My theory on the secret behind Rennes-le-Chateau

This thread is fascinating and I believe very puzzling. The teachings of Jesus were said to be in parables when dealing with children and the common people, this indicates that a lot of information about the beginnings of Christianity may of been passed in visual or 'hidden' form.
I understand that the East was held under Roman control in those times and traditionally, they discouraged any organising of peoples and religeons. It would have made sense to pass information regarding a religeon via signs and secrets, so the average centurion or unbeliever would remain ignorant.
I know this may seem a little strange to a reader of the standard copies of the Bible, but these were desperate times and groups like the Sadducess may have been looking for a way of ridding themselves of this new, radical Nazerene.
If it's true that Jesus was from a royal bloodline, then it may have been that the organisers that controlled the temples and it's finances would have resisted this young upstart's teachings and looked for ways of getting rid of him.
That in mind, you can see how Jesus and his disciples sent the message underground and started a system of passing on information on that remained with the belief in the Word through the passages of time.
The only 'down' side to this way of passing on the truth about this belief is that the message of the bloodline and what it stood for, would only be accesible to the people who would have the sense to 'dig' into Western Christianity and Catholicism and learn the real truth.
The average villager would only ever know the Bible through the church of Rome and possible information that showed certain facts that may of went against the idea of a male-only religeon would have been taken out.
God truly moves in mysterious ways.

I truly hope that this mystery comes out into the open and shows that a Messiah can have a family and that it was his teachings that were important, not some political problem.
Bravo to these authors who dare to challenge the status quo.

Vincent Bridges

I have found some interesting work done by one Vincent Bridges on this subject, and have been emersed in it all morning. First off, Mr. Bridges various research topics are fascinating. You can find them all here:

vincentbridges.com...

but what is of interest to this thread is his writings on "Mary Magdalene, the Holy Grail and the Priory of Sion". You can read this multi-page writing on the following links:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

I have to admit I have not gotten through all of this, it is a tying together of several paths. But it contains a lot of the elements and lines of thought we have been pursuing here.

What would you guys think about me contacting Mr. Bridges and asking if he would come over and visit our little thread here and participate in some discussions?

Val, I think contacting Vincent Bridges is a great idea.
Some fo the info on his website look quite interesting. I'd like to hear his take on the Grail.

I just started Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Laurence Gardner, I think I saw it mentioned in this thread.

I'd like another opinion while it's still fresh in my mind.

[edit on 15-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I love this subject. I have read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" twice. Has anyone else read this book, and if so did you find it enjoyable?

-- Boat

[edit on 14-1-2006 by Boatphone]

Valhall,

Thank you for the article by Vincent Bridges. I highly recommend the book advertised at the end, cowritten by Jay Weidner "The Mysteries of the Great Cross of Hendaye: Alchemy and the End of Time" which is not directly related to the topic at hand but provides powerful insight into the recognition and deciphering of esoteric information.

Originally posted by Valhall
My question for most of my life was: What could cause such a sudden abandonment of long held religious beliefs? It seems it would have to be something that appeared almost irrefutable. It would have to be evidence. And it would have to be evidence presented in a manner that would make it acceptable to an audience it was at the same time "proving wrong".

I believe the secret attached to Rennes is this evidence. I believe it is attached with the Cult of the Black Madonna. I believe it is connected with the Merovingian dynasty. I believe it will come in the form of evidence that possibly can be DNA tested.

Going back to your orignal thoughts on this topic, to gain a fresh perspective on all that is coming forth from this thread, I have to say at this point that if I focus on the above statements, the true point of this discussion is getting somewhat lost.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my interpretation of your interpretation is that the apostasy will stem from a lie, that will somehow be verified as true by an authority that will topple the foundations of many peoples belief system.

Over the past few years, the mystery behind Mary Magdelene and the possibility that she spawned a lineage of Christ himself has gained widepread attention, and seems not to be losing any steam.

In my opinion, many who were not quite buying their taught beliefs have already bought into this one hook, line and sinker. I find these people suspect in that they would accept the musings of modern authors over anything else, meaning, with limited study of all other texts, and buy into this theory so easily. If your speculations are true, the apostasy is well on it's way to coming to fruition and all it needs now is for someone at "the top" to confirm these speculations to topple the faithful.

Though many sects of Christianity resist giving the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, any due, the disturbing part of this whole scenario is that it is definately eroding Her importance in favor of Mary Magdeline, and in some cases, causing even those who dismiss the Mother of God, to suddenly look at the Magdeline as the primary female figure in Christianity. There are numerous reasons why this is critical but I am not focused enough at the moment to elaborate further. As the Virgin Mary is the figure believed to hold the power to crush the head of the serpent, this trend is dangerous.

Just thought I'd point that out. I would appreciate your input Valhall, if I have misinterpreted your take here.

[edit on 1/15/2006 by Relentless] Geez - the typos!

[edit on 1/15/2006 by Relentless]

Very thought provoking post, relentless.
I'm not valhall, of course, but I couldn not resist posting my thoughts.

Mary, the mother of Jesus will always be important as his mother.
But, she had no big role in his teachings and public life. She was his mother but not one of his disciples.

I think the issue with Mary Magdalene was that the Catholic Church did her wrong. They belittled her role and cast aspersions on her character.
They only allowed Jesus' mother Mary a place of importance because of her biological connection.
I cannot think of any other woman in the New Testament that plays a positive, significant place in early Church history. I read a fact that women were not even considered to have souls until hundreds of years into Church history---women had little or no value in the early years AD??

I think this wholed Mary Magdalene thing will balance out. She will get the recognition she deserves and all will balance out.
People are questioning what they have been told, in part due to the fact that Church members have been lied to: If you know of one lie, other "dogma" comes into question.

On a different but related subject, I ran int this, entitled Was Jesus divineby Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts.
I haven't read it yet, but it looked interesting.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Mary, the mother of Jesus will always be important as his mother.
But, she had no big role in his teachings and public life. She was his mother but not one of his disciples.

I know this is the more prevalent view of Mary the mother of Jesus, but it is not that simple to me. I know she is mentioned little in the Bible, but she was there all along. In fact, in some private revelations the lack of mention of her in the Bible was a direct request from her to not take any attention from the teachings of her Son. She raised him, she stayed with him and she was there for him in the end.

SHE was the main female at the foot of the cross, when in fact Jesus told John and his mother that they were now mother and son. This is interpreted to mean by many that the mother of God is now the Mother of man. Cetainly one could argue that She then took the role of mother to the disciples, in which case, if you take that a step further, they would listen to her above Mary Magdelene, who quite frankly I think may be horrified at all this speculation about her.

This of course if coming from my own beliefs and faith, I don't need or care to debate the point, I am merely sharing my thoughts for consideration.

First and foremost in my response to R is YES - that is what I am saying.

There is no mention of Christ marrying in the scriptures (NOTE: I realize that there are many authors who speculate on the various "hints" in the scripture to Christ being married, but that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about scriptural basis, not creative interpretation).

So the "secret" could be false or true - either one - and still have the same effect on those who have decided to take as DOCTRINE an unmarried, virgin Christ.

Further to that, I contend that the whole reason this secret (be it false or true) can have the effect of crushing believers' faith is because in the past, there has already been false teachings that have embedded a scripturally unsound idea of Christ remaining celibate, unmarried and childless to a level of DOCTRINE, when, in fact, it has no scriptural basis and matters not a bit. (Please keep clear that I am not stating I believe Christ was married and had children, I'm merely saying that for this particular issue - NO ONE can say whether he was or wasn't if they base their answer on the scriptures.)

So when the secret is revealed (be it false or true) its ability to cause the apostacy will be delivered via the false teachings of religious leaders of the past.

Concerning your thoughts on the Mary the mother of Christ. I will refrain from responding to those, and leave them for others to discuss with you. (Because you know how I feel about certain dogma pushed by the RCC - and this falls into that category that I believe to be scripturally unbacked. And as I've said many times before...my fight is with those who bring false teachings, not those who have accepted those beliefs as their own. Plus, you're my friend. )

I was on the Merovingian Descendants Yahoo group, and I was e-mailed an interesting document.

The royals are NOT descended from Jesus. Their roots go back to the Trojans--and directly back to Judah. We're not descended from David, let alone Jesus!

The "Jesus-had-children" bunch contend that Jesus did not die on the tree (that's more correct than "cross"), but managed to escape--and that knocks down the central tenet of Christianity. When you consider that Jesus' mission was to be born of a woman and shed His blood and die for the sins of mankind, it seems that marriage wouldn't have been on the itinerary.

I have this information in a .pdf file.

I just uploaded the file about the Trojan origins of European royalty, and it can be seen here.

It IS a .pdf file, so make sure you have Adobe Acrobat!

There is no proof of the Merovingians (or should I say Franks) originating from Troy or from Israel. They are entirely germanic and every archaeological discovery supports this - the trojan origins were only myth and gained popularity from the "Grandes Chroniques de France" a Medieval illustrated history of the kings of france.

The closer you look at the first kings of france the less mysterious they become. Instead they become the brutish, opportunistic and warring people that would not think twice about killing off relatives to keep their hold of power.

-and we all know how that went for them...

[edit on 12-5-2006 by adept initiate]

Here you go. www.fortunecity.com...

[edit on 12-5-2006 by adept initiate]

I found excellent site about Rennes,problem is it is in FRENCH, CAN SOMEONE PLEASE INTERPRET-FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS as it explains a massive clue found in the painting "the crucifixtion" by David Teniers explains his other works.

HERE IS THE SITE OU'L HISTOIRE D'LA GRAND SECRET...

C:\Documents and Settings\C01701310\Desktop\Rennes-Le-Château ou l'histoire d'un grand secret.htm

DOES ANYONE KNOW FRENCH TO TRANSLATE

PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go here-
world.altavista.com...

Translate a block of text at a time. Or input the url to translate a page of web text.


[edit on 5/12/2006 by yeahright]

DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T apparently this information came from someone who provided another picture called the deploration of christ,he then wrote-read the gospel of john and read about thomas the twin and then see the Teniers painting for a massive hint,thanks for the information I shall try and translate

THIS IS IT
I forgot to mention that the open books which you can clearly see in the bottem picture appear in three of the other pictures stacked up in the same way sat at the bottem of the stone table on which the skull stands. Also examine the picture 'The crucifixtion' by David Teniers the senior because it provides a massive, massive clue to what is going on here.

KEN

[edit on 12-5-2006 by adept initiate]