Holy Blood, Holy Grail

Anyone read this book?...Im about 1/3 through it and Im wondering if half the stuff is legit....Does anyone have any backing as to the catholic church really hiding some of the material stated?

I didnt read the book myself yet, have it at home tho.

From comments i read around the net
some say its uter crap with alot of if if if if if
other state that there are documentet profs inside.

i guess it all depents if you believe in God, jesus whatever.

Wolve

Historical facts are historical facts. Interpretation and conclusions are the authors'. Make your own conclusions, but be careful whom you express them to, heretics are burnt at the stake!

It's a pretty biased view, and the book was written to support someone's ... theory. The historical facts I've researched don't match the book's interpretation and no scholar I know supports it.

Yep...the book has been written solely for the reader to make his own decision. Seeings thta it took around 20 years of research - I think alot of it is factual.
The 3 writers had the book banned for a number of years until about mid eighties.
Alot of the book can be see as what ifs but that is how they were able to have the book published by make the facts ''what ifs''

Yep...the book has been written solely for the reader to make his own decision. Seeings thta it took around 20 years of research - I think alot of it is factual.
The 3 writers had the book banned for a number of years until about mid eighties.
Alot of the book can be see as what ifs but that is how they were able to have the book published by make the facts ''what ifs''

I think it's a decent book. Lots of speculation, but that's to be expected. Most of what we know about religion and religious figures is either speculation or brazen lies anyway, so the book can hardly be discounted on "factual" grounds. Religion doesn't operate on fact, it operates on faith.

The problem with Holy Blood, Holy Grail is that it makes some huge bounds in logic.

The authors are pretty sneaky how they go about this.

Basically, although an interesting book, HBHG takes huge liberties with fact. It's theory based on theory based on theory based on theory. The problem is that the authors often refer back to their original theories in the beginning of the book as fact.

For example, they say that the Holy Grail is a bloodline, but this is based on about a dozen theories created earlier in the book. Literally every single page is based on speculation.

thats the kind of feeling i was getting...like less fact and more guess work....

Originally posted by BasementAddix
thats the kind of feeling i was getting...like less fact and more guess work....

Its an interesting read for sure but you should take most of it with a large grain of salt. Like an earlier poster said there are some huge leaps in logic in there, but if you liked the Da Vinci Code you might want to pick it up out of curiosity. I'd suggest reading it for pleasure, not hard facts.

Yes, not only have I read this book, but I have read just about every book that has even a peripheral connection to this subject.

Look forward to visiting with you on this.

Its an interesting read for sure but you should take most of it with a large grain of salt. Like an earlier poster said there are some huge leaps in logic in there, but if you liked the Da Vinci Code you might want to pick it up out of curiosity. I'd suggest reading it for pleasure, not hard facts.

I didnt read the Da Vinci Code cause in all honesty seemed like alot of BS to me...

I didnt read the Da Vinci Code cause in all honesty seemed like alot of BS to me...

I read it because I had read HBHG years ago and because of the overwhelming popularity of the book. I didn't enjoy it at all, but I did notice that after a while bookstores in my area started putting HBHG out in displays with Da Vinci Code in a sort of "if you liked that you'll like this". I always thought that was interesting. I do enjoy all theories about the subject, regardless of the format they are in.

Who's the author of this book?

Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
Holy Blood, Holy Grail


seekerof

what is the official website for Michael Baigent

Curios....try this till your heart is content:
Google

Type in what you want to know and hit 'search the web'.



seekerof

ive read it, definitely would recommend it to someone interested in conspiracy theories. some if it seems a stretch, but its a goods read.

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Anyone read this book?...Im about 1/3 through it and Im wondering if half the stuff is legit....Does anyone have any backing as to the catholic church really hiding some of the material stated?

I've read this book, about a year and a half ago. It's interesting what information they've added in here. Some of it very likely, a few things a bit more difficult to prove such as Jesus having had children with Mary Magdellin, thus his heir being the holy grail. It's a deep read though i enjoyed it, apart from all those french words i just can't pronounce!

Originally posted by Leveller
The problem with Holy Blood, Holy Grail is that it makes some huge bounds in logic.

Leveller,

Having read almost every book on the subject I have to point out that this "huge bounds in logic" trend is in EVERY theory that has been produced around Rennes. The interesting thing about this whole topic is that I believe the odd facts of the historical record do indeed point to something of great importance associated with that church and the priest, BUT it seems every time some one comes up with a theory, they become obsessed to the point of leaping across logic gaps to maintain it. What I'm waiting for is for some one to approach this with an open-mind - at that point I believe the "search" will progress.

P.S. There is a clue in the Shepherdess of Arcadia painting by Poussin that has never been written about yet. I'm waiting to see if some one finds it and goes further in this matter.

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by Valhall]