t hat Mary Mag
dalene had been present at t he Supper, and it was agreed t hat t he reason why
J esus had not passed any wine t o
Mary at t he t able was because he had seen her laughing!
On t he basis of t his ext raordinary, f ict it ious document , t he bishops rul
ed t hat , even t hough Mary might have been a companion of J esus, women were n
ot t o be af f orded any place wit hin t he Church because t hey were not seriou
s! This sexist at t it ude has persist ed wit hin t he Church t o t he present d
ay. Why? Because Mary Magdalene had t o be
discredit ed and removed f rom t he reckoning so t hat her heirs could be
ignor ed. But t hings ar e now changing, and, in t he Anglican Chur ch at
least , women are being rest ored t o t he priest ly st at ion.
Not wit hst anding t he avid sexist movement , t he Messianic heirs
ret ained t heir social posit ions out side t he Roman Church
est ablishment . They progressed t heir own Nazarene and Celt ic Church
movement s and f ounded Desposynic kingdoms in Br it ain and Eur ope.
They were a const ant t hreat t o t he Roman High Church and t o t he f igurehea
d monarchs and government s empowered by t hat Church. They were t he very reaso
n for t he implement at ion of t he brut al I nquisit ion because t hey upheld a
moral and social code which was cont rary t o High Church requirement .
This was especially apparent during t he Age of Chivalry, which
embraced a respect f or womanhood, as exemplif ied by t he Knight s Templars who
se const it ut ional oat h support ed a venerat ion of "t he Grail Mot her", Que
en Mary Magdalene.
Prior t o t he Middle Ages, t he individual st ories of t his f amily were
hist or ically well-known. But when t he Chur ch began it s r eign of
fanat ical persecut ion (t he great I nquisit ion), t he whole Nazarene and
Desposynic herit age was f orced underground.
But why t he vengef ul onset of t he I nquisit ion? Because t he Knight s Templa
rs had not only ret urned f rom t he Holy Land wit h document s t hat undermined
t he Church' s t eachings, but t hey also est ablished t heir own Cist ercian c
hurches in opposit ion t o Rome. These were not
just any churches; t hey were t he great est religious monument s ever t o grace
t he skylines of t he west ern world: t he Not re Dame cat hedrals of Fr ance.
Despit e t heir present -day image, t hese impressive Got hic cat hedrals
had not hing what ever t o do wit h t he est ablished Christ ian Church.
They were f unded and built by t he Knight s Templars, and t hey were
dedicat ed t o Mary Magdalene-Not re Dame, Our Lady-whom t hey called
"t he Grail of t he world".
This, of course, def eat ed every dogma t hat t he High Church had
encouraged, and t he bishops ret aliat ed by re-dedicat ing numerous
ot her churches t o Mary, t he mot her of J esus. But , in so doing, t hey
made a st rict decree t hat all art ist ic port rayals of Mot her Mary, t he Mad
onna, must hencef ort h show her dressed in "blue and whit e only"- so as not t
o grant her any right s t o ecclesiast ical of f ice in t he male- only priest h
ood.
Mary Magdalene, on t he ot her hand, was being port rayed (by t he
world' s great est art ist s) wearing t he red mant le of cardinal st at us or t
he black robe of a Nazarit e High Priest ess-and t here was not hing t he Chur
ch could do about it . The bishops' only opt ion was t o pr oclaim t he
pract ice sinf ul and heret ical-because, in having previously elect ed t o
ignore Mary Magdalene and her heirs, she was out side t heir
j ur isdict ion.
I t was at t hat t ime t hat Grail lore was it self denounced as a heresy by
t he Vat ican. The sixt h-cent ury writ ings of Merlin were expressly
banned by t he Ecumenical Council, and t he original Nazarene Church of
J esus became an "underground st ream", aided by such not able
sponsors as Leonardo da Vinci and Sandro Bot t icelli.
I n t hose days, t he Church policed and cont rolled most lit erat ure in t he
public domain; and so, in order t o avoid out right censorship, t he Grail
t radit ion became allegorical and it s message was communicat ed by way
of secret wat ermarks, esot eric writ ings, Tarot cards and symbolic
ar t wor k.
But why should Gr ail lor e and t he wr it ings of Mer lin have posed such a
problem f or t he High Church? Because, wit hin t he cont ext of t heir
advent urous t ext s, t hey t old t he descendant st ory of t he Grail
bloodline-a bloodline which had been oust ed f rom it s dynast ic posit ion by t
he Popes and Bishops of Rome who had elect ed t o reign supreme by way of a con
t rived "apost olic succession".
This apost olic succession was said t o have been handed down f rom t he f irst
bishop, St Pet er (and, indeed, t his is st ill t he promot ed view). But one on
ly has t o st udy t he Church' s own Apost olic Const it ut ions t o
discover t hat t his is simply not t rue. Pet er was never a Bishop of Rome-
nor of anywhere else, for t hat mat t er!
The Vat ican' s Const it ut ions record t hat t he f irst Bishop of Rome was Pri
nce Linus of Brit ain, t he son of Caract acus t he Pendragon. He was inst alled
by St Paul in AD 58, dur ing Pet er ' s own lif et ime.
From t he 1100s, t he powerful Knight s Templars and t heir cat hedrals
posed an enormous t hreat t o t he ' male-only' Church by bringing t he
herit age of J esus and Mary Magdalene t o t he f ore in t he public
domain.
The cardinals knew t hat t heir whole est ablishment would t umble if t he Messi
anic descendant s gained t he upper hand. They had t o be crushed! And so t he b
rut al I nquisit ion was implement ed-a hideous persecut ion of all who dissent
ed f rom t he rule of t he bishops.
I t all began in 1208, when Pope I nnocent I I I sent 30,000 soldiers int o
t he Languedoc region of sout hern France. This was t he home of t he
Cat hars ("t he Pure Ones") who were said t o be t he guardians of a great
and sacred t reasure-a myst erious secret which could overt urn
ort hodox Christ ianit y. The Pope' s so-called Albigensian Crusade last ed
f or 36 years-during which t ime, t ens of t housands of innocent people
were slaught ered-but t he t reasure was never found.
The main t hrust of t he I nquisit ion (or "Holy Of f ice") was inst it ut ed by
Pope Gregory I X during t he course of t his massacre, in 1231, and it
was set against anyone who support ed "t he Grail heresy". By 1252, t he
t ort ure of vict ims was f ormally aut horised, along wit h execut ion by
bur ning.
"Heresy" was a wonderf ul charge t o level against capt ives, because only
t he Church could def ine it . The vict ims were t ort ured unt il t hey
conf essed, and having conf essed t hey were execut ed. I f t hey did not
conf ess, t hen t he t ort ure cont inued unt il t hey died anyway. One
recorded f orm of t ort ure was t o spread t he vict im, lit t le by lit t le, w
it h
f at (beginning wit h his f eet ), and t hen t o roast him alive in sect ions,
limb by limb, over an open f ir e.
These savage persecut ions and punishment s were openly waged f or
more t han 400 years, and were also ext ended against J ews, Muslims
and Prot est ant dissent ers. But t he I nquisit ion was never formally
t erminat ed. As recent ly as 1965 it was renamed "t he Sacred
Congregat ion", and it s powers are t heoret ically st ill in f orce t oday.
Undaunt ed by t he I nquisit ion, t he Nazarene movement pursued it s own
course, and t he st ory of t he bloodline was perpet uat ed in lit erat ure
such as t he Grand Saint Grail and t he High Hist ory of t he Holy Grail. These
writ ings were largely sponsored by t he Grail court s of France (t he court s o
f Champagne, Anjou and ot hers), and also by t he Knight s Templars and t he Des
posyni; and, at t hat st age, Art hurian Romance became a popular vehicle f or t
he Grail t radit ion.
I n t he light of t his, t he Templars became a specif ic t arget of t he I nqui
sit ion in 1307 when t he henchmen of Pope Clement V and King Philip I V of Fran
ce were set in t heir direct ion. The papal armies
scoured Europe f or t he Templar document s and t reasure-but , like t he
Cat har inherit ance, not hing was f ound. However, many Knight s were
t ort ured and execut ed in t he process, and t heir companions escaped t o
count ries out side t he papal domain.
But t he Templar hoard was not lost , and while t he Vat ican emissaries were se
arching, t he t reasure and document s were locked away in t he Chapt er House T
reasury vault s of Paris. They were under t he
prot ect ion of t he Templar Grand Knight s of St Ant hony-"t he Guardian
Princes of t he Royal Secret "-who loaded t he hoard one night ont o 18
galleys of t he Templar f leet at La Rochelle.
By daybreak, t he f leet had sailed f or Scot land, and on arrival t hey
wer e welcomed by King Rober t t he Br uce who, along wit h t he whole
Scot t ish nat ion, had been excommunicat ed by t he Pope f or challenging
t he Cat holic King Edward of England. I n Scot land, t he Templars and
t heir t reasure remained, and t he Knight s f ought wit h Bruce at
Bannockburn in 1314 t o regain Scot land' s independence f rom
Plant agenet England.
Subsequent t o t he Bat t le of Bannockburn, Bruce and t he St Ant hony
Templars founded t he new Order of t he Elder Brot hers of t he Rosy
Cross in 1317-from which t ime t he Kings of Scot s became heredit ary
Grand Mast ers, wit h each successive St ewart King holding t he
honoured Grand Priory t it le of "Prince Saint Germain".
So, why was it t hat King Art hur, a Celt ic commander of t he sixt h
cent ury, was so import ant t o t he Knight s Templars and t he Grail court s
of Europe? Q uit e simply, because Art hur had been unique, wit h a ' dual'
herit age in t he Messianic line.
King Ar t hur was by no means myt hical, as many have supposed. Far f rom it . B
ut he has generally been looked f or in t he wrong places. Researchers, misguide
d by t he f ict ional locat ions of t he romances,
have searched in vain t hrough t he chronicles of Brit t any, Wales and t he wes
t of England. But t he det ails of Art hur are t o be f ound in t he Scot s' and
I rish annals. He was indeed "t he High King of t he Celt ic
I sle", and he was t he sovereign commander of t he Brit ish t roops in t he
lat e sixt h cent ury.
Art hur was born in 559, and he died in bat t le in 603. His mot her was Ygerna
del Acqs, t he daught er of Q ueen Viviane of Avallon, in descent f r om J esus
and Mar y Magdalene. His f at her was High King Aedàn of Dalriada (t he West ern H
ighlands of Scot land, now called Argyll)-and
Aedàn was t he Br it ish Pendr agon ("Head Dr agon" or "King of Kings") in
descent from J esus' brother J ames. It is for this reason that the
st ories of Art hur and J oseph of Arimat hea are so closely ent wined in
t he Gr ail r omances.
I ndeed, t he coronat ion records of Scot land' s King Kennet h MacAlpin (a
descendant of Aedàn t he Pendragon) specif ically ref er t o his own
descent f rom t he dynast ic Queens of Avallon.
King Aedàn' s pat ernal legacy emerged t hrough t he most ancient House
of Camulot (England' s Royal Court of Colchest er) in a line f rom t he
f ir st Pendr agon, King Cymbeline (who is well-known t o st udent s of
Shakespeare).
By t hat t ime, Messianic descendant s had f ounded Desposynic kingdoms
in Wales and across t he St rat hclyde and Cambrian regions of Brit ain.
Art hur' s fat her, King Aedàn of Scot s, was t he first Brit ish monarch t o
be inst alled by priest ly ordinat ion, when he was crowned and anoint ed
by Saint Columba of t he Celt ic Church in 574. This, of course,
inf uriat ed t he Roman Church bishops because t hey claimed t he sole
right t o appoint kings who were supposed t o be crowned by t he Pope!
As a direct result of t his coronat ion, Saint August ine was event ually sent f
rom Rome in 597 t o dismant le t he Celt ic Church. He proclaimed himself Archb
ishop of Cant erbury t hree years lat er, but his overall mission f ailed and t
he Nazarene t radit ion persist ed in Scot land,
I reland and Wales and across t he breadt h of nort hern England.
An import ant fact t o remember is t hat t he Grail dynast s were never
t errit orial governors of lands. Like J esus himself , t hey were
designat ed "Guardians" of t he people. The Merovingians of Gaul, f or
example, were Kings of t he Franks-never Kings of France. King Aedàn,
Robert t he Bruce and t heir St ewart successors were Kings of t he
Scot s-never Kings of Scot land.
I t was t his implicit ly ' social' concept which t he High Church f ound so dif
f icult t o overcome, f or t he bishops pref erred t o have dominion over ' t e
rrit orial kings' , while t he people' s senior lord and mast er was
supposed t o be t he Pope. Only by maint aining ult imat e spirit ual cont rol
over individuals could t he Church reign supreme, and so whenever a Grail dynast
came t o t he f ore he was met by t he wrat h of t he papal machine.
I n 751 t he bishops managed t o depose t he Merovingian succession in
Gaul, and t hey est ablished a new t radit ion whereby kings of t he
Carolingian succession (t hat of Charlemagne) had t o be approved and
crowned by t he Pope. But t he Church could never t opple t he
Desposynic lines in Scot land, even t hough t he old Celt ic kingdoms of
England had been dismant led by Germanic Anglo-Saxons f rom t he sixt h
cent ur y.
Even int o t he Middle Ages-long af t er t he Norman Conquest of England-
t he Nazarene Church and t he long-prevailing cult of Mary Magdalene
were prominent in Europe. Women' s right s of equalit y were upheld
t hroughout t he Celt ic st ruct ure-and t his was an enormous problem f or
t he male-only priest hood of ort hodox Christ ianit y.
The under lying pr inciple of t he Gr ail monar chs was always one of
Service, in accordance wit h t he Messianic code est ablished by J esus
when he washed his apost les' feet at t he Last Supper. And so t he t rue Grail
dynast s were kings and guardians of t heir realms, but t hey were never rulers.
This key aspect of t he Grail code was perpet uat ed at t he very heart of nurse
ry t ale and f olklore. Never did a valiant cardinal or bishop ride t o t he aid
of an oppressed subject or a damsel in dist ress, f or t his has always been t
he social realm of Grail princes and t heir appoint ed
knight s.
The Grail code recognises advancement by merit and acknowledges
communit y st ruct ure, but , above all, it is ent irely democrat ic. Whet her a
pprehended in it s physical or spirit ual dimension, t he Grail belongs t o lead
ers and f ollowers alike. I t also belongs t o t he land and t he
envir onment , r equir ing t hat all should be "as one" in a common, unif ied
Service.
Throughout t he ages, parliament s and government s have had as much
t rouble as t he Church in conf ront ing t he Messianic social code, and t he
posit ion is no dif f erent t oday. President s and prime minist ers are
' elect ed' by t he people. They are supposed t o represent t he people.
But do t hey? I n act ual f act , t hey don' t . They are always af f iliat ed t
o a
polit ical part y, and t hey achieve t heir posit ions by way of majorit y
part y vot e. But not everybody t akes t he t rouble t o vot e, and
somet imes t here are more t han t wo part ies t o vot e f or. Consequent ly,
at any given t ime, mor e t han half t he people of a nat ion may not be
represent ed by t he polit ical part y in power. I n t his regard, even
t hough a ' majorit y vot e' has been applied, t he democrat ic principle
f ails. What emerges is not "government by t he people, f or t he people",
but "government of t he people".
J esus conf ront ed a very similar sit uat ion in t he f irst cent ury. At t hat
t ime, J er usalem and J udaea wer e under Roman occupat ion, wit h King Herod
and t he Governor, Pont ius Pilat e, bot h appoint ed by Rome. But who represent
ed t he people? The people were not Romans; t hey were Holy Land J ews-Pharisee
s, Sadducees, Essenes and t he like. Apart
f rom t hat , t here were large numbers of Samarit ans and Gent iles (non-
J ews, t he Arab races). Who represent ed t hem? The answer is "no one"-
unt il J esus made it his mission t o do so.
This was t he beginning of t he Grail code of non-af f iliat ed princely
service-a code perpet uat ed by t he Messianic dynast s in t heir
cont inuing role as "common f at hers" t o t he people. The Grail code is based
on t he principles of libert y, f rat ernit y and equalit y, and it was part icu
larly apparent in t he American and French revolut ions, bot h of which discarde
d t he lordship of despot ic arist ocracy. But what has replaced it ? I t has be
en replaced by part y polit ics and largely non- represent at ive government .
From t he Middle Ages t here were a number of chivalric and milit ary
orders specif ically at t ached t o t he Messianic Blood Royal in Brit ain and
Europe. They included t he Order of t he Realm of Sion and t he Order
of t he Sacred Sepulchre. But t he most prest igious of all was t he
Sovereign Order of t he Sangréal-t he Knight s of t he Holy Grail. This
was a dynast ic order of Scot land' s Royal House of St ewart , t he royal
house which in t he 14t h cent ury int roduced t he unicorn of t he Cat hars
as t he sovereign emblem of Scot land. Short ly aft erwards, t hey
int roduced t he prest igious Order of t he Unicorn, which carried t he
Gr ail mot t o "All as One".
Like King Art hur, t he St ewart Kings also had a dual Desposynic
herit age f rom bot h J esus and his brot her J ames. I n f act , f rom t he
1370s t hey were t he senior house of t he Messianic line, and t hey were
Europe' s longest -reigning dynast y, holding t heir crown f or 317 years
unt il f inally deposed by t he Anglican Church in 1688. They were
deposed because, in compliance wit h t he Grail code, t hey claimed
af f init y t o God and t he nat ion bef ore Parliament , t he Church and t he
ar ist ocr acy.
Today, t he senior legit imat e descendant in t his line is HRH Prince
Michael St ewart , Count of Albany (whose own book, The Forgot t en
Monarchy of Scot land, is scheduled f or publicat ion by Element Books in
May 1998).
And now t o a quest ion t hat I have f requent ly been asked in t he mont hs sin
ce Bloodline of t he Holy Gr ail was published. The quest ion is: why is all t h
is inf ormat ion coming t o light at t his part icular t ime?
The fact is t hat t he informat ion has never been suppressed by t hose whom it
concerns. I t has been suppressed by out side power-seekers who have sought t o
serve t heir own ends, rat her t han serve t he
communit ies t hey are supposed t o represent .
Today, however , we ar e in a new age of ' quest ing' , as many people gr ow mor
e disillusioned wit h t he est ablishment dogmas t hat prevail. We live in an ag
e of sat ellit e communicat ions, sound-barrier t ravel, comput ers and t he I n
t ernet -so t he world is effect ively much smaller t han before. I n such an en
vironment , news t ravels very quickly, and t he t rut h is f ar more difficult
t o rest rain.
Also, t he very f abric of t he ' male-dominat ed' Church and
government al st ruct ures is being quest ioned, and it is generally
perceived t hat t he old doct rines of spirit ual cont rol and t errit orial
management are not working. More and more people are searching f or t he origina
l, unclut t ered root s of t heir f ait h, and f or t heir purpose in societ y.
They are seeking more ef f ect ive f orms of administ rat ion t o combat t he al
l-t oo-apparent slide int o social and moral decline. They are, in f act , quest
ing f or t he Holy Grail.
This quest f or new enlight enment is considerably height ened by t he
coming new millennium, and t here is a widespread f eeling t hat t his
should also present a new Renaissance, an era of rebirt h wherein t he
precept s of t he Grail code are acknowledged and pract ised-t he
precept s of libert y, frat ernit y and equalit y.
Grail lore spells out loud and clear t hat t he wound of t he Fisher King
must be healed if t he wast eland is t o ret urn t o f ert ilit y. And so, given
t hat I had been afforded privileged access over past years t o t he
archives of t he Knight s Templars, t he Celt ic Church and t he Messianic
sover eign houses of Eur ope, t he t ime ar r ived f or me t o play my own
small part in t rying t o heal t he age-old wound of t he Fisher King. The
r esult was my book, Bloodline of t he Holy Gr ail.
About the Speaker:
Sir Laur ence Gar dner , Kt St Gm, KCD, is an int er nat ionally known
sovereign and chivalric genealogist . He holds t he posit ion of Grand
Prior of t he Celt ic Church' s Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, and is
dist inguished as t he Chevalier Labhràn de Saint Germain. Sir Laurence
is also President ial At t aché t o t he European Council of Princes, a const it u
t ional advisory body est ablished in 1946. He is f ormally at t ached t o t he
Noble Household Guard of t he Royal House of
St ewart , f ounded at St Germain-en-Laye in 1692, and is t he J acobit e
Hist oriographer Royal.
Editor' s Notes:
(Back t o Part 1)
(On t o Part 3)
It was not unt il t he early sevent eent h cent ury t hat t he first
accept able English language Bible t ranslat ion was made-f or t he Scot s
King J ames VI (St uart ), J ames I of England. This was t he Aut horized
Version, upon which t he majorit y of subsequent English-language Bibles
have been based. But even t his was not a direct t ranslat ion f rom
anyt hing; it was most ly t ranslat ed f rom t he Greek, part ly f rom t he
Lat in, and t o some ext ent f rom t he works of ot hers who' d made ot her
illegit imat e t ranslat ions bef ore.
I n t heir rendering of t he New Test ament , King J ames' t ranslat ors
endeavoured t o appease bot h t he Prot est ant s and t he Cat holics. This
was t he only way t o produce a generally accept able t ext , but t heir
at t empt t o appease was not ent irely successful. The Cat holics t hought t he
t ranslat ors were siding wit h t he Prot est ant s and t ried t o blow up King
J ames in t he Houses of Parliament , and t he Prot est ant s said t he t ransl
at ors were in league wit h t he Cat holics.
Anyway, t he Bible survived but t he t ranslat ors t ried as well f or
somet hing called "polit ical cor r ect ness". We know about it t oday; it
applied t hen. Good examples of t his are f ound in many inst ances-one in
part icular where t he direct t ranslat ion referred t o a group of people
called "heavenly soldiers". They didn' t like t his very much, so it ' s
act ually crossed out , and underneat h it says "heavenly army". But
somebody else came along and said, "No, t his is st ill not good enough; it
denot es an armed unit here; t his is not polit ically correct ," and so it
was crossed out again, and t hey resurrect ed an old word t hat had not been wri
t t en in t he English language f or cent uries. They called it "t he heavenly h
ost ". Nobody knows what t he heavenly host is. I n f act it ' s quit e ast ound
ing how many obscure, old and obsolet e words were
brought back int o use t o provide polit ical correct ness f or t he King
J ames Bible, but which nobody could underst and. At t he same t ime,
William Shakespear e was doing likewise in his plays.
I f we look at t he reference books t hat exist ed prior t o J ames and
Shakespeare and at t hose t hat exist ed just aft er J ames and
Shakespeare, we see t hat t he English-language vocabulary was
increased by more t han f if t y per cent as a result of words invent ed or
brought back from obscurit y by t he writ ers of t he era. The problem
was t hat nobody, let alone t he dict ionary compilers, knew what most of
t hese words meant . But t hey had somehow t o be def ined, and
"heavenly host " emer ged, quit e ambiguously, as "a heavenly lot of
people"!
So alt hough eminent ly poet ic, t he language of t he Aut horized English
Bible is quit e unlike any language ever spoken by anyone in England or
anywhere else. I t bears no relat ion t o t he Greek or Lat in f rom which it
was t ranslat ed. I t was cert ainly not t he language spoken by God, as
some priest s once t old me. But f rom t his approved canonical
int erpret at ion, all ot her English language Bibles have emerged in t heir var
ious f orms. Despit e t hat , f or all of it s f ault s, despit e it s beaut if
ul verse pat t erns and t he new words, it st ill remains t he closest of all En
glish language t ranslat ions f rom t he original Greek manuscript s. All ot her
versions, t he St andard versions, t he New versions, t he Revised versions, t
he Modern English versions, have been signif icant ly
corrupt ed and t hey' re quit e unsuit able f or serious st udy by anyone
because t hey have t heir own specif ic agenda.
We can cit e an ext reme version of how t his works in pract ice. We can
look at a Bible cur r ent ly issued t oday in Pacif ic Papua New Guinea
where t here are t ribes who experience f amiliarit y on a daily basis wit h no
ot her animal but t he pig. I n t he current edit ion of t heir Bible, every ani
mal ment ioned in t he t ext , whet her originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or wh
at ever , is now a pig! Even J esus, t he t r adit ional "Lamb of God", in t his
Bible is "t he Pig of God"!
So, t o f acilit at e t he best possible t rust in t he Gospels, we must go
back t o t he original Greek manuscript s wit h t heir oft en-used Hebrew and Ar
amaic words and phrases. And in so doing we discover t hat , just as wit h t he
Nat ivit y st ory, a good deal of relevant cont ent has been misrepresent ed, mi
sunderst ood, mist ranslat ed or simply just lost in t he t elling. Somet imes t
his has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other lan
guages.
We' ve all been taught that J esus' father J oseph was a carpenter.
"Why not ? I t says so in t he Gospels." But it didn' t say t hat in t he
original Gospels. By t he best t ranslat ion, it act ually said t hat J oseph
was a Mast er of t he Craf t . The word "carpent er" was simply a
t ranslat or' s concept of a craft sman. Anyone associat ed wit h modern
Fr eemasonr y will r ecognise t he t er m "t he Cr af t ". I t ' s got not hing
what ever t o do wit h woodwork. The t ext simply denot ed t hat J oseph
was a mast erly, learned and scholarly man.
Anot her example is t he concept of t he Virgin Birt h. Our English-
language Gospels t ell us t hat J esus' mot her Mary was a virgin; t hey
keep t elling us t hat she was a virgin. Well, let ' s consider t he word
"virgin". We underst and t he word; it t ells us t hat t his was a woman
wit h no experience of sexual union. But t his was t ranslat ed not f rom
t he Greek init ially but f rom t he Lat in. That was easy because t he Lat in c
alled her virgo; Mary was a virgo. I t didn' t mean t he same t hing at all! Vir
go in Lat in meant not hing mor e t han "a young woman". To have meant t he sam
e t hing as "virgin" does t o us t oday, t he Lat in would have been vir go int
act a, t hat is t o say, "a young woman int act ".
Let ' s look back beyond t he Lat in t ext ; let ' s see why t hey called her vi
r go, a young woman. Maybe t hey act ually got somet hing r ight which we' ve go
t wrong lat er on. We discover t hat t he word t ranslat ed t o mean vir go, a y
oung woman, was t he old Hebr ew wor d almah which
meant "a young woman". I t had no sexual connot at ion what ever . Had
Mary act ually been physically virgo int act a, t he Hebrew word used
would have been bet hula, not almah.
So, have we been complet ely misguided by t he Gospels? No; we' ve been
misguided by t he English language t ranslat ions of t he Gospels. We' ve
also been misguided by a Church est ablishment t hat has done
ever yt hing in it s power t o deny women any nor mal lif est yle in t he
Gospel st ory. The New Test ament ' s key women are virgins or whores
or somet imes widows-never everyday girlf riends, wives or mot hers, and
cert ainly not ever priest esses or holy sist ers.
Not wit hst anding t hat , t he Gospels t ell us t ime and t ime again t hat
J esus was descended f rom King David t hrough his f at her J oseph. Even
St Paul t ells us t his in his Epist le t o t he Hebrews. But we are t aught
t hat J esus' f at her was a lowly carpent er and his mot her was a virgin-
neit her of which descript ions can be f ound in any original t ext . So it
f ollows t hat t o get t he best out of t he Gospels we' ve really got t o
read t hem as t hey were writ t en, not as we decide t o int erpret t hem
according t o modern language.
Precisely when t he f our main Gospels were writ t en is uncert ain. What we do
know is t hat t hey were f irst published at various st ages in t he second half
of t he f irst cent ury. They were unanimous init ially in
t elling us t hat J esus was a Nazarene. This is act ually upheld in t he
Roman annals; and t he f irst -cent ury chronicles of t he J ews and t he
Bible' s Act s of t he Apost les confirm t hat J esus' brot her J ames and
St Paul were leaders of t he sect of t he Nazarenes.
This def init ion of "Nazarene" is very import ant t o t he Grail st ory
because it has been so oft en misrepresent ed t o suggest t hat J esus
came f rom t he t own of Nazaret h. For t he past 400 years, English
language Gospels have perpet uat ed t he error by wrongly t ranslat ing
"J esus t he Nazarene" as "J esus of Nazaret h". There was no
connect ion bet ween Nazaret h and t he Nazarenes. I n fact , t he
set t lement at Nazaret h was est ablished in t he AD 60s, t hirt y years or
so af t er t he Crucif ixion. Nobody in J esus' early lif e came f rom
Nazareth-it was not there!
The Nazarenes were a liberal, J ewish sect opposed t o t he st rict
Hebrew regime of t he Pharisees and Sadducees. The Nazarene cult ure
and language were heavily inf luenced by t he philosophers of ancient
Greece, and t heir communit y support ed t he concept of equal
opport unit y f or men and women. Document s of t he t ime ref erred not
t o Nazaret h but t o t he Nazarene societ y. Priest esses exist ed in equal
opport unit y wit h priest s, but t his was so dif f erent f rom what t he male-
dominat ed Hebrew societ y want ed and what t he lat er, male-dominat ed Roman
Church required.
I t has t o be remembered t hat J esus was not a Christ ian: he was a
Nazarene-a radical, west ernised J ew. The Christ ian movement was
f ounded by ot hers in t he wake of his own mission. The word "Christ ian"
was f irst recorded and used in AD 44 in Ant ioch, Syria.
I n t he Arab world, t he word used t oday, as t hen, t o describe J esus
and his f ollowers is Nazara. This is conf irmed in t he Muslim Koran:
J esus is Nazara; his f ollowers are Nazara. The word means "Keepers" or "Guardi
ans". The f ull def init ion is Nazrie ha-Brit , "Keepers of t he Covenant ". I
n fact , t he Brit aspect of t hat is t he very root of t he count ry name of Br
it ain. Brit -ain means "Covenant -land".
I n t he t ime of J esus t he Nazarenes lived in Galilee, and in t hat
myst ical place which t he Bible calls "t he Wilderness". The Wilderness
was act ually a very def ined place. I t was essent ially t he land around
t he main set t lement at Qumran which spread out t o Mird and ot her
places. I t was where t he Dead Sea Scrolls were produced-discovered
at Qumran in 1948.
Somewhere af t er t he Crucif ixion, Pet er and his f riend Paul went of f t o
Ant ioch, t hen on t o Rome, and t hey began t he movement t hat became
Christ ianit y. But as recorded in t he ot her annals, J esus, his brot her
J ames and t he majorit y of t he ot her apost les cont inued t he Nazarene move
ment and progressed it int o Europe. I t became t he Celt ic Church. The Nazaren
e movement as a Church is document ed wit hin t he Celt ic Church records as bei
ng f ormally implement ed as t he Church of J esus in AD 37, f our years af t er
t he Crucif ixion. The Roman Church was
formed 300 years lat er, aft er Paul and Pet er' s Christ ians had been
persecuted for three centuries.
Through many cent uries t he Nazarene-based Celt ic Church movement
was direct ly opposed t herefore t o t he Church of Rome. The difference
was a simple one: t he Nazarene f ait h was based on t he t eachings of
J esus himself . The gut s of t he religion, t he moral codes, t he
behavioural pat t erns, t he social pract ices, t he laws and just ices
relat ed t o Old Test ament t eaching but wit h a liberal message of
equalit y in mind-t his was t he r eligion of J esus. Roman Chr ist ianit y is "
Churchianit y". I t was not t he message of J esus t hat was import ant : t his
Church t urned J esus int o t he religion. I n short , t he Nazarene
Church was t he t rue social Church. The Roman Church was t he Church
of t he Emperors and t he Popes; t his was t he I mperial hybrid
move me nt .
Apar t f r om st r aight f or war d misunder st andings, misint er pr et at ions
and
mist r anslat ions, t he canonical Gospels suf f er f r om numer ous
purposef ul amendment s. Some original ent ries have been changed or delet ed; o
t her ent ries have been added t o suit t he Church' s vest ed interest. Back in
the fourth century when the texts were translated
int o Lat in f rom t heir original Greek and Semit ic t ongues, t he majorit y
of t hese edit s and amendment s were made.
Even earlier, about AD 195-one t housand, eight hundred years ago-
Bishop Clement of Alexandria made t he f irst known amendment f rom t he Gospel
t ext s. He delet ed a subst ant ial sect ion f rom t he Gospel of Mark, writ t
en more t han a hundred years bef ore t hat t ime, and he
just if ied his act ion in a let t er. "For even if t hey should say somet hing
t rue, one who loves t he Trut h should not ...agree wit h t hem... For not all
t rue t hings are t o be said t o all men." I nt erest ing. What he meant was t
hat even at t hat very early st age t here was already a discrepancy
bet ween what t he Gospel writ ers had writ t en and what t he bishops
want ed t o t each.
Today, t his sect ion delet ed by St Clement is st ill missing f rom t he
Gospel of Mark. But when Mark is compared wit h t he Gospel t hat we
know t oday, even wit hout t hat sect ion we find t hat t oday' s Gospel is a
good deal longer t han t he original! One of t hese addit ional sect ions compri
ses t he whole of t he Resurrect ion sequence; t his amount s t o t welve full v
erses at t he end of Mark, chapt er 16.
I t ' s now known t hat everyt hing t old about t he event s aft er t he
Crucif ixion was added by Church bishops or t heir scribes some t ime in
t he lat e f ourt h cent ury. Alt hough t his is conf irmed in t he Vat ican
archives, it is dif f icult f or most people t o gain access-and even if t hey
do, old Greek is very dif f icult t o underst and.
But what exactly was in this section of Mark that Clement saw fit to
remove? I t was t he sect ion t hat dealt wit h t he raising of Lazarus. I n
t he cont ext of t he original Mark t ext , however, Lazarus was port rayed in a
st at e of excommunicat ion: spirit ual deat h by decree, not physical deat h.
The account even had Lazarus and J esus calling t o each ot her before t he t om
b was opened. This defeat ed t he bishops' desire t o
port ray t he raising of Lazarus as a spirit ual miracle, not as a simple
release f rom excommunicat ion. More import ant ly, it set t he scene f or t he
st ory of t he Crucif ixion of J esus himself , whose own subsequent raising fro
m spirit ual deat h was det ermined by t he same t hree-day rule t hat applied t
o Lazarus.
J esus was raised (released or resurrect ed) from deat h by decree on
t he st at ut ory t hird day. I n t he case of Lazarus, however, J esus
flout ed t he rules by raising his friend aft er t he t hree-day period of
symbolic sickness. At t hat point , civil deat h would have become
absolut e in t he eyes of t he legal elders. Lazarus would have been
wrapped in sacking and buried alive. His crime was t hat he had led a
violent people' s-revolt t o saf eguard t he public wat er supply which had been
divert ed t hrough a new Roman aqueduct in J erusalem. But J esus perf ormed t
his release while not holding any priest ly ent it lement t o do so. What happen
ed was t hat Herod-Ant ipas of Galilee compelled t he
High Priest of J erusalem t o relent in f avour of J esus-and t his was
regarded as an unprecedent ed miracle!
But t here was more t o t he removed sect ion of Mark, because in t elling
t he st ory of Lazarus t he Mark account made it perfect ly clear t hat J esus a
nd Mary Magdalene were act ually man and wif e. The Lazarus st ory in J ohn cont
ains a rat her st range sequence t hat has Mart ha coming from t he Lazarus hou
se t o greet J esus, whereas her sist er, Mar y Magdalene, r emains inside unt i
l summoned by J esus. But in
cont rast t o t his, t he original Mark account said t hat Mary Magdalene act ua
lly came out of t he house wit h Mart ha and was t hen chast ised by t he discip
les and sent back indoors t o await J esus' inst ruct ion. This was a specif ic
procedure of J udaic law, whereby a wif e in rit ual
mourning was not allowed t o emerge f rom t he propert y unt il inst ruct ed
by her husband.
There' s a good deal of inf ormat ion out side t he Bible t o conf irm t hat J e
sus and Mary Magdalene were man and wif e. But is t here anyt hing relevant in t
he Gospels t oday, anyt hing t hat t he edit ors missed t hat
t ells us t he st ory? Well, t here are some specific t hings and t here are
some ancillary t hings.
There are seven list s given in t he Gospels of t he women who
permanent ly seemed t o f ollow J esus around, and t hese include J esus' mot he
r; but in six of t hese seven list s t he f irst name, even ahead of his mot her
, is Mary Magdalene. When one st udies ot her list s of t he period which relat
e t o any f orm of hierarchical societ y, one not ices
t hat t he "first lady" was always t he first name list ed. The t erm "First Lad
y" is used in America t oday. The f irst lady was t he most senior; she was alwa
ys named f irst -and as t he Messianic Queen, Mary Magdalene would have been nam
ed f irst , as indeed she was.
But is t he mar r iage def ined in t he Gospels? Well, it is. Many have
suggest ed t hat t he wedding at Cana was t he marriage of J esus and
Mary Magdalene. This was not t he wedding ceremony as such, alt hough
t he marriage is det ailed in t he Gospels. The marriage is t he quit e
separat e anoint ings at Bet hany. I n Luke we have a f irst anoint ing by
Mary of J esus, t wo-and-a-half years before t he second anoint ing. I t
doesn't occur to many people that they are different stories, but they
are t wo-and-a-half years apart .
Readers of t he f irst cent ury would have been f ully conversant wit h t he t w
o-part rit ual of t he sacred marriage of a dynast ic heir. J esus, as we know,
was a "Messiah", which means quit e simply an "Anoint ed One". I n f act , all a
noint ed senior priest s and Davidic kings were Messiahs. J esus was not unique.
Alt hough not an ordained priest , he gained his right t o Messiah st at us by
way of descent f rom King David and t he kingly line, but he did not achieve t h
at Messiah st at us unt il he was act ually
physically anoint ed by Mar y Magdalene, in her capacit y as a high
priest ess, short ly before t he Crucifixion.
The word "Messiah" comes f rom t he Hebrew verb "t o anoint ", which
it self is derived f rom t he Egypt ian word messeh, "t he holy crocodile".
I t was with the fat of the messeh that the Pharaoh' s sister-brides
anoint ed t heir husbands on marriage. The Egypt ian cust om sprang f rom
kingly pr act ice in old Mesopot amia.
I n t he Old Test ament ' s Song of Solomon we hear again of t he bridal
anoint ing of t he king. I t is def ined t hat t he oil used in J udah was t he
f ragrant oint ment spikenard, an expensive root oil f rom t he Himalayas,
and we learn t hat t his anoint ing rit ual was perf ormed always while t he
husband/ king sat at t he t able. I n t he New Test ament , t he anoint ing of
J esus by Mary Magdalene was indeed perf ormed while he sat at t he
t able, and wit h t he bridal anoint ment of spikenard. Aft erwards, Mary wiped
his f eet wit h her hair, and on t he f irst occasion of t he t wo-part marriage
she wept . All of t hese t hings signif y t he marit al anoint ing of a dynast
ic heir.
Ot her anoint ings of Messiahs, whet her on coronat ion or admission t o
t he senior priest hood, were always conduct ed by men, by t he High
Zadok or t he High Pr iest . The oil used was olive oil, mixed wit h
cinnamon and ot her spices; never, ever spikenard.
Spikenard was t he express prerogat ive of a Messianic bride who had
t o be a Mary, a sist er of a sacred order. J esus' mot her was a Mary; so,
t oo, would his wif e have been a Mar y, by t it le at least if not by
bapt ismal name. S ome convent ual or der s st ill maint ain t he t r adit ion b
y
adding t he t it le "Mary" t o t he bapt ismal names of t heir nuns: Sist er
Mary Theresa, Sist er Mary Louise.
Messianic marriages were always conduct ed in t wo st ages. The f irst
st age, t he anoint ing in Luke, was t he legal commit ment t o wedlock. The
second st age, t he anoint ing in Mat t hew, Mark and J ohn, was t he
cement ing of t he cont ract . And in J esus and Mary' s case, t he second
anoint ing at Bet hany was of express signif icance. Here t he Grail st ory
begins, because, as explained in books of J ewish law at t he t ime and by
Flavius J osephus in The Ant iquit ies of t he J ews, t he second part of
t his marriage ceremony was never conduct ed unt il t he wif e was t hree
mont hs pregnant .
Dynast ic heirs such as J esus were expressly required t o perpet uat e
t heir lines. Marriage was essent ial, but t he law had t o prot ect t hem
against marriage t o women who proved barren or kept miscarrying, and
t his prot ect ion was provided by t he t hree-mont h-pregnancy rule.
Miscarriages would not of t en happen af t er t hat t erm, and once t hey
got t hrough t hat period it was considered saf e enough t o complet e t he
marriage cont ract . When anoint ing her husband at t his st age, t he
Messianic bride, in accordance wit h cust om, was said t o be anoint ing
him f or burial. This is conf irmed in t he Gospels. The bride would f rom t hat
day carry a vial of spikenard around her neck, f or t he rest of her husband' s
lif e; she would use it again on his ent ombment .
I t was f or t his very purpose t hat Mary Magdalene would have gone t o t he t
omb, as she did on t he Sabbat h aft er t he Crucifixion. Subsequent t o t he se
cond Bet hany anoint ing, t he Gospels relat e t hat J esus said: "Wheresoever t
his Gospel shall be preached t hroughout t he whole
world, t his also t hat she hat h done shall be spoken of f or a memorial of
her."
I n his f amous rendering of t he event , t he Renaissance art ist Fra
Angelico act ually depict ed J esus placing a cr own on t he head of Mar y Magda
lene. But despit e t he f act t hat Fra Angelico was a learned 15t h- cent ury D
ominican f riar, did t he Christ ian Church aut horit ies honour Mary Magdalene
and speak of t his act as a memorial of her? No; t hey did not . They complet el
y ignored J esus' own direct ive and denounced Mary as a whore.
To t he esot eric Church and t he Knight s Templars, however, Mary
Magdalene was always regarded as a saint . She is st ill revered as such by many
t oday, but t he int erest ing part about t his saint hood, when we t hink abou
t Grail lore, is t hat Mary is list ed as t he pat ron saint of
winegrowers, t he guardian of t he vine-t he guardian of t he Holy Grail,
t he guardian of t he sacred bloodline.
There is much in t he Gospels t hat we don' t presume t o be t here
because we are never encouraged t o look beyond t he superf icial level.
We' ve been aided great ly in t his regard in recent years by t he Dead
Sea Scrolls and by t he ext raordinary research of Aust ralian t heologian
Dr Barbara Thiering.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have opened up a whole new awareness of jargon; we have a w
hole new enlight enment here. They set down t he communit y of f ices of t he Me
ssiah of I srael. They t ell us about t he council of
t welve delegat e apost les who were permanent ly appoint ed t o preside
over specif ic aspect s of government and rit ual. This leads t o a great er
awareness of t he apost les t hemselves. We now know not only what t heir names
were-we always knew t hat -but we can underst and who t hey were, who t heir f a
milies were, what t heir dut ies and posit ions were.
We now underst and f rom st udying t he Gospels t hat t here is an allegory
wit hin t hem: t he use of words t hat we don' t underst and t oday. We now
know that baptismal priests were called "fishers"; we know that those who aided
t hem by hauling t he bapt ismal candidat es int o t he boat s in large net s we
re called "f ishermen"; and we know t hat t he bapt ismal candidat es t hemselve
s were called "fishes". The apost les J ames and J ohn were bot h ordained "fish
ers". The brot hers Pet er and Andrew were lay "f ishermen", and J esus promised
t hem priest hood wit hin t he new minist r y, saying "I will make you t o beco
me f isher s of men".
We now know t here was a part icular jargon of t he Gospel era, a jargon
t hat would have been readily underst ood by anybody reading t he
Gospels in t he f irst cent ury and beyond. These jargonist ic words have
been lost t o lat er int erpret at ion. Today, f or example, we call our
t heat re invest ors "angels" and our t op ent ert ainers "st ars", but what
would a reader f rom some dist ant cult ure in t wo t housand years' t ime make
of "The angel went t o t alk t o t he st ars"? The Gospels are f ull of t hese j
argonist ic words. "The poor", "t he lepers", "t he mult it ude", "t he blind"-n
one of t hese was what we presume it t o mean t oday.
Def init ions such as "clouds", "sheep", "f ishes", "loaves" and a var iet y of
ot hers were all relat ed, just like "st ars", t o people.
When t he Gospels were writ t en in t he first cent ury t hey were issued
int o a Roman-cont rolled environment . Their cont ent had t o be disguised
against Roman scrut iny. The inf ormat ion was of t en polit ical; it was
coded, veiled. Where import ant sect ions appeared t hey were oft en
heralded by t he words, "This is for t hose wit h ears t o hear"-for t hose who
underst and t he code. I t was no different t o t he coded informat ion passed b
et ween members of oppressed groups t hroughout hist ory.
There was a code f ound in document at ion passed bet ween t he lat er
J ews in Germany in t he 1930s and 1940s.
Through our knowledge of t his scribal crypt ology we can now
det ermine dat es and locat ions wit h very great accuracy. We can
uncover many of t he hidden meanings in t he Gospels t o t he ext ent t hat t he
miracles t hemselves t ake on a whole new cont ext . I n doing so, t his does n
ot in any way decry t he f act t hat a man like J esus, and, in f act , specif i
cally J esus, was obviously a ver y special per son wit h enor mously special po
wers, but t he Gospels laid down cert ain st ories which have
since become described as "miracles". These were not put down
because t hey were really miraculous supernat ural event s; t hey were
put down because in t he t hen-current polit ical arena t hey were act ually
quit e unprecedent ed act ions which successf ully f lout ed t he law.
We now know ot her t hings. We now know why t he Gospels are oft en
not in agreement wit h each ot her. For example, Mark says t hat J esus was cruc
if ied at t he t hird hour, whereas J ohn says he was crucif ied at t he sixt h
hour. This does not , on t he f ace of it , look t oo import ant ,
but , as we shall see, t his t hree-hour t ime difference was crucial t o t he
event s t hat followed.
Let ' s look at t he wat er and wine at Cana, f ollowing t he st ory t hrough
what t he Bible act ually t ells us, as against what we t hink we know.
What was a very st raight forward event is now dubbed wit h
supernat ural overt ones. The Cana wedding, out of f our Gospels, is
described only in J ohn. I f it was so import ant t o t he Church as a
miracle, why is it not in t he ot her t hree Gospels? I t does not say (as is
so of t en said f rom pulpit s): "They ran out of wine." I t doesn' t say t hat
.
I t says: "When t hey want ed wine, t he mot her of J esus said, ' They
have no wine.' "
The Gospel t ells us t hat t he person in charge was t he ruler of t he
f east . This specif ically def ines it not as a wedding ceremony as such,
but a pre-wedding bet rot hal f east . The wine t aken at bet rot hal f east s
was only available t o priest s and celibat e J ews, not t o married men,
novices or any ot hers who were regarded as being unsanct if ied. They
were allowed only wat er-a purif icat ion rit ual, as st at ed in J ohn.
When t he t ime came f or t his rit ual, Mary, clearly not happy about t he
discr iminat ion and dir ect ing J esus' at t ent ion t o t he unsanct if ied
guest s, said: "They have no wine." Having not yet been anoint ed t o
Messiah st at us, J esus responded: "Mine hour is not yet come." At t his,
Mary f orced t he issue and J esus t hen f lout ed convent ion, abandoning wat e
r alt oget her. Wine for everyone! The ruler of t he feast made no comment what
soever about any miracle; he simply expressed his
amazement t hat t he wine had t urned up at t hat st age of t he
pr oceedings.
I t ' s been suggest ed oft en t hat t he wedding at Cana was J esus' own
wedding ceremony because he and his mot her displayed a right of
command t hat would not be associat ed wit h ordinary guest s. However,
t his f east can be dat ed t o t he summer of AD 30, in t he mont h
equivalent t o J une. Fir st weddings wer e always held in t he mont h of
At onement (Sept ember), and bet rot hal feast s were held t hree mont hs
before t hat . I n t his inst ance, we find t hat t he first marit al anoint ing
of J esus by Mary Magdalene was at t he At onement of AD 30, t hree
mont hs af t er t he Cana ceremony which appears t o have been t heir own
bet rot hal feast .
The Gospels t ell a st ory t hat alt hough not always in agreement f rom
Gospel t o Gospel is act ually f ollowable out side t he Bible. The account s
of J esus' act ivit ies right up t o t he t ime of t he Crucif ixion can be
f ound in various records of t he era. I n t he of f icial annals of I mperial
Rome, t he t rial by Pilat e and t he Crucif ixion are ment ioned. We can
det ermine precisely f rom t his chronological diary of t he Roman
governors t hat t he Crucif ixion t ook place at t he March Passover of AD
33. The Bet hany second marriage anoint ing was in t he week prior t o t hat . W
e know t hat at t hat st age Mary Magdalene had t o have been t hree mont hs pre
gnant , by law-which means she should have given birt h in Sept ember of AD 33.
That , we' ll come back t o.
I f t he Gospels are read as t hey are writ t en, J esus appears as a
liberat ing dynast , endeavouring t o unit e t he people of t he era against t h
e oppression of t he Roman Empire. J udaea at t he t ime was just like France un
der German occupat ion in World War I I . The aut horit ies
were cont rolled by t he milit ary occupat ional f orce; resist ance
movement s were common.
J esus was await ed, expect ed, and by t he end of t he st ory had become
an anoint ed Messiah. I n t he f ir st cent ur y Ant iquit ies of t he J ews,
J esus is called "a wise man", "a t eacher " and "t he King". Ther e is
not hing t here about divinit y.
While t he Dead Sea Scrolls ident ify t he Messiah of I srael as t he
Supreme Milit ary Commander of I srael, it is no secret t he apost les
were armed. From the time of recruitment, J esus checked that they
all had swords. At t he very end of t he st ory, Pet er drew his sword
against Malchus. J esus said, "I come not t o send peace but a swor d."
Many of t he high-r anking J ews in J er usalem wer e quit e cont ent t o hold
posit ions of power backed by a f oreign milit ary regime. Apart f rom
t hat , t he Hebrew groups t hemselves were sect arian; t hey did not want
t o share t heir God J ehovah wit h anybody else, specif ically unclean
Gent iles. To t he Pharisees and Sadducees, t he J ews were God' s chosen
people: He belonged t o t hem, t hey belonged t o Him. But t here were
other J ews-there were the Nazarenes, there were the Essenes-who
were influenced by a more liberal, west ern doct rine. I n t he event ,
J esus' mission f ailed; t he rif t was insurmount able. Gent iles, in modern- d
ay language, are simply t he non-J ewish Arab races-and t he rif t is st ill the
re today.
The sent encing of J esus was by t he Roman Governor Pont ius Pilat e, but
J esus was act ually condemned and excommunicat ed prior t o t hat by
t he Sanhedrin Council. I t was decided t o cont rive a punishment ,
whereby J esus would be sent enced by t he Roman Governor who was
already t rying ot her prisoners f or leading insurrect ions against
himself .
As confirmed by t he Supreme J udge and At t orney-General of I srael
even t oday, it was quit e illegal f or t he Sanhedrin Council t o sit at night
or t o sit and operat e during t he Passover, so t he t iming was perf ect .
They had an ideal opport unit y, and a reason t o say: "Sorry, we can' t do
t his ourselves. You, t he Roman Governor, have t o do t his."
As f or J esus' deat h on t he Cross, it is perf ect ly plain t his was spirit u
al
deat h, not physical deat h, as det ermined by t he t hree-day rule t hat
everybody in t he f irst cent ury reading t his would have underst ood. I n
civil and legal t erms, J esus was already dead when he was placed on
t he Cross. He was denounced, scourged, prepared f or deat h by decree.
Today, we call t his "excommunicat ion". For t hree days J esus would
have been nominally sick, wit h absolut e deat h coming on t he f ourt h day.
On t hat day he would be ent ombed, buried alive; but during t he f irst t hree
days he could be raised or resurrect ed. I n fact , he predict ed t hat he would
.
Raisings and resurrect ions (apart from t he fact t hat J esus once
f lout ed t he rule, and t hat was a miracle!) could only be perf ormed by
t he High Priest or by t he Fat her of t he Communit y. The High Priest at
t hat t ime was J oseph Caiaphas, t he very man who condemned J esus;
t herefore t he raising had t o be performed by t he pat riarchal Fat her.
There are Gospel account s of J esus t alking t o t he Fat her from t he
Cr oss, culminat ing in "Fat her , int o t hy hands I commend my spir it ", and
at t hat t ime we know from t he list ings t hat t he appoint ed Fat her was t h
e Magian apost le Simon Zelot es.
We have been t aught t hat J esus' physical deat h was proved by t he blood and
wat er t hat f lowed when he was pierced by t he spear, but t his has been very
badly t ranslat ed. The original word does not
t ranslat e t o "pierced"; it t ranslat es t o "pricked" or t o "scrat ched".
This in t urn was mist ranslat ed int o t he Lat in verb "t o open", and int o
t he English word "pierced".
They were not primit ive t imes. They were t imes when t here were
doct ors, medical men; t here were even f orms of hospit al. And we can
see t hat , just like t oday, t he t est for reflex act ion was scrat ching,
prodding or pricking t he skin wit h a sharp inst rument .
I have in my possession a let t er f rom a surgeon of t he Brit ish Medical
Council. I t says: "Medically, t he out flow of wat er is impossible t o
explain. Blood f lowing f r om a st ab wound is evidence of lif e, not deat h.
I t would t ake a large, gaping lacerat ion f or any drop of blood t o f low
f rom a dead body because t here is no vascular act ion."
So let ' s look f urt her; let ' s look at what t he Gospels act ually said.
J oseph of Arimat hea t ook down J esus' body f rom t he Cross. I n f act ,
t he word t hat was t ranslat ed t o t he English word "body" was t he
Greek word soma, meaning "live body". The alt ernat ive word denot ing
"dead body" or "cor pse" w ould have been pt oma.
J esus very apparent ly survived, and t his is explicit ly maint ained in
ot her books. Even t he Koran says t hat J esus survived t he Crucif ixion.
During t hat Friday af t ernoon when J esus was on t he Cross, t here was a
t hree-hour-forward t ime change. Time was recorded t hen by sundials
and by priest s who marked t he hours by a sequence of measured
prayer sessions. I n essence, t here were dayt ime hours and t here were
night -t ime hours. Today we have a t went y-f our-hour day. I n J ohn, J esus s
aid: "Are t here not t welve hours in a day?" Yes, t here were t welve hours in
a day and t here were t welve hours in t he night , and
dayt ime st art ed at sunrise. From t ime t o t ime t he beginning of dayt ime
changed; t hus t he beginning of night -t ime changed. I n March, t he beginning
of dayt ime would have been somewhere round about six o' clock in t he mor ning
, as we know it .
We know t hat J oseph of Arimat hea negot iat ed wit h Pont ius Pilat e t o have
J esus removed from t he Cross aft er a few hours of hanging. The Gospels don'
t act ually agree on t he sequence of event s here: some use t he t ime before t
he t ime change; some use t he t ime aft er t he t ime
change. But t hree hours disappeared f rom t he day, t o be replaced wit h
t hree night -t ime hours. Daylight hours were subst it ut ed by hours of
darkness. The land f ell int o darkness f or t hree hours, we are t old in
t he Gospels. Today we would simply, in a split second, add t hr ee night -
t ime hours t o t he day.
But t hese t hree hours were t he crux of every single event t hat
followed, because t he Hebrew lunarist s made t heir change during t he
dayt ime. The solarist s, of which t he Essenes and t he Magi were
f act ions, did not make t heir change unt il midnight -which act ually means
t hat according t o t he Gospel t hat relat es t o Hebrew t ime, J esus was
crucif ied at t he t hird hour; but in t he ot her, solar t ime he was
crucified at t he sixt h hour.
On t hat evening t he Hebrews began t heir Sabbat h at t he old nine
o' clock, but t he Essenes and Magians st ill had t hree hours t o go bef ore
the Sabbath. I t was those three hours that enabled them to work wit h, on and f
or J esus, dur ing a per iod of t ime in which nobody else was allowed t o unde
rt ake any physical work what soever.
And so we come t o probably one of t he most misunderst ood event s of
the Bible
I
did not decide t o writ e t he book [Bloodline of t he Holy Grail]. The
book happened by accident , not by design. I t happened by virt ue of t he
fact t hat for about t he last t en years I have been t he appoint ed
hist or ian and sover eign genealogist t o t hir t y-t hr ee r oyal f amilies. I
t
happened because during t hose early periods I was document ing
evidence on t he hist ory of t hose royal f amilies and t heir noble
of f shoot s, and t he chivalric archives of t hose noble and sovereign
f amilie s.
What I was doing was put t ing t oget her writ t en chronological account s
of t hings t hat t hese families knew t he subst ance of but did not
necessarily know t he det ail of . I t is t he reason why in Brit ain and
Europe I necessarily spend f ar less t ime on t his biblical aspect ,
because t here' s a lot of what we' ll t alk about t onight t hat in Europe is t
aken as read. I t was never any secret when my book came out , f or t he majori
t y of t hese people, t hat J esus was married and t hat J esus had heirs, becau
se it was writ t en as such in very many f amily archives, not necessarily just
privat e but in t he open domain. The published papers of Mary, Queen of Scot s
t alk about it at lengt h. The papers of J ames II of England, who was wasn't de
posed until 1688, talk of it at length.
I n put t ing t oget her t he det ail, generat ion by generat ion, of t his st o
ry, we were act ually compiling somet hing f or post erit y t hat , at t hat poi
nt in t ime when I began t he wor k, was locked away in boxes and
cupboards, and I was act ually in a posit ion where I was present ed wit h t hin
gs and said, "Look, t his says, ' Last opened in 1732!". So, some very, very old
document at ion, not only last opened in sevent een-whenever, but act ually doc
ument ed and writ t en down hundreds of years bef ore t hat .
The book happened by accident . Over a period of t ime-probably,
looking back now, t en or t welve year s ago-I began t his wor k wit h
separat e commissions f rom separat e f amilies, doing work on t hese
genealogies. What happened was t hey began t o converge. I t became
very apparent -and it t ook a long t ime because genealogies have t o be done ba
ckwards, put t oget her backwards and const ruct ed backwards- but what was happ
ening was t hat a t riangle, f rom a large t op base wit h numer ous f amily lin
es, was pulling in t o a point .
I suddenly r ealised what t his point was, and I said, "Wow, do you
realise what I ' ve f ound here?"; and t hey said, "Ah, you know t he
f at her of so and so?"; and I said, "No, no, no; I ' m act ually f inding t hat
t his comes out of t he House of J udah in t he f irst cent ury"; and t hey sai
d, "Oh, yeah, we know all t hat ; what we want ed you t o do was f or
you..."; and I said, "Well, t her e ar e millions of people out t her e who do
not know about it , so let ' s t urn t his t riangle upside down and t urn it
int o a book!". So t hat ' s how t he book happened.
On t op of t hat , f or t he last six years I have been Brit ain' s Grand Prior
of t he Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, t he royal ecclesiast ical seat
of t he Celt ic Church. So I had, also, access t o Celt ic Church records dat in
g back t o AD 37. Because of my at t achment s t o t he f amilies, t o t he knig
ht ly orders, I also had access t o Templar document s, t o t he very document s
t hat t he Knight s Templar brought out in Europe in 1128 and confront ed t he
Church est ablishment wit h, and fright ened t he life out of t hem wit h, becau
se t hese were document s t hat t alked about bloodline and genealogy, and we' l
l get on t o t hat .
So t onight we' re going t o embark on a t ime-honoured quest . Some have called
it t he ult imat e quest . The Christ ian Church has condemned it as a heresy,
and it is, of course, t he quest f or t he Holy Grail.
A heresy is described in all dict ionaries as "an opinion which is cont rary
t o t he ort hodox dogma of t he Christ ian bishops", and, in t his regard,
t hose ot her quest s which comprise much of t oday' s scient if ic and
medical research are equally heret ical. The word "heresy" is, in
essence, not hing more t han a derogat ory label, a t ag used by a f earf ul
Church est ablishment t hat has long sought t o maint ain cont rol of
societ y t hrough f ear of t he unknown. A heresy can t heref ore def ine t hose
aspect s of philosophy, research, which quest int o t he realms of t he unknown
, and which f rom t ime t o t ime provide answers and
solut ions t hat are quit e cont rary t o Church doct rine.
Quest s are by t heir very nat ure int riguing; hist ory and hist orical
research are enlight ening; but t he f indings f rom neit her are of any use
what soever unless t here are present -day applicat ions which, like
science and medicine, can sow t he seeds of a bet t er fut ure.
Hist ory is no more t han recorded experience-generally, t he experience of it s
winners. I t makes common sense t o learn f rom t he experience of yest erday.
I t ' s t hat very experience which holds t he moral, cult ural, polit ical, soc
ial keys of t omorrow, and it ' s in t his cont ext t hat t he Holy Grail suppor
t s t hat which we call "t he Messianic Code". This is t he
code of social pract ice inst it ut ed by J esus when he washed his
apost les' feet at t he Last Supper. I t pert ains t o t he obligat ions of
giving and receiving service; it det ermines t hat t hose in posit ions of
elect ed aut horit y and inf luence should always be aware of t heir dut ies
as represent at ives of societ y, obligat ed t o serve societ y, not t o
pr esume aut hor it y over societ y. I t is t he essent ial key t o democr at ic
government . This is def ined as government by t he people, f or t he
people. Wit hout t he implement at ion of t he Grail Code, we experience
t he only-t oo-f amiliar government of t he people. This is not democrat ic
gove r nme nt .
Now, in t he cour se of our jour ney we' ll be discussing many it ems which are
t horoughly f amiliar, but we' ll be looking at t hem f rom a dif f erent perspe
ct ive t o t hat normally conveyed. I n t his regard it will appear t hat we are
of t en t reading wholly new ground, but in f act it was only
t he ground t hat exist ed before it was carpet ed and concealed by t hose
wit h ot herwise vest ed int erest s. Only by rolling back t his carpet of
purposef ul concealment can we succeed in our quest f or t he Holy Grail.
S o our quest will begin in t he Holy Land of J udaea in t he t ime of J esus an
d we' ll spend a good while t here. I will not move f rom t hat era unt il we br
eak, because it will t ake t hat long t o set t he emergent scene f or t he next
2,000 years of hist ory.
We' ll be t ravelling t hrough t he Dark Ages t hen, t o spend some t ime in
mediaeval Eur ope. The Gr ail myst er y will t hen be f ollowed int o King
Art hur' s Brit ain and, event ually, in t ime, t o t he Unit ed St at es of
America where t he American fat hers were among t he great est exponent s of t h
e Grail Code. Eminent Americans such as George Washingt on, J ohn Adams, Benjami
n Fr anklin, Char les Thompson,
Thomas J ef f erson were as much champions of t he Holy Grail as were
King Art hur, Sir Lancelot and Galahad.
Bloodline of t he Holy Grail, t he book, has been described as "t he book
of messianic descent ". I t was a radio int erviewer who called it t hat ;
and it ' s an apt descript ion because t he book carries t he subt it le, The Hi
dden Lineage of J esus Revealed. This of course indicat es t hat J esus had chil
dren and, by implicat ion t heref ore, t hat he was married. So
was he married? Did J esus have children? I f so, do we know what
happened t o t hem? Are t here descendant s alive t oday? The answer t o
each of t hese quest ions is yes. We shall be looking at t he emergent
f amily in some det ail. We will f ollow t he st ory, t heir st ory, cent ury by
cent ury; t he st ory of a resolut e royal dynast y, t he descendant heirs of J
esus who st ruggled against all odds t hrough t he cent uries t o preserve t he
Messianic Royal Code down t o dat e.
Tonight ' s st ory will be a conspiracy: usurped crowns, prosecut ions,
assassinat ions, and t he unwarrant ed concealment of inf ormat ion f rom t he p
eople of t he West ern world. I t ' s an account of good government and bad gove
rnment ; about how t he pat riarchal kingship of people was supplant ed by dogma
t ic t yranny and t he dict at orial lordship of lands.
I t ' s a compelling journey of discovery, a view of past ages, but wit h it s e
ye f irmly set on t he f ut ure. This is hist ory as it was once writ t en but h
as never been t old.
Let ' s begin wit h t he most obvious of all quest ions. What is t he Holy
Grail? How is t he Holy Grail connect ed wit h t he descendant heirs of
J esus? The f act t hat J esus had descendant s might come as a surprise
t o some, but it was widely known in Br it ain and Eur ope unt il t he lat e
Middle Ages, just a f ew hundred years ago.
I n mediaeval t imes, t he line of messianic descent was def ined by t he French
word Sangréal. This derived f rom t he t wo words, Sang Réal, meaning "Blood Royal"
. This was t he Blood Royal of J udah, t he kingly
line of David which progressed t hrough J esus and his heirs. I n English
t ranslat ion, t he def init ion, Sangréal, became "San Gréal", as in "San"
Francisco. When writ t en more f ully it was writ t en "Saint Grail", "Saint ",
of cour se, r elat ing t o "Holy"; and by a nat ur al linguist ic process came t
he more romant ically f amiliar name, "Holy Grail".
From t he Middle Ages t here were a number of chivalric and milit ary
orders specif ically at t ached t o t he Messianic Blood Royal in Brit ain and
Europe. They included t he Order of t he Realm of Sion, t he Order of
t he Sacred Sepulchre; but t he most prest igious of all was t he
Sovereign Order of t he Sangréal-t he Knight s of t he Holy Grail. This
was a dynast ic Order of Scot land' s Royal House of St ewart .
I n symbolic t erms t he Grail is of t en port rayed as a chalice t hat
cont ains t he blood of J esus; alt ernat ively as a vine of grapes. The
product of grapes is wine, and it is t he chalice and t he wine of Grail t radit
ion t hat sit at t he very heart of t he Communion, t he Mass, t he Eucharist ;
and t his sacrament , t he Sacred Chalice, cont ains t he wine that represents
the perpetual blood of J esus.
I t is quit e apparent t hat alt hough maint aining t he ancient Communion
cust om, t he Christ ian Church has convenient ly ignored and elect ed not
t o t each t he t rue meaning and origin of t hat cust om. Few people even t hin
k t o enquire about t he ult imat e symbolism of t he chalice and wine sacrament
, believing t hat it comes simply f rom some gospel ent ry
relat ing t o t he Last Supper. Well, it ' s t he significance of t he perpet ua
l
blood of J esus. How is t he blood of J esus, or anyone else f or t hat
mat t er, perpet uat ed? I t is perpet uat ed t hrough family and lineage.
So why was it t hat t he Church aut horit ies elect ed t o ignore t he
bloodline signif icance of t he Grail sacrament ? They kept t he
sacrament . Why was it t hey went so f ar as t o denounce Grail lore and
Grail symbolism as heret ical?
The fact is t hat every government and every church t eaches t he form of hist o
ry or dogma most conducive t o it s own vest ed int erest . I n t his regard we'
re all condit ioned t o receiving a very select ive f orm of
t eaching. We are t aught what we' re supposed t o know, and we are t old
what we' re supposed t o believe. But f or t he most part we learn bot h
polit ical and r eligious hist or y by way of nat ional or cler ical pr opaganda
,
and t his of t en becomes absolut e dogma, t eachings which may not be
challenged for fear of reprisals.
Wit h regard t o t he Church' s at t it ude t owards t he chalice and t he wine,
it is blat ant ly apparent t hat t he original symbolism had t o be reint erpre
t ed by t he bishops because it denot ed t hat J esus had of f spring and t here
f ore t hat he must have unit ed wit h a woman.
But it was not only sacrament s and cust omary rit ual t hat were
reint erpret ed because of t his: t he very gospels t hemselves were
corrupt ed t o comply wit h t he male-only est ablishment of t he Church of Rome
-much like a modern f ilm edit or will adjust and select t he t apes t o achieve
the desired result, the result of the vested interest of the
f ilm-maker .
We' re all f amiliar wit h t he gospels of Mat t hew, Mark, Luke and J ohn,
but what about t he ot her gospels? What about t he Gospel of Philip, of
Thomas, of Mar y and of Mar y Magdalene? What of all t he numer ous gospels and
act s and epist les t hat were not approved by t he Church councils when t he Ne
w Test ament was collat ed? Why were t hey
excluded when t he choices were made?
There were act ually t wo main crit eria f or select ion of gospels f or t he Ne
w Test ament . These were det ermined at t he Council of Cart hage in the year 3
97. The first criterion was that the New Testament must be writ t en in t he nam
es of J esus' own apost les. Mark was not an apost le of J esus, as f ar as we k
now; nor was Luke. They wer e colleagues of t he lat er St Paul. Thomas, on t he
ot her hand, was one of t he original
t welve, and yet t he gospel in his name was excluded. Not only t hat , but
along wit h numerous ot her gospels and t ext s it was dest ined and
sent enced t o be dest royed.
And so t hroughout t he mediaeval world, Thomas and numerous ot her
unapproved books were buried and hidden in t he f if t h cent ury. Only in recen
t t imes have some of t hese manuscript s been uneart hed, wit h t he great est
f ind being at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, 1,500 years
after the burial of these documents.
Alt hough t hese books weren' t rediscovered unt il t his present cent ury,
t hey were used openly by t he early Christ ians. Cert ain of t hem,
including t he gospels ment ioned, along wit h t he Gospel of Trut h, t he
Gospel of t he Egypt ians and ot hers, were act ually ment ioned in writ ings
by early churchmen. Clement of Alexandria, I renaeus of Lyon, Origen
of Alexandr ia-t hey all ment ion t hese ot her gospels.
So why were t he gospels of Mark and Luke select ed if t hey were not
J esus' own apost les? Because Mark and Luke act ually were apost les of
J esus, and t he early Church fat hers knew t his. I n t hose days before
t he New Test ament was corrupt ed, t hey knew f ull well t hat J esus
survived t he Crucif ixion. I n t hese early gospels t here was no st ory of
Resurrect ion; t his was added lat er.
Why were ot her apost olic gospels not select ed? Because t here was a second, f
ar more import ant crit erion-t he crit erion by which, in t rut h, t he gospel
select ion was really made. And t his was a wholly sexist
regulat ion. I t precluded anyt hing t hat upheld t he st at us of women in
Church or communit y, societ y.
I ndeed, t he Church' s own apost olic const it ut ions were compiled on t his
basis. They st at e, "We do not permit our women t o t each in t he
Church, only t o pray and t o hear t hose who t each. Our mast er, when he sent
us t he t welve, did nowhere send out a woman; f or t he head of t he woman is t
he man, and is it not reasonable t hat t he body should govern t he head?".
This was rubbish, but it was f or t his very reason t hat dozens of
gospels were not select ed-because t hey made it quit e clear t hat t here
wer e ver y many act ive women in t he minist r y of J esus. Mar y
Magdalene, Mar t ha, Helena-Salome, Mar y J acob Cleophas, J oanna.
These were not only minist ry disciples; t hey' re recorded as
priest esses in t heir own right , running exemplary schools of worship in
t he Nazarene t radit ion.
I n St Paul' s Epist le t o t he Romans, Paul makes specif ic ment ion of his
own f emale helpers: Phoebe, f or example, whom he called a sist er of
t he Church; J ulia; Priscilla, who laid down her net f or t he cause. The
New Test ament is alive wit h women disciples, but t he Church ignored them all.
When the Church' s precepts of ecclesiastical discipline were drawn up, t hey s
t at ed, "I t is not permit t ed f or a woman t o speak in Church, nor t o claim
f or herself any share in any masculine f unct ion". But t he Church it self ha
d decided t hat t his was a masculine f unct ion.
The Church was so f right ened of women t hat it inst it ut ed a rule of
celibacy: a rule f or it s priest s, a rule t hat became a law in 1138; a law
t hat persist s t oday. Well, t his rule has never been quit e what it
appears on t he surf ace, because, when one reads t he rule, when one
st udies hist ory, one can see t hat it was never, ever sexual act ivit y as
such t hat bot hered t he Church. The specific definit ion t hat made t his r ul
e possible was pr iest ly int imacy wit h women. Why? Because women become wives
and lovers. The very nat ure of mot herhood is a
perpet uat ion of bloodlines. I t was t his t hat bot hered t he Church: a
t aboo subject -mot herhood, bloodlines. This image had t o be separat ed
f rom t he necessary image of J esus.
But it wasn' t as if t he Bible had said any such t hing. St Paul had said in hi
s Epist le t o Timot hy t hat a bishop should be married t o one wif e and t hat
he should have children; t hat a man wit h experience in his own
f amily household is act ually f ar bet t er qualif ied t o t ake care of t he C
hurch. Even t hough t he Roman Church aut horit ies claimed t o uphold t he t ea
ching of St Paul in part icular, t hey chose complet ely t o
disregard t his explicit direct ive t o suit t heir own ends, so t hat J esus'
own marit al st at us could be st rat egically ignored.
But t he Church' s celibat e, unmarried image of J esus was f ully
cont radict ed in ot her writ ings of t he era. I t was openly cont radict ed in
t he public domain unt il t he perpet uat ion of t he t rut h was proclaimed a
punishable heresy only 450 years ago in 1547, t he year t hat Henry
VIII died in England.
It's not just the Christian New Testament that suffers from these
sexist rest rict ions. A similar edit ing process was applied t o t he J ewish-
based Old Test ament , and t his made it convenient ly suit able t o be
added t o t he Christ ian Bible. This is made part icularly apparent by a
couple of ent ries t hat bypassed t he edit ors' scrut iny.
The books of J oshua and 2 Samuel bot h ref er t o t he much more
ancient Book of J asher. They say it ' s very import ant , t he Book of
J asher. Where is it ? Not in t he Bible. Like so many ot her books, it was
purposely left out. But does it still exist? Yes. The nine-foot Hebrew
scroll of J asher still exists. It has been historically important for a
long, long t ime. I t was t he jewel of t he court of Emperor Charlemagne,
and t he t ranslat ion of t he Book of J asher was t he very reason t hat
t he Universit y of Paris was f ounded, in t he year 800. That was about a
cent ury before t he Old Test ament t hat we know was act ually put
t oget her.
J asher was t he st aff-bearer t o Moses. His writ ings are of enormous
significance. The account s relat e t o t he st ory of t he I sraelit es in
Egypt , t o t heir exodus int o Canaan. But t hese st ories dif f er
considerably f rom t he way we know t he st ory t oday. They explain t hat
it was not Moses who was t he spirit ual leader of t he t ribes who
crossed t he Red Sea t o Mount Sinai. The spirit ual leader was Miriam.
At t hat t ime t he J ews had never heard of J ehovah; t hey worshipped
t he goddess Asherah. Their spirit ual leaders were largely female.
Miriam posed, according t o t he Book of J asher, such a problem f or
Moses in his at t empt t o creat e a new environment of male dominance
t hat he imprisoned her; and t he J ewish nat ion rose against Moses wit h
t heir armies t o secure Miriam' s release. This is not in t he Bible.
So let ' s move t o where t he Christ ian st ory it self began. Let ' s look at
t he gospels t hemselves and, in doing t hat , let ' s see what t hey act ually
t ell us, against what we t hink t hey t ell us, because we have all learned t o
go along wit h what we are t aught about t he gospels in schoolrooms and church
es. But is t he t eaching correct ly relat ed always? Does it
conf or m wit h t he wr it t en scr ipt ur es? I t ' s act ually sur pr ising ho
w much
we t hink we know, but we' ve learned it just f rom pulpit s or f rom
pict ure books, not from necessarily st udying t he t ext s.
The nat ivit y st ory it self provides a good example. I t ' s widely accept ed,
and t he Christ mas cards keep t elling us t hat J esus was born in a
st able. The gospels don' t say t hat . There is no st able ment ioned in any
aut hor ised gospel. The nat ivit y is not ment ioned at all in Mar k or J ohn,
and Mat t hew says quit e plainly t hat J esus was born in a house.
So where did t he st able come f rom? I t came f rom a misint erpret at ion,
really, of t he Gospel of Luke which relat es t hat J esus was laid in a
manger-not born, but laid-and a manger was t hen, and st ill is, not hing
more t han an animal f eeding box. One only has t o st udy societ y hist ory
of t he t ime t o recognise t he f act t hat it was perf ect ly common f or mang
ers t o be used as cradles, and t hey were of t en brought indoors for that very
purpose.
So why has it been presumed t hat t his part icular manger was in a
st able? Because t he English t ranslat ions of Luke t ell us t hat t here was n
o room in t he inn. Must t hen have been in a st able! But t he pre-English t ra
nslat ions of Luke don' t t alk about any inn; t he manuscript of Luke does not
say t here was no room in t he inn. I n f act , t here were no inns in t he East
in t hose days. There are very f ew inns t here now; and if
t here are, t hey' re illegal! People lodged t hen in privat e houses. I t was
a common way of lif e. I t was called f amily hospit alit y. Homes wer e open
for travellers.
Come t o t hat , if we' re really going t o be precise about t his, t here were
no st ables in t he region, eit her. I n f act , "st able" is a wholly English
word and it specif ically def ines a place f or keeping horses; horses of a
part icular st able. Who on eart h rode around on horses in J udaea?
Oxen, camels; t he odd Roman of f icer might have had a horse, but even
t he mules and t he oxen, if kept under cover, would have been kept
under some sort of a shed or out -house, not in a st able.
As f or t he myt hical inn, t he Greek t ext act ually does not say t here was n
o r oom at t he inn. By t he best t r anslat ion it act ually st at es t hat t h
er e was no pr ovision in t he r oom. As ment ioned in Mat t hew, J esus was bor
n in a house and, as correct ly t ranslat ed, Luke reveals t hat J esus was
laid in a manger, an animal f eeding box, because t here was no cradle
provided in t he room.
I f we' re on t he subject of J esus' birt h, I t hink we ought t o look at t he
chronology here, because t his is import ant as well; because t he gospels, t h
e t wo gospels t hat deal wit h t he nat ivit y, act ually give us two completel
y different dates for the event.
According t o Mat t hew, J esus was born in t he reign of King Herod,
Herod t he Great , who debat ed t he event wit h t he Magi and ordered
t he slaying of t he inf ant s. Well, Herod died in 4 BC, and we know f rom Matt
hew that J esus was born before that. And because of that, most st andard concor
dant Bibles and hist ory books imply t hat J esus' dat e of birt h was 5 BC, bec
ause t hat is bef ore 4 BC and Herod was st ill
reigning, so t hat ' s a good dat e.
But in Luke, a complet ely dif f erent dat e is given. Luke doesn' t t ell us ab
out King Herod or anyt hing like t hat . Luke says t hat J esus was born while C
yrenius was Governor of Syria, t he same year t hat t he Emperor August us imple
ment ed t he nat ional census, t he census which J oseph
and Mary went t o Bet hlehem t o be a part of .
There are relevant point s t o ment ion here, and t hey are bot h recorded
in t he f irst -cent ury J ewish annals (such as The Ant iquit ies of t he
J ews). Cyr enius was appoint ed Gover nor of Syr ia in AD 6. This was t he
very year recorded of t he nat ional census, put int o operat ion by
Cyrenius and ordered by Emperor August us. As Luke t ells us, it was t he
f irst and only ever recorded census f or t he region.
So J esus was born bef ore 4 BC and in AD 6. I s t his a mist ake? No, not
necessarily, because in t he way it was originally port rayed we' re
act ually looking at t wo quit e specif ic birt hs.
Bot h gospels are correct . We' re looking at J esus' physical birt h, and we' r
e looking at J esus' communit y birt h. These were defined at t he t ime as t he
f irst and second birt hs, and t hey applied specif ically t o people of part i
cular groups and cert ainly t o dynast ic heirs.
Second birt hs for boys were performed by way of a rit ual of rebirt h. I t was
very physical: t hey were wrapped in swaddling clot hes and born again f r om t
heir mot her ' s womb. I t was a physical cer emony. S econd birt hs f or boys t
ook place at t he age of t welve.
S o we know t hat J esus was t welve in AD 6. Unf or t unat ely, t he lat t er -
day t ranscribers of Luke complet ely missed t he signif icance of t his,
and it was t heir endeavour t o somehow t ie in t his event about
swaddling clot hes and being born t hen, t hat led t o t his ment ion of t he
nonsense about t he st able.
So if J esus was t welve in AD 6, t his means t hat he was bor n in 7 BC,
which t ies in perfect ly well wit h t he Mat t hew account t hat he was born
during t he lat t er reign of King Herod.
But we now discover what appears t o be anot her anomaly, because Luke
says lat er in t he gospel t hat when J esus was t welve years old, his
parent s, Mary and J oseph, t ook him t o J erusalem f or t he day. They
t hen lef t t he cit y t o walk home f or a f ull day' s journey wit h t heir
friends before t hey realised t hat J esus was not in t heir part y. They t hen
ret urned t o J erusalem t o f ind him at t he t emple, discussing his fat her'
s business wit h t he doct ors. Well, what sort of parent s can wander f or a wh
ole day in t he desert , wit hout knowing t heir t welve- year-old son' s not t
here?
The f act is t hat t he whole point of t he passage has been missed. There was a
wealt h of dif f erence bet ween a t welve-year-old son and a son in his t welf
t h year. When a son, on complet ing his init ial t welve years- t hat is t o s
ay, when he was act ually on his t hirt eent h birt hday-was
init iat ed int o t he communit y at t he ceremony of his second birt h, he
was regarded as commencing his f irst year. I t was t he original root of
t he modern bar mit zvah. His next init iat ion, t he init iat ion of manhood
in t he communit y, t ook place in his nint h year , when he was t went y-one-
t he root of t he age-t went y-one privilege. Various degrees f ollowed,
and t he next major t est was in his t welft h year-at t he end of his
t welf t h year, at t he age of t went y-f our, on his t went y-f ourt h
birt hday. When J esus remained at t he t emple in his t welf t h year, he was a
ct ually t went y-four. Not surprising t hat t hey expect ed him not perhaps t o
be wandering around t he desert wit h t hem!
So his discussion wit h t he doct ors relat ed t o his next degree. He
would have discussed t his at t he t ime wit h t he spirit ual fat her, t he
fat her of t he communit y; and indeed, he did. I t was t he fat her' s
business he discussed; his fat her' s business. The fat her of t his era is
recorded. The spirit ual fat her of t he communit y at t hat t ime was
Simeon t he Essene, and if we look back a f ew verses in Luke we see
t hat it was exact ly t his man, t he just and devout Simeon, who
legit imat ed J esus under t he law.
So can we t rust t he gospels? Well, as we can see, t he answer is, yes,
we can act ually t rust t he gospels t o a point , but what we can' t t rust is
t he way t hat t hey' ve been convolut ed and dist ort ed, and t aught t o us by
people who don' t underst and what t hey act ually said in t he f irst place.
The present English-language gospels dat e back ef f ect ively t o t he
Aut horized Bible, compiled f or t he St ewart King J ames I of England in
t he early 17t h cent ury. This was published and set int o print no more t han
165 years bef ore America' s Declarat ion of I ndependence; only a few years bef
ore the first Pilgrim Fathers set sail from England.
The gospels of t he early Church were originally writ t en in second and
t hird cent ury Greek. Along wit h t he Bible as a whole, t hey were
t ranslat ed int o Lat in in t he f ourt h cent ury, but it was t hen t o be mor
e
t han a t housand years bef ore any English t ranslat ion was made.
Bible t ranslat ion was risky t hen, t hough. Fourt eent h cent ury ref ormer
J ohn Wyclif f e was denounced as a heret ic f or t ranslat ing t he Bible
int o English. His books were burned. I n t he early 16t h cent ury, William
Tyndale was st rangled as a f orm of execut ion, in Belgium, and t hen
burned, just in case he wasn' t dead, f or t ranslat ing t he Bible int o
English. A lit t le lat er, Miles Coverdale, a disciple of his, made anot her
t ranslat ion; and by t hat t ime t he Church it self had split up quit e nicely
,
so Coverdale' s version was accept ed by t he Prot est ant Church-but he
was st ill a heret ic in t he eyes of Rome.
The problem was t hat as long as t he print ed t ext remained obscure
(and it wasn' t just ordinary Lat in; t his was an horrendous f orm of
Church Lat in), as long as only t he bishops could underst and it , t hey
could t each what ever on Eart h t hey want ed. I f it were t ranslat ed int o t
he languages t hat ot her people could underst and and maybe read f or t hemsel
ves, t his would pose a problem because t he Church could be called t o quest io
n.
(to Part 2)
(to Part 3)
About the Speaker:
Sir Laur ence Gar dner , Kt St Gm, KCD, is an int er nat ionally known
sovereign and chivalric genealogist . He holds t he posit ion of Grand
Prior of t he Celt ic Church' s Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, and is
dist inguished as t he Chevalier Labhràn de Saint Germain. Sir Laurence
is also President ial At t aché t o t he European Council of Princes, a const it u
t ional advisory body est ablished in 1946. He is f ormally at t ached t o t he
Noble Household Guard of t he Royal House of
St ewart , f ounded at St Germain-en-Laye in 1692, and is t he J acobit e
Hist oriographer Royal.
Editors' Notes:
¥ Correspondence should be addressed t o Laurence Gardner, Post
Of f ice Box 4, Ot t er y St Mar y EX11 1YR, Unit ed Kingdom. Email:
laur ence58@bt openwor ld.comW e b s it e : ht t p:/ / Gr aal.co.uk
¥ Laurence Gardner' s book, Bloodline of t he Holy Grail: The Hidden
Lineage of J esus Revealed, was published by Element Books in 1996
(I SBN 1-85230-870-2 h/ c), and is now available in paperback,
dist ribut ed by Penguin Books (I SBN 1-86204-152-0). I t was reviewed
in NEXUS 4/ 01.
¥ Copies of Laurence Gardner' s video present at ion can be obt ained
f rom NEXUS Of f ice in t he UK; and in t he USA, f rom Ramt ha' s School
of Enlight enment , PO Box 1210, Yelm, WA 98597, ph +1 (360) 458
5201, websit e,www.r a mt h a .c o m. Orders f rom Aust ralia and NZ should
be sent t o t he USA: AUD$ 46.00 inc. p&h, f or bot h t apes (specif y
PAL/ VHS ).
HOME PAGE| SUBS INFO| BACK ISSUES| PRODUCTS LIST| ORDER FORM
jesus holy grail
Reads:
608
Uploaded:
07/01/2009
Category:
Uncategorized.
Rated:
Download this Document for FreePrintMobileCollectionsReport Document
Report this document?
Please tell us reason(s) for reporting this document
Spam or junk
Porn adult content
Hateful or offensive
If you are the copyright owner of this document and want to report it, please fo
llow these directions to submit a copyright infringement notice.
Cancel
This is a private document. Question_small
1280440708
Shady Ladi
Ads by Google
Catholic Religion in SG
Observe the Local Catholic Faith
Only at Your Singapore. Learn More!
www.YourSingapore.com
Confused by the Cross?
Why did Jesus die? Watch this
amazing thought-provoking skit
www.youtube.com
God -total Union with God
Why Jesus is the Only Way to Union?
The Answer May Surprise You.
www.hallvworthington.com
Share & Embed
Link / URL:
Embed Size & Settings:
* Width: Auto
* Height: (proportional to specified width)
* Start on page:
* Preview View:
More share options
Related
1.
82 p.
Darrell L Bock - Breaking the Da V...
Reads: 459
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 373
82 p.
Bock, Darrell L - Breaking the Da ...
Reads: 353
2.
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 504
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 380
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 173
3.
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code by Darr...
Reads: 328
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 557
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 221
4.
82 p.
Breaking The Da Vinci Code
Reads: 283
82 p.
breaking the da vinci code by darr...
Reads: 430
82 p.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code
Reads: 164
More from this user
1.
5 p.
gregg braden, interaction betwe...
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 2,621
11 p.
vimanas
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 796
26 p.
the suns journey
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 351
2.
196 p.
the music of time
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 848
953 p.
the ra material
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 431
254 p.
temptingdisaster
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 964
3.
90 p.
steiner-knowledge of the higher...
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 298
121 p.
steiner-cosmic memory
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 379
14 p.
spiral symbols & snakes
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 224
4.
173 p.
secret doctrine v3
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 143
1144 p.
secret doctrine v2(anthropogene...
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 178
1070 p.
secret doctrine v1(cosmogenesis)
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 182
5.
205 p.
rudolph steiner an outline
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 209
58 p.
rudolph steiner a road to self ...
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 505
98 p.
powell - the etheric double - t...
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 265
6.
31 p.
new atlantis alliance of civili...
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 389
10 p.
nabta playa
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 853
413 p.
max heindel message of the stars
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 357
7.
348 p.
john hagan - learn how to draw
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 449
58 p.
jesus holy grail
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 608
142 p.
japanese fairytales
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 475
8.
153 p.
hindu tales
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 482
90 p.
higher knowledge
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 276
34 p.
her_perspective_2004_part_two
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 206
9.
128 p.
gnosis iii
From: Shady Ladi
Reads: 1,108
Add a Comment
Spinner_trans_gray
sultan77 readcast this 07 / 15 / 2010Learn more about Readcast.
sidhelion readcast this 06 / 18 / 2010Learn more about Readcast.
Print this document
High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader re
quired).
Browser Printing
Coming soon!
Add this document to your Collections
Transparent
Name:
Description:
Collection Type:
public locked: only you can add to this collection, but others can view it
public moderated: others can add to this collection, but you approve or reject a
dditions
private: only you can add to this collection, and only you will be able to view
it
Cancel
Finished? Back to Document
Add this document to your Collections
Transparent
Name:
Description:
Collection Type:
public locked: only you can add to this collection, but others can view it
public moderated: others can add to this collection, but you approve or reject a
dditions
private: only you can add to this collection, and only you will be able to view
it
Cancel
Finished? Back to Document
Upload a Document
Search Books, Presentations, Business, Academics...
Scribd
* About
* Press
* Jobs
* Contact
* Blog
* Scribd Store
Legal
* Terms - General
* Terms - API
* Terms - Privacy
* Copyright
Help & Tools
* Getting Started
* Community Guidelines
* Support & FAQ
* Web Stuff
Partners
* Partners
* Branded Reader
* Developers / API
Subscribe to Us
* On Scribd
* On Twitter
* On Facebook
Enter your email address:
or Spinner_mac_white
What's New
* We have updated our Terms of Service
* Branded Reader
* Desktop Uploader
scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.
Premium_star_40x50
Scribd Archive
This document is in the Scribd Archive, a collection of millions of documents, i
ncluding research reports, best-selling books, news source materials, and more.
Read the Scribd Archive FAQ for more information.
Get unlimited downloads from the entire Scribd Archive for:
1 Month $9(most popular)1 Month Not available in your area(most popular)24 Hours
$524 Hours Not available in your area
Please select a payment option
Pay with:
Icon_creditcards_82x23
Credit Card
Icon_paypal_91x25
PayPal or Credit Card
(you will not be charged at this time)
Spinner_trans_gray
... or get 24 hours of access for free!
or
Queued: Uploading: You have uploaded: Upload failed:
Document URL:
This document is: PrivateThis document is: Public
Cancel Upload

Make it easier to find your new document!


Title:
Category:
Tags: (separate with commas)
Description:
Spinner_mac_white
Thanks for uploading! Download this document as
Icon_pdf_54x56
pdf

Icon_txt_54x56
txt
17010732-jesus-holy-grail.pdf - 115.3 KB
Readcast:
Download this document as
Icon_pdf_54x56
pdf

Icon_txt_54x56
txt
17010732-jesus-holy-grail.pdf - 115.3 KB

Related Interests