The Holy Grail

Tecnos · 07-20-2009, 01:59 AM

New research has identified the Scottish town of Kilwinning as the resting place of the Holy Grail.....

Quote:

It is notable as the home of Freemasonry in Scotland but Kilwinning may have a more illustrious claim to fame, as the resting place of the Holy Grail.

According to new research by AJ Morton, an authority on masonic history, the town housed a community of Knights Templar in the 14th century who may have possessed the cup used by Christ at the Last Supper.

According to Christian mythology, Joseph of Arimathea received the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and entrusted it to the Knights Templar, who brought it to Britain. Some accounts suggest it was buried in a secret vault in Rosslyn chapel, Midlothian.

However, Morton’s research suggests that, if the Grail exists, it is more likely to have been buried in Kilwinning or Irvine. He has unearthed land records showing 200 Templar properties in southwest Scotland in the 14th century, 30 of them in the Cunningham district of Ayrshire.

“Historians have been searching for a Templar haven, a hideaway where disbanded Templars sheltered after their downfall. Several places have been pinpointed, all of them false. Irvine and Kilwinning had the highest concentration of Templars in Scotland,” he said.

Rosslyn chapel has enjoyed a stream of visitors following Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, which connected the Templars and their treasures with the chapel. However, Morton believes this version of history is no more than a legend. He has used ancient property records and other documents to prove the presence of Templars in the Ayrshire area.

“People like the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, [Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh], Dan Brown, not one of them highlighted the fact that there were just so many Templars in the district of Cunningham in Ayrshire . . . The Templars were Europe’s bankers. When they were destroyed, none of the material was returned, it disappeared, so it is possible that it is in Irvine or Kilwinning somewhere, be-cause it had the largest concentration of Templars possibly in Europe, certainly in Scotland.”

“There were no Templars in Rosslyn. The building was built after the Templars were destroyed while Kilwinning Abbey was built shortly after the Templars were created. Rosslyn chapel is an enigma, it is a beautiful building, but it has nothing to do with the Templars,” Morton said.

Experts on the history of Freemasonry said Morton’s theory was plausible and an interesting starting point to solve the mystery of Templar history in Scotland.

Gerard Carruthers, head of Scottish literature and the Centre for Robert Burns studies at Glasgow University, said: “People go looking for the Holy Grail and the Masonic and Templar connection in Rosslyn. They should actually just do the basic history and look closely at Ayrshire.”

Dr Corey Andrews, assistant professor at Youngstown University in the United States and an expert on Scottish Freemasonry, said: “[Morton] does make a good case for the centrality of Kilwinning, particularly as regards to the amount of Templar lands that were located and re-distributed. As far as the treasure — that is going to be open to inquiry, but he has made a good case for arguing that might be a good place to look.”

Simon Beattie, interpretations manager at Rosslyn chapel, said: “I am not really concerned about this; visitors will still come out to see the building and we still have enough real history here.”

SOURCE

OTHER LINK

kidflash2008 · 07-20-2009, 11:21 AM

There are those who have researched this and have come to the conclusion that Holy Grail means the bloodline of Jesus. I think the cup used in the Last Supper has become a metaphor for it. Still, if there is an actual artifact it would be interesting to find it.

$$kneel-B4-me$$ · 07-21-2009, 12:29 PM

if i found it, i would rub it to see if an angel pops out with three wishes. If not i would sell it to the highest bidder.

SmokingMan · 08-15-2009, 05:48 AM

There are no Christian or even gnostic writings, manuscripts or beliefs which give any significance at all to the cup that was used in the last supper until the 12th or 13th century. The idea of Christ's bloodline wasn't thought up until the 1980's, originally a fictional story, later turned into a conspiracy theory. The cup used at the last supper is called a "cup", probably a small drinking vessel made of wood or clay speculating based on time and setting. In the 4th century, the Catholic Church began to use decorated cups for communion, and now they use the typical looking golden chalise with inset genstones, a stage-prop that has no historical or biblical significance. Almost 1000 years later, folklore, probably combined with Celtic tradition created a story of the "Holy Grail" in which this cup existed with special powers, given to British Knights for protection by Joseph of Arimathea, the man who donated his tomb to the crucified Jesus.
These ideas have been largely discredited by historians and scholars as folklore. Furthermore, since the idea of Jesus's bloodline has no historical root, and many of the assumptions, speculations and claims concerning the idea have overwhelming historical evidence against them, no serious historians, scholars or educated inquirers who don't wish to be identified by ridicule have subscribed to such modern urban legends.

kidflash2008 · 08-15-2009, 10:57 AM

The story of Jesus' bloodline is not fiction and was researched by the authors of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". The authors even talked to a number of priests and theologists who agreed with them that Jesus probably married and had children. (It would of been very strange for a rabbi to not be married and have children. The ancient writings would of stated if he was not married as that was not the norm back then.) The theologists also claimed there would be a lot of acceptance to the book when it came out. These theologists then went on the warpath claiming heresy and all kinds of charges.
The simple fact is Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. There is even a mention of Jesus' consort in Revelations that was not removed by the early Church. The Catholic Church now states Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters, and they are mentioned throughout the Bible.
Why do people think Jesus did not get married? Especially if he were God Incarnate, he would of wanted to experience the most important part of being human (marriage and children). The idea of marriage and children should not be surprising or shocking to Christianity. It should strengthen the religion to show Jesus really existed and lived in those times.

Sillygoth · 08-15-2009, 12:34 PM

Maybe it's because I'm a heathen, but I don't understand exactly why the Catholics in particular have such an issue with the idea of Jesus breeding. If he was divine (and in my book, he certainly wasn't) having children wouldn't make him any LESS divine. It's not like he had a finite quantity of divinity that would have diminished with every spurt of baby sauce he shot.

Even if you found this "holy grail", as someone else already pointed out, it would be a simple cup. Proving that any generic cup was actually held by Christ would be archaeologically and anthropologically impossible. Factor in the counterfeit/fraudulent relics that were common in the middle ages, and now you've got something even harder to prove authenticity of.

SmokingMan · 08-15-2009, 03:35 PM

You're right about one thing. Jesus being married or having kids would not make him any less human, divine or otherwise. The reason seroius people don't think He did is because there is no real evidence for it. Any assumption that Jesus was married and/or had children, whether it be made by theologian, priest or what have you is based on pure speculation. Jesus was not the only rabbi in his time to not be married. Yes, it was common for a rabbi to be married, but no where near consistently absolute. Not even the gnostic writings come out and say He was married. For example, one of them says that some of his disciples were jealous of the way He treated the Magdalene, and that He sometimes kissed her. Would you be jealous about how your friend and teacher treated his wife? No one without an alterior motive thinks anything about the bloodline theory. To say, "the simple fact is that Jesus was married and had children", demonstrates a complete lack of factual knowledge. Something that is never mentioned in history and is ignored by the vast majority of historians, scholars and theologians does not magically become a fact because some priest speculates on the topic. Just go to your encyclopedia, look up Holy Grail, and the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" will be mentioned with the Da Vinci code under fiction in the article.

Sillygoth · 08-15-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingMan

To say, "the simple fact is that Jesus was married and had children", demonstrates a complete lack of factual knowledge.

It's especially hard when the book that everyone is using for reference has been edited, re-edited, translated, re-translated, analyzed, analyzed "for context", analyzed by "the morals of the time" etc. etc. etc.....it's rather hard to separate fact from fiction/anecdote.

I'm not saying that there's no truth to be found in the book; historical evidence actually supports the story of the flood and things like that. I'm sure there's truth in the Aettas, the Greek Epics, and all major sources that are considered to be religious texts. (Either current or ancient)

However, the fact of the matter is that NOBODY will ever be able to conclusively prove one way or the other on the matter of Jesus breeding.

kidflash2008 · 08-16-2009, 10:43 AM

The argument that there is no reference so he did not get married does not seem logical. There may have been rabbis who did not get married, but that was very unusual. The same logic can be applied to the Catholic Church which recently ruled that Mary (Jesus mother) was a perpetual virgin, meaning she never had sex. That should come as a shock to Joseph, her husband and father to Jesus and Jesus' siblings.

mastertemplate · 10-12-2010, 04:12 AM

Unlike AJ Morton, I'm not shy about proclaiming that the Holy Grail is hidden at Kilwinning. To be more correct, it lies in an underground vault some 70 feet below the surface at the centre of Benslie Wood, 3.5 east of Kilwinning and yes it does look like a cup but its not! Like to know more then read this...

https://sites.google.com/site/themas.../mount-heredom

see also figure 98 , comparison of the 'Domme' Grail

or go to here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38981399/M...the-Holy-Grail

Enjoy

10-12-2010, 04:12 AM	#10
mastertemplate Junior Investigator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2	The Holy Grail is at Kilwinning ( well very close to it) Unlike AJ Morton, I'm not shy about proclaiming that the Holy Grail is hidden at Kilwinning. To be more correct, it lies in an underground vault some 70 feet below the surface at the centre of Benslie Wood, 3.5 east of Kilwinning and yes it does look like a cup but its not! Like to know more then read this... https://sites.google.com/site/themas.../mount-heredom see also figure 98 , comparison of the 'Domme' Grail or go to here http://www.scribd.com/doc/38981399/M...the-Holy-Grail Enjoy

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-20-2009, 11:21 AM	#2
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	There are those who have researched this and have come to the conclusion that Holy Grail means the bloodline of Jesus. I think the cup used in the Last Supper has become a metaphor for it. Still, if there is an actual artifact it would be interesting to find it.

07-21-2009, 12:29 PM	#3
$$kneel-B4-me$$ Investigator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 148	if i found it, i would rub it to see if an angel pops out with three wishes. If not i would sell it to the highest bidder.

08-15-2009, 05:48 AM	#4
SmokingMan Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 48	There are no Christian or even gnostic writings, manuscripts or beliefs which give any significance at all to the cup that was used in the last supper until the 12th or 13th century. The idea of Christ's bloodline wasn't thought up until the 1980's, originally a fictional story, later turned into a conspiracy theory. The cup used at the last supper is called a "cup", probably a small drinking vessel made of wood or clay speculating based on time and setting. In the 4th century, the Catholic Church began to use decorated cups for communion, and now they use the typical looking golden chalise with inset genstones, a stage-prop that has no historical or biblical significance. Almost 1000 years later, folklore, probably combined with Celtic tradition created a story of the "Holy Grail" in which this cup existed with special powers, given to British Knights for protection by Joseph of Arimathea, the man who donated his tomb to the crucified Jesus. These ideas have been largely discredited by historians and scholars as folklore. Furthermore, since the idea of Jesus's bloodline has no historical root, and many of the assumptions, speculations and claims concerning the idea have overwhelming historical evidence against them, no serious historians, scholars or educated inquirers who don't wish to be identified by ridicule have subscribed to such modern urban legends.

08-15-2009, 10:57 AM	#5
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	The story of Jesus' bloodline is not fiction and was researched by the authors of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". The authors even talked to a number of priests and theologists who agreed with them that Jesus probably married and had children. (It would of been very strange for a rabbi to not be married and have children. The ancient writings would of stated if he was not married as that was not the norm back then.) The theologists also claimed there would be a lot of acceptance to the book when it came out. These theologists then went on the warpath claiming heresy and all kinds of charges. The simple fact is Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. There is even a mention of Jesus' consort in Revelations that was not removed by the early Church. The Catholic Church now states Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters, and they are mentioned throughout the Bible. Why do people think Jesus did not get married? Especially if he were God Incarnate, he would of wanted to experience the most important part of being human (marriage and children). The idea of marriage and children should not be surprising or shocking to Christianity. It should strengthen the religion to show Jesus really existed and lived in those times.

08-15-2009, 12:34 PM	#6
Sillygoth Junior Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 48	Maybe it's because I'm a heathen, but I don't understand exactly why the Catholics in particular have such an issue with the idea of Jesus breeding. If he was divine (and in my book, he certainly wasn't) having children wouldn't make him any LESS divine. It's not like he had a finite quantity of divinity that would have diminished with every spurt of baby sauce he shot. Even if you found this "holy grail", as someone else already pointed out, it would be a simple cup. Proving that any generic cup was actually held by Christ would be archaeologically and anthropologically impossible. Factor in the counterfeit/fraudulent relics that were common in the middle ages, and now you've got something even harder to prove authenticity of.

08-15-2009, 03:35 PM	#7
SmokingMan Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 48	You're right about one thing. Jesus being married or having kids would not make him any less human, divine or otherwise. The reason seroius people don't think He did is because there is no real evidence for it. Any assumption that Jesus was married and/or had children, whether it be made by theologian, priest or what have you is based on pure speculation. Jesus was not the only rabbi in his time to not be married. Yes, it was common for a rabbi to be married, but no where near consistently absolute. Not even the gnostic writings come out and say He was married. For example, one of them says that some of his disciples were jealous of the way He treated the Magdalene, and that He sometimes kissed her. Would you be jealous about how your friend and teacher treated his wife? No one without an alterior motive thinks anything about the bloodline theory. To say, "the simple fact is that Jesus was married and had children", demonstrates a complete lack of factual knowledge. Something that is never mentioned in history and is ignored by the vast majority of historians, scholars and theologians does not magically become a fact because some priest speculates on the topic. Just go to your encyclopedia, look up Holy Grail, and the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" will be mentioned with the Da Vinci code under fiction in the article.

08-16-2009, 10:43 AM	#9
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	The argument that there is no reference so he did not get married does not seem logical. There may have been rabbis who did not get married, but that was very unusual. The same logic can be applied to the Catholic Church which recently ruled that Mary (Jesus mother) was a perpetual virgin, meaning she never had sex. That should come as a shock to Joseph, her husband and father to Jesus and Jesus' siblings.