BLOODLINE
OF THE HOLY GRAIL
- The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed
by
Laurence Gardner
-
- TRANSCRIPT - -
The
time-honoured quest for the Holy Grail has been referred to
by some as the 'ultimate quest', but in 1547 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 those 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 is 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 the
Holy Grail?
The
word 'Gra-al' originates from ancient Mesopotamia, where it
was recorded as being the 'nectar of supreme excellence'. It
was directly related to the bloodline of kings who descended
from the gods - those monarchs who were anointed with the fat
of the sacred Mûs-hûs: a type of monitor-crocodile
in the Euphrates Valley. By virtue of this anointing, the kings
were also called Mûs-hûs (or, in Egypt, Messeh)
- a term which in the later Hebrew tongue became Messiah, meaning
Anointed One.
By
medieval times in Europe, this line of kingly descent was defined
by the French word Sangréal, meaning Blood Royal. This
was the Blood Royal of Judah - the line of King David which
progressed to the family of Jesus. By the Middle Ages, the definition
Sangréal became San Graal. 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 and 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.
In this regard we are all conditioned to 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 part, 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 ... and took pride in preserving the memory
of their aristocratic origin". Africanus described these
royal inheritors as the Desposyni - a hallowed style meaning
Heirs of the Lord.
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 by 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 West.
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. We are all familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John - but what about the other Gospels: those of Philip,
of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous
Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Church
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 397.
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 John - but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus
as far as we know, neither was Luke; they were both colleagues
of the later St. Paul. 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 apostolic 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. They state: "We do not permit
our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those
who teach. 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 1138;
a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite
what it appears on the surface, for it was never sexual activity
as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem
was priestly intimacy with women. Why? 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 costs, 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 translations
of Luke tell us that there was 'no room in the inn'. But the
old manuscript of Luke 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: 'no topos in
the kataluma'). 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 languages.
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 simply 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, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous
purposeful amendments. In about AD 195, Bishop Clement of Alexandria
made the first known amendment to the Gospel texts. He deleted
a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark and justified
his action in a letter, stating: "For even if they should
say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree
with them - for not all true things are to be said to all men".
Even
at that stage, there was already a discrepancy between what
the Gospel writers had written and what the early bishops wanted
to teach! But what exactly was in this removed section of Mark?
It was 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 (as 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. In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings
were Messiahs; Jesus was not unique in this regard. Although
not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status
by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he
did not achieve that status until he was ritually anointed by
Mary Magdalene in her capacity as a bridal high priestess.
In
the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing
of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the
fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the
Himalayas), and it is explained that this ritual was performed
while the kingly husband sat at the table. In the New Testament,
the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed
while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal
ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus' feet with
her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony,
she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing
of a dynastic heir.
Messianic
marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first (the
anointing in Luke) was the legal commitment to wedlock, while
the second (the later anointing in Matthew, Mark and John) was
the cementing of the contract. In Jesus and Mary's case the
second anointing was of particular significance for, as explained
by Flavius Josephus in the 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews,
the second part of the marriage ceremony was never conducted
until the wife was three months pregnant.
Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate
their lines. Marriage was essential, but community law protected
the dynasts against marriage to women who proved barren or kept
miscarrying. This protection was provided by the three-month
pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that
term, subsequent to which it was considered safe enough to complete
the marriage contract.
After
the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus
said: "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout
the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken
of for a memorial of her". But did the Church authorities
honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial? No
they did not; they completely ignored Jesus' own directive and
denounced Mary as a whore.
To
the Nazarenes, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as
a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, with numerous
churches dedicated to her in the Renaissance era. But the interesting
fact of this sainthood is that Mary is the recognized patron
saint of wine-growers - the ultimate Grail guardian of the Vine.
Aspects
of the Gospels can actually be followed outside the Bible. Even
the crucifixion sentence of Jesus is mentioned in the Annals
of Imperial Rome. We can now determine from chronological survey
that the Crucifixion took place at the March Passover of AD
33, while the Bethany second marriage anointing was in the week
prior to that. We also know that, at that stage, Mary Magdalene
was three months pregnant - which means she should have given
birth in September of AD 33.
As
for Jesus' death on the cross, it is perfectly clear this was
spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by a three-day
excommunication rule that everybody in the 1st century would
have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was denounced,
scourged and prepared for death by decree. For three days Jesus
would have been nominally 'sick', with absolute 'death' coming
on the fourth day. Prior to this he would be entombed (buried
alive) in accordance with Jewish Council law - but during the
first three days he could be raised or resurrected, as he had
predicted would be the case.
Raisings
and resurrections could only be performed by the High Priest
or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time
was Joseph Caiaphas (the very man who condemned Jesus), therefore
the raising had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There
are Gospel accounts of Jesus talking to the Father from the
cross, culminating in "Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit" - and the appointed Father of the day was the
Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.
During
that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was
a forward time change, and the Gospels explain that the land
fell into darkness for three hours. The Hebrew lunarists made
their change during the daytime, but the Nazarene solarists
did not make their change until midnight. This explains why,
according to the Gospel of Mark (which relates to lunar time),
Jesus was crucified at the third hour, but in John (which uses
solar time) he was crucified at the sixth hour.
On
that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine
o'clock, but the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to
go before their Sabbath. During those extra three hours they
were able to work with Jesus while others were not allowed to
undertake any physical activity. It was for this reason that
the women were so astonished when they found the tomb-stone
moved at daybreak on the Sunday - not because it was moved,
but because it had been moved on the Sabbath.
And
so we come to one of the most misunderstood events in the Bible
- the Ascension. And in consideration of this, the births of
Jesus and Mary Magdalene's children become apparent.
We
know from Gospel chronology that the Bethany second-marriage
anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the week before
the Crucifixion (at the time of the March Passover). Also that,
at that stage, Mary was three-months pregnant and should, therefore,
have given birth six months later in the notional month of September
AD 33. The story is taken up in the Acts of the Apostles, which
detail for that month the event which we have come to know as
the Ascension.
One
thing which the Acts do not do, however, is to call the event
the Ascension. This was a tag established by way of a Church
doctrine more than three centuries later. What the Bible text
actually says is: "And when he had spoken these things
... he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight".
It
then continues, relating that a man in white said to the disciples:
"Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus ...
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go". Then,
a little later in the Acts, it says that heaven must receive
Jesus until 'the times of restitution'.
Given
that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene's child
was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary's confinement
and the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection
is made by virtue of the said 'times of restitution'.
Not
only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic
heir, but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself.
The rules of dynastic wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family
norm, and Messianic parents were formally separated at the birth
of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy between a dynastic
husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that births
of heirs would always fall in the month equivalent to September
- the month of Atonement, the holiest month of the calendar.
From
the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically
separated - for six years if the child was a boy and for three
years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be
recommenced at designated 'times of restitution'. Meanwhile,
the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent
and the father would enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom
was the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and
the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under
the supervision of the appointed leader of the pilgrims. In
the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were
led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this
continued Exodus imagery, the priestly leader of the pilgrims
was designated with the title Cloud.
So,
if we read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood,
we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the leader of the
pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon
the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return
at the times of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).
If
we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover
that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail.
Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven
when he actually had no entitlement to that sacred office. He
explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into
the Davidic line of Judah - a line which held the right of kingship
but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative
of the family of Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation
was granted, and that "for the priesthood being changed,
there is made of necessity a change also of the law".
In
September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary
Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven.
By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September
AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44.
With the period between the first and second births being just
four years, we know that the first child was a daughter. The
period from the second birth to the next time of restitution
in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was
a son. Subsequent information reveals that the third child was
also a son.
Prior
to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was
exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she
was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers,
she travelled to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul
(which later became France).
From
the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance,
Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great
artworks alike. Her life and work in Provence, especially in
the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European
history but also in the Roman Church liturgy - until her story
was suppressed by the Vatican in the 16th century.
We
can now return to the Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice
containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic
designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500
BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was
the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation
was that of the sacred vessel of the 'vas uterus'. And so, when
fleeing into Gaul, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal
(the nectar of supreme excellence) in the sacred chalice of
her womb.
From
this point in the 1st century, Bloodline of the Holy Grail,
takes up the individual stories of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and
their offspring, following their descendants through the course
of their turbulent history, which led to the great Inquisition
and beyond.
It
is an account of Messianic descent against which the bishops'
only recourse was to denigrate the position of women in its
ecclesiastical structure. Throughout this history, however,
Grail lore has always been consistent in its social prediction
that only when the Messianic wound has been healed, will the
wasteland return to fertility.
