Laurence Gardner, Prior of the Celtic Church’s Sacred Kindred of St Columba, is an . Bloodline of the Holy Grail has been described as The Book of Messianic. The Illustrated Bloodline of the Holy Grail has ratings and 9 reviews. Ginny said: This book is very dry Laurence Gardner. · Rating details · ratings . by: Laurence Gardner – The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed. The time- honoured quest for the Holy Grail has been referred to by some as the ‘ultimate quest’.
|Published (Last):||9 August 2015|
|PDF File Size:||20.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The time-honoured quest for the Holy Grail has been referred to by some as the ‘ultimate quest’, but in the Church condemned Grail lore as a heresy even though tradition perceives the Grail as a thoroughly Christian relic. A heresy is described as ‘an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox dogma of the Christian bishops’. The word ‘heresy’ is nothing more than a derogatory label – a tag used by a fearful establishment that has long sought to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown.
It can therefore define bloodilne aspects of philosophy and research which quest into the realms of the unknown and which, from time to time, provide answers and solutions that are quite contrary to authorized doctrine. As the years progress, however, it gxrdner evident that scientific and medical discovery must overturn much of the medieval religious dogma that has persisted to modern times. And, in this regard, some previously cited heresies are already being taken on board by a Church that has little option to do otherwise.
So, let us begin with the most obvious of all questions: What is hoky Holy Grail? The word ‘Gra-al’ originates from ancient Mesopotamia, where it was recorded as being the ‘nectar of supreme excellence’.
When written more fully it was Saint Graal – the word ‘saint’, of course, relating to ‘holy’. Then, by a natural linguistic process, came the more romantically familiar English term, Holy Grail. In symbolic terms the Grail is often portrayed as a chalice that contains the blood of Jesus. Alternatively it is portrayed as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Eucharist the Holy Communion.
In this sacrament, the sacred chalice contains the wine that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.
It is quite apparent that, although maintaining the ancient Communion custom, the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true meaning and origin of the custom.
Few people even think to enquire about the ultimate symbolism of the chalice and wine sacrament, believing that it comes simply from some Gospel entries relating to the Last Supper. But what is the significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus? How is the blood of Jesus or of anyone else for that matter perpetuated? It is perpetuated through family vloodline lineage. So why was it that the Church authorities elected to ignore the bloodline significance of the Grail sacrament?
The fact is that every Government and every Church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest.
Laurence Gardner – Wikipedia
In this regard we are all conditioned bbloodline receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we are supposed to know, and we are told what we’re supposed to believe. But, for the most gardndr, we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda. This often becomes absolute dogma – teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals.
With regard to the Church’s attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring.
The 2nd-century chronicler Julius Africanus of Edessa recorded that, during the Jewish Revolt from AD 66, the Roman governor of Jerusalem instructed the troops that all Messianic records should be burned so as to prevent future access to the details of Jesus’ family genealogy.
He added, however, that “A few careful people had private records Africanus described these royal inheritors as the Desposyni – a hallowed style meaning Heirs of the Lord.
Follow the Author
Subsequently, the Palestinian historian, Hegesippus, reported that in AD 81 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian the execution of these family inheritors was ordered grzil Imperial decree. It was then later confirmed by Eusebius, the 4th-century Bishop of Caesarea, that they were hunted down and put to the sword – first by command of the Empire and then by the newly introduced Roman Church.
The writers were unanimous, however, in stating that although many of the Desposyni were seized, others became leaders of a Nazarene church movement that opposed the Church of Rome, with leaders who became the heads of their sects by way of a “strict dynastic progression”. Hence, the required destruction of records was far from complete, and relevant documents were retained by Jesus’ heirs, who brought the Messianic heritage from the Holy Land to the Laurencd.
Not only were sacraments and customary ritual reinterpreted, but the Gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the newly designated ‘male-only’ establishment of the emergent hybrid Church. What of all the numerous Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Bloofline councils when the New Testament was compiled?
Why were they excluded when the choices were made? There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these from an earlier short-list prepared by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus’ own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was Lauurence – but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know, neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St.
Thomas and Philip, on the other hand, were among the original twelve, and yet the Gospels in their names were excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, they was sentenced to be destroyed.
And so, throughout the Mediterranean world, numerous unapproved books were buried and hidden in the 5th century. Although many of these books were not rediscovered until the 20th century, they were used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria.
So, why were these and other bloldline Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider – the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society.
Indeed, the Church’s own Apostolic Constitutions were formulated on this basis. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman – for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head”.
This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus – women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleopas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.
The Church was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests – a rule that became a law in ; a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite what it appears on bbloodline surface, for it was never sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem was priestly intimacy with women. Because women become mothers, and the very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines.
It was this that caused such concern – a taboo subject which, at all bloofline, had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus. We have all learned to go along with what we are taught about the Gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is the teaching correctly related? Does it always conform with the written scriptures?
It is actually quite surprising how much we learn from pulpits or picture-books without checking the biblical text. The Nativity story itself provides a good example. It is widely accepted that Jesus was born in a stable – but the Gospels do not say that.
In fact, there is no ‘stable’ mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born in a house. So where did the ‘stable’ idea come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke, which relates that Jesus was ‘laid in a manger’ – and a manger was nothing more than an animal feeding-box.
In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose. Why, then, has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable?
Because the English bloodlin of Luke tell us that there was ‘no room in the inn’. But the old manuscript of Laurencw did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region. The original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was ‘no room in the inn’.
By the best translation it actually states that there was ‘no place in the room’ that is: As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger a feeding-box because there was no cradle provided in the room.
To facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. In this respect, we discover that a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other gaardner. Christians are taught that Jesus’ father Joseph was a carpenter, as explained in the English-language Gospels.
But it did not say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a “master craftsman” rendered in Greek as ‘ho tekton’ from the Semitic term ‘naggar’. The word ‘carpenter’ was holt a translator’s concept of a craftsman – but the text actually denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.
Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth.
English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus’ mother Mary was a ‘virgin’. It was the same in an early Latin text which referred to her as being a ‘virgo’, meaning nothing more than a young woman.
To have meant the same thing as virgin does today, the Latin would have been ‘virgo intacta’ – that is to say, a young woman intact. Looking back beyond the Latin to the older documents, we discover that the word translated to ‘virgo’ a young woman was the Semitic word ‘almah’ which meant the very same – a young woman.
It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Semitic word used would have been ‘bethulah’, not ‘almah’. Apart from such anomalies, tthe canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments.
He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark and justified his action in a letter, stating: Even at that stage, there was already a discrepancy between what the Bloodlinr writers had written and what the early bishops wanted to teach! But what exactly was in this gardher section of Mark? It gardenr the item which dealt with the raising of Lazarus – in the course of which the account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife.
Many scholars have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene – but this was not the wedding ceremony as such, being simply the pre-marital betrothal feast.
The marriage is defined by the quite separate anointings of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Chronologically, these anointings gqrdner given in the Gospels were two-and-a-half years apart. Readers of the 1st century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir.
Jesus, as we know, was a Messiah, which means quite simply an Anointed One.