Tag error: <txp:tru_tags_if_has_tags> ->  Textpattern Warning: tag does not exist while_parsing_page_form: archive, default
/commentable: Book vs World.
Dinarius = digital interest
14 August 2006

Book vs World.

These thoughts are simply musings based on observations of modern-day people of course. But the discussion is still interesting and far from the idea of tradition not playing a role in a conquered society’s people. Now, how about a little boat-load of links?

To get some fun material for goofs and blunders and chronological questions, this article by the fun factoid robots at How Stuff Works dot-com is highly recommended.

Facts about albinos to which catagory The Da Vinci Code’s constant pursuer, Silas, belongs. It seems unlikely to the HSW.com crew that evil, Opus Dei albino, Silas could have performed his great distance shooting since albinos have many medical difficulties with their vision. Albinism has a website.

Additionally, Dennis Hurley, an albino, has been enjoying some bright spotlights thanks to his parody, The Albino Code.

Visit Wikipedia’s own examination of the Book. The Contents of the entry are extremely long and sadly, Wikipedia is, itself, a victim of fact-finders who point out that all that is Wiki is not always all that is true. Just the same, it is sensible for them to note qualifiers on Dan Brown’s own webiste.
Terms such as “widely believed,” “allegedly,” “seems to be,” are known as qualifiers. In an arguement taken seriously, these expressions are never used; they indicate that there is room for debate or doubt or even evidence to the contrary. A well-versed argument will acknowledge the other side’s points, knock them down and then make its counter-points. Dan Brown’s page qualifies without acknowledging and plows through to support claims made in the book.
We were delighted to find Tony’s video hosted on Google Video, IN FULL 1:41:19 – put two hours aside here. Just when it seems it will end, there’s another hour of cheeky Tony and his offensive bobble-head dashboard Jesus making very clever and well-researched arguments against the 2003 novel and several other novels’ claims to the whereabouts and existance and nature of The Holy Grail.


8.14 – Of all the great parodies and refuters and original stories of The Holy Grail and what it must have been, we’ve heard none of them take into consideration, the time and culture in which these events were to have occurred. In fact, one of our favorite “Da Vinci Code” refuters flatly denies the importance of culture at the time of Jesus. This astonished us; so we’re here to play Devil’s Advocate in favor of Jesus’s swinging love life.

First of all, there are four books to keep in mind. The first, Perceval, or the History of the Grail, was started by a French author telling a tale of The Holy Grail (not quite named as such in the story), the Spear of Destiny, and a Knight of the Round Table. Well-written site centering on the Grail and THIS book. This book was: Unfinished due ot the author’s death; the first literary mention EVER of a ‘cup of Christ,’; written in the twelfth century and inspired many to think of Southeastern France as a geographic key to the location of this mysterious goblet…


Skip and hop and jump ahead 800 years to the Twentieth Century and we have Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in which the authors planted their story on controversial evidence of the Priory of Sion. The PS was later claimed a hoax by two of the three who provided proofs and support of its existance. But we’re not going to say yes or no to the reality of PS since real shadow organizations create such smoke and mirrors anyway.

The Lady With The Alabaster Cup alludes to Mary Magdeline arriving in Southeastern France in an oarless boat with a young girl named Sarah which is Princess in Hebrew. A town in Southern France celebrates this ‘miracle’ annually, but the locals will tell you with no second thought that it was, in fact, two other Marys who arrived with a servant-girl from Egypt they named Sarah. They ought to know, they’ve been going over this celebration for centuries.

Most recently and with just as much hype, was the book 90% of us have read: The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown nearly re-writes Holy Blood and The Holy Grail adding to its foundation the spelling ‘Sang Real’ which means Holy Blood rather than ‘San Greal’ which means Holy Grail/Goblet/Drinkie Thing. This is a really neat bit of evidence that pins Dan Brown’s book and characters on to the right path. Sadly, ‘Sang Real’ was a transposition mistake made by one monk, only once, never to be repeated until 2003.

The best disagreement we’ve seen to any Grail or Bloodline came recently, over the weekend, to us. Tony Robinson examines history’s search and claims of and for the Holy Grail. Neatly and instantly, the sudden death of the author who first ever mention any kind of cup or chalice opened the mystery but also closes the door of the idea of a cup. He mentioned it first and didn’t get to finish what he was saying.

Tony brilliantly sets up the supporters’s points and then travels the Earth to knock the points down one by one; it really is well-done. Debate actually has rules and Tony follows them. There is one major oversight, however. He claims, near the end of the film, that people in Israel weren’t stongly concerned with traditions at the time.


Non-traditional? Hardly. This remark further supports his own rejection of different theories to do with The Da Vinci Code. It makes sense that he has to support himself, but wait a miinute! Harrison Ford actually found the erroneous Holy Grail and drank from it years after saving a bunch of tradition-bound right-minded Quaker-like people. If anyone can support tradition being strong as nails to do with ancient religions and the Holy Grail ideas, it’s Harrison Ford…


Sammy. Okay; non-traditional. But back to the business at hand. To say that rabbis from Jerusalem weren’t concerned with tradition is just insane. It’s true that not all believers in Judaism seem, ‘traditional.’ But to think that in a time when one socially unacceptable act was worth being drawn to death by horses or stoned to death or hacked to pieces anyone so non-traditional as Jesus could have made it to be thirty-three years old raises a red flag on that point.

In Jesus’s time, the Romans were busy expanding their empire piece by piece. The land around the Mediterranean wasn’t conquered in one fell swoop; it took hundreds of years and was non-linear. People were scared by the invasions. Everyone likes to be reassured that all will be well. This set up an audience for an outspoken rabbi.

The Romans had borrowed ancestory as religion from the Greeks centuries earlier. They sailed and traded and showed their power and money. Those living in Jerusalem weren’t used to seeing such goings on. No doubt that Romans took advantage of every oportunity to discredit and insult and belittle their occupied neighbors. No proud people enjoy that kind of treatment much whether they’re traditional or not. The Romans were notoriously smug, but they weren’t fools either.


It seems likely that human nature was then what it is now. Small groups often look to a leader-character and what better leader for a notoriously tradition-steeped culture to seek than a rabbi? So this rabbi saw the relative riches entering from Rome, the relative poverty and unhappiness in Jerusalem around him and, perhaps, considered the respect Romans had for lineage and got to work as the perfect middle man.

The heretical reality of Jesus position was that of a cult leader. He promised the poor hope; he trumped all lineage any Roman had by claiming God as his Father more so than anyone else’s father though God was that too – just not so directly as it was to him. To not be married at such an old age would probably have cast an ill light on someone who seemed so well-crafted to please everyone.

Favorite's the ARTICLE, not the SITE.