What secrets are hidden in the church of Rennes-le-Chateau?

[Gordon]

*************
M*W: This is a subject I have studied for more than 20 years. What's the latest... anybody know? Got any ideas on this enigma? For a time I believed that Jesus must be buried there, but now I believe Jesus didn't exist, so it cannot be his bones in the area. It would be no surprise if Mary Magdalen were allegedly buried there, but I don't believe she existed either. Then what is the big hidden secret?

We know from non-christian sources that 'christians' existed (and were persecuted) in the first century Roman empire.

The concept of the messiah having now arrived in the person of Yeshua in first century Judea split Judaism and many of those who did not become christians became strongly anti-christian (as many are to-day in regard to 'Messianic Jews'). This was obviously particularly true of the Jewish Religious leaders who wished to maintain their previous authority and control.

Now there are three possible options about the Yeshua that these 'christian' people claimed to follow.

1. He was who they said he was (clearly you do not believe that).
2. He was an interesting and clever person but not the Messiah (I can understand the logic of this although I do not believe it to be true) or
3. He did not exist at all and all the stories were made up about a fictional entity, as you seem to believe.

The problem with (3) is that based on my earlier comments, if it were true, you would have expected the (very hostile) Jewish authoriities (and probably the Romans too) to have made this claim early on and for it to have survived continuously through Judaism to the present day.

But orthodox Judaism has never claimed (and still does not claim) that there was no person such as Yeshua in first century Judea. Whilst (2) has been popular amongst non-christians (including orthodox Jews) for 2000 years, with the Bible recounted story of the body being stolen being particularly popular, version (3) is actually a very modern claim and one made almost exclusively only by atheists.

On the basis of historical probability alone, this makes Option (3) by far the least likely to be true.


regards,



Gordon.

 

[ajscarb]

Gordon,

I am impressed by your comments, which make no reference to the subject at hand, instead you decide that mocking me would be more appealing.
Perhaps you imagine that a document could in fact override a person's belief, and if so I am sad for your lack of conviction.
It would be wonderful if you could not only enlighten me, but also the entire world on your opinions of the Grail as no doubt such a learned man as yourself knows all, or is of least the impression that they do.

 

[ajscarb]

Gordon,

I am impressed by your comments, which make no reference to the subject at hand, instead you decide that mocking me would be more appealing.
Perhaps you imagine that a document could in fact override a person's belief, and if so I am sad for your lack of conviction. If such a document did exist Who would have written it?
It would be wonderful if you could not only enlighten me, but also the entire world on your opinions of the Grail as no doubt such a learned man as yourself knows all, or is of least the impression that they do.

 

[ajscarb]

Gordon,

I have just read your comments above, which did not initially appear on my screen.
You are obviously a learned man, however one of the key things you did forget is your manners with your comments about me previously.
I apologise for my previous response, but I see no reason to belittle others, especially when they are new to a concept and are inquiring to find out more and share ideas.
The concept of the Grail facinates me, and even though I do not claim to know what it is, so many people have differing opinions, that only a few if any can actually be right.
I noticed in your comments above that you did not specify which one you actually agreed with although I did get the impression that you might believe that Jesus was the son of God.
I am also curious as to what your thoughts are on the church of Rennes le Chateau

 

[Gordon]

Gordon,

I have just read your comments above, which did not initially appear on my screen.
You are obviously a learned man, however one of the key things you did forget is your manners with your comments about me previously.
I apologise for my previous response, but I see no reason to belittle others, especially when they are new to a concept and are inquiring to find out more and share ideas.
The concept of the Grail facinates me, and even though I do not claim to know what it is, so many people have differing opinions, that only a few if any can actually be right.
I noticed in your comments above that you did not specify which one you actually agreed with although I did get the impression that you might believe that Jesus was the son of God.
I am also curious as to what your thoughts are on the church of Rennes le Chateau

I am sorry that you have taken offence. I did not mean the comments to be aimed in your direction at all. The comments in the first post are directed at the start of the post (i.e. Medicine Woman's conjecture based on no fact) and certainly not at your post. You will note that the second is a reposte to her choice of what I believe is the most unlikely possibility regarding the existence of Yeshua, which she mentions in that same first post.

As for me, I believe that anyone who did not have a preconceived agenda for believing otherwise and who examined the available evidence critically could not fail to believe that there was a person, Yeshua, born in Bethlehem probably around 2 BC by modern calendars who was the promised Messiah or Christ and who therefore was all that is claimed for him in the Bible ('God in the Flesh). I came to this conclusion through rational analyis when I was about 16 (nearly 40 years ago). I have read and studied more over the years (christian and secular, friendly and hostile) and that has only ever reinforced my view.

Knowing something intellectually is not of course enough to actually change your behaviour and I have to say I have not made a very good christian over the years but I am now making more effort to 'walk the walk' than I did previously (hopefully to some effect).

I have no particular in depth knowledge about the Holy Grail legends nor on Rennes le Chateau. I have to say neither interest me personally and although I can understand the fascination, the point I was trying to make was that it is not valid to make conclusions from pure supposition based on admittedly no knowledge, which 'Medecine Woman' appears to do.

As far as 'modern' Grail stories go, I think it is rather sad when stories which are based on known provably historical falsehoods (such as the 'Da Vinci Code') are marketed in a clever duplicitous manner - 'This is a fictional novel based on some fact'. The statement is of course accurate as far as it goes but to do so it only needs to quote a few historical truths. Most people assume that what is meant is that the core story is correct with some details changed. This of course is not only not correct but known by the author to be not correct.

This is really deceit and whether it is done to attempt to harm christainity or just to make the most money or both I do not profess to know although neither is exactly a virtuous motive!

It is of course not new in the media. A classic historical example of atheists attempting to make fun of christian belief and villify christians (and make money) is the appalling play 'Inherit the Wind' by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, (later made into a film with Spencer Tracy and still often performed in the UK and USA). This purports to represent the so-called 'Scopes Monkey Trial' of 1925 in Dayton but a check of the actual history and background of the characters involved and a check of the actual court transcript shows that the whole story has been completely distorted to improve the atheist position and characters and to denegrate the christian view and characters.

(Interestingly of course the present position in the UK is that only atheistic Neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory is allowed to be taught in state schools and it is taught as absolute proven scientific fact. No mention is allowed to be made of any alternative theories. So this is the U.S. 'Butler Act' in reverse but with no great outcry about 'freedom of thought or speech' from anyone now it's this way round.)


Again please accept my apologies. I shall ensure that my replies are better referenced in the future!


kind regards,


Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

From Wikipedia,

'The Saunière story
The fraud began when Noël Corbu wanted to attract visitors to his local hotel in Rennes-le-Château by spreading the story that Saunière became rich when he found a royal treasure inside one of the pillars in his church. In 1956, the first newspapers started printing this fictional story. This ignited a flame: visitors with shovels flooded the town and Corbu got what he wanted. However, this also attracted a number of persons such as Pierre Plantard. His childhood dream was to play a vital role in the history of France, so he and some friends concocted an elaborate hoax including fabricated documents which were planted in France's Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, all to imply that Plantard was a descendant of a French royal dynasty, which would somehow mean that he was supposed to be declared King of France. The fabricated documents also mention the ancient "Priory of Sion", which was supposedly a thousand years old, but was in fact the name of an organization that Plantard founded himself in 1956 with three of his friends.


No serious journalists who investigated the story found it plausible enough to write about, so Plantard asked his friend, Gérard de Sède, to write a book about it. L’Or de Rennes (the Gold of Rennes, later published as Le Trésor Maudit de Rennes-le-Château) came out in 1967 and was an instant success. The book presented (forged) Latin documents by Plantard's group, alleging that these were medieval documents which had been found by Sauniere in the 19th century. One of the documents had multiple encrypted references to the Priory of Sion, thereby attempting to "prove" that the society was older than its actual creation date of 1956.

In 1969, an actor and science-fiction writer by the name of Henry Lincoln read the book, dug deeper, and wrote his own books on the subject, pointing out his "discovery" of hidden codes in the parchments. One of the codes involved a series of raised letters in the Latin message, which when read off separately, spelled out in French: a dagobert ii roi et a sion est ce tresor et il est la mort. (translation: This treasure belongs to King Dagobert II and to Sion, and he is there dead.). Lincoln created a series of BBC Two documentaries in the 1970s about the subject, and then in 1982, also co-wrote Holy Blood – Holy Grail with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, which expanded upon the Rennes-le-Château story to further imply that Plantard was connected not just to royal ancestry, but actually descended from Jesus Christ. This torch was then picked up and expanded in 2003 in Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, though Brown's book never mentioned Rennes-le-Château by name.

The extraordinary popularity of The Da Vinci Code has reignited the tourist industry who once again come to see sites associated with Saunière and Rennes-le-Château, even though the village is officially not part of "The Da Vinci Code trail". The pillar where Sauniere was said to have found the documents is on display in the 'Sauniere Museum' in Rennes-le-Chateau and visitors there are told that the "visigothic pillar" was never hollow, nor can it be established that the pillar was actually "visigothic". It was set up by Saunière in 1891 as part of his Shrine to Our Lady of Lourdes. Even the claim that it originated from Saunière's church cannot be substantiated.

Skeptical views
Almost all historians reject the conspiracies as nothing more than fantasy. The stories of Saunière's "mysteries" were based on nothing more than a minor scandal involving the sale of masses, which eventually led to the disgrace of both Saunière and his bishop. His "wealth" was short-lived and he died relatively poor. Published by French Editions Belisane from the early 1980s onwards, the evidence for this ranged from the archives in the possession of Antoine Captier, which includes Saunière's correspondence and notebooks, and the minutes of the ecumenical trial between Saunière and his bishop between 1910–1911 which are located in the Carcassonne Bishopric.

As for the relationship with the fictional Priory of Sion and Plantard's hoax, multiple factors disproved those theories as well. Philippe de Chérisey – who helped Plantard with his fraud – admitted having fabricated the historical documents. The supposed "medieval" documents were shown to have been written in modern French. Gérard de Sède, another of the conspirators who had written the book Le Tresor Maudit, also wrote a book denouncing the fraud, and this was further confirmed by his son.'

Comment unnescessary!


regards,


Gordon

 

[ajscarb]

Gordon,

I of course accept your apology.
None of us will ever be able to truly 'walk the walk', all we can do is pray for the strength to try harder every day.
I agree that a lot of people try to fabricate information, when the true story of Jesus Christ the son of God who died for our sins, is the most noble truth of all.
I appreciate that most stories are based on myth and in some cases perhaps pranksters, although the 'dreamer' in me does like to imagine that there are some things in this world left to be discovered.
I would love your opinion on what you consider to be true with respect to Rennes le Chateau or the Knight Templar, or the Holy Grail.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

sauniere was a cure not an abbe.

*************
M*W: According to all sources, Sauniere was the parish priest (Abbe=Father). Perhaps you were referring to the cure in the pulp fiction of The Da Vinci Code.

See www.rennes-le-chateau.com

somehow i dont think it was proof that jesus didnt exist, because what kind of conclusive proof can you ever find that someone didn't exist? writings? documents? they are just someone's word, and could always be disputed since there are so many other old documents like the bible and the various gnostic gospels that mention him as extant. it would just be one document vs. another, which doesn't mean shit to the RCC. it would have to be something compelling enough on its own to wrest power from the RCC and confer it upon whoever posessed it. it has been speculated that everything from the ark of the covenant to the holy grail to the spear of destiny was in the possession of the templars/the cathars/the priory in and around the area of rennes le chateau. hitler even sent teams of nazis to dig in and around the area. nothing has ever been found, most likely because it has been moved. probably a long time ago. rennes le chateau is just a stop along the line for whatever it is.

*************
M*W: All the published theories about the enigma of Rennes-le-Chateau seem to conclude that Jesus did exist. He was married to MM and they had children. He didn't die on the cross, but if he did, MM was already pregnant. After researching this aspect of the theories, I concluded that Jesus nor MM existed but were anthropomorphized characters taken from the constellations and zodiac.

The parchments offer theories which are debatable. However, my theory of the mystery is Sauniere came to believe from the parchments that Jesus didn't exist or that something he found indicated that Jesus was really Lucifer (Morningstar). Whatever Sauniere found, it would surely bring the RCC down with a bang.

 

[ajscarb]

Medicine Woman,

In respect to a parchment being found that could 'prove' what you believe above.
Who could have written it?
The claim that it could bring down the established RCC. Do you believe the RCC and the people would hold either Sauniere or the author of these parchments in such high regard that they would believe it would bring down their belief???
Your other thoughts in relation to Morning Star, think for a second what Jesus was breaching. Love and peace, and not the worship of him but of God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Medicine Woman,

In respect to a parchment being found that could 'prove' what you believe above. Who could have written it? The claim that it could bring down the established RCC. Do you believe the RCC and the people would hold either Sauniere or the author of these parchments in such high regard that they would believe it would bring down their belief??? Your other thoughts in relation to Morning Star, think for a second what Jesus was breaching. Love and peace, and not the worship of him but of God.

*************
M*W: Parchments were found. Some have been published, but others have not. My guess is whomever wrote them was someone on the 'inside' in the know. I'm sure the RCC has many ways of stifling secret information, or info that would bring a black mark against the church. As if pedophilia wasn't enough!

It's all about the bottom line. It's not about a dying demigod savior. There is no way to do an about face and believe that Jesus taught anything! I believe that's the secret of Rennes-le-Chateau -- Sauniere had some kind of proof that Jesus didn't exist. Maybe MM did, and maybe she was the savior. I don't know. Nobody knows what the secret is yet. I believe the bible is nothing more than an ancient astrological calendar, and Jesus and his apostles were nothing more than the Sun and the Signs of the Zodiac. I'm still curious about Rennes-le-Chateau, but it couldn't possibly have anything to do with a living, breathing Jesus.

 

[ajscarb]

My question reamains, which you have not answered!
You make a comment about paedophilia, and yes there have been certain individuals who have found their way into the church to exploit others, but like anyone who does not have a valid argument, you are grasping at straws.
Who could write a document to say such a thing, and have people believe it????
Your belief as you put it above appears to be based on a document that you suggest exists. The 'inside' person (who you think wrote this document) would have to have been there at the time of Christ to alledge such a thing, and be held in far greater esteem than anyone else at the time. The claim of one person's word against another does not add validity to either party, and so I pose the question:
Who do you believe the 'insider' was? What evidence could they possibly have? You mention a parchment? What was it a list of all the babies born on that day and year with a certain name missing?
You make a lot of comments without being able to substantiate anything.