|
|
"Inger E.(Norah)" <noninger_none.Johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FY5kh.27395$E02.11212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> When someone brought up the Da Vinci Code for discussion as well as
when
> Jesus' brother James "ossuary" was up for discussion, the first of
course
> was shown to be a fiction and the other at least indoubt being genuine
if
> not as some say directly shown to be a forgery. Now there was a time
in
> history where those two 'stories' came together more than most and
that was
> during the 12th-14th century. Documents were made on older parchments,
some
> had had older texts which were shraped away before the parchment were
used
> again. The extensive business with relics made more than one, that is
sure,
> forge relics to the extent that if we pieced together all relics from
Jesu
> Cross we would find that he must have had at least more than 20 Cross
to
> hang on. Not to mention that more than four tree species must have
have been
> used for the Cross.
>
> Background for my question below:
> * I was given Simon Cox's 'Cracking the Da Vinci Code' and if nothing
before
> in the so called Da Vinci Code discussion got me almost mad of anger
due to
> lack of correct scientistic approach,
> the next I got hold of did:
> * the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by three persons who should be
ashamed
> trying to critizies those who tell them about their mistakes from a
scholary
> view. After 48 pages I realised that no matter how bad it was written
and
> what their intentions might have been the worst of all was that they
hadn't
> done their homework.
>
> They made a hugh affair of the priest that had 'found' old documents
and
> that they had made last until page 48 (in the Swedish pocket edition)
where
> they seemed to be unaware of why a member of the Habsburg Dynasty had
paid
> the priest a large sum of money. That made it for me.
Almost everything you read about Saunière in that book is invented. That
includes the bit about the alleged money paid by a member of the
Habsburg Dynasty. Don't criticize the authors for not being aware of why
the money was paid. Criticize them for saying that money was paid by the
Habsburgs. It's not true.
> One of the most
> wellknown forgeries from Medieval Age there is not known by those who
say
> they intend to do a research. Not to mention that the best criteria
for
> artifacts, churches, graves, writings on artifacts etc they use to put
> forward their hypothesis about Jesus and Maria Magdalena dates to
17th-20th
> century :-)
>
> Now there is one other myth never discussed here in group nor in any
of the
> books dealing with the so called 'bloodline' which tells a completely
> different story. It's a story about James, Jesus brother, and Maria
> Magdalena. As one old tale compare Jesus with a Rose of Jesus' root
(Holy
> Mother Mary who bore him and feed him) and trunk/tribe (David's
House). This
> might seem odd to some to say call James Jesus brother. The Vatican
denies
> that Jesus had sibblings, but what we and they forget is that Jesus
was born
> into a Jewish tradition where the lines followed the mother - thus any
> children of Virgin Mary after giving birth to Jesus also can be called
> sibblings to Jesus. Compare this with Galatians 1:18-19 ."....only
James,
> the Lord's brother"
>
> Now to my question:
> As in many cases in history examples above show part truth and most at
best
> speculative possibilities close to fictions as well as 17th-20th
century
> documents to prove or put forward hypothesis of all kinds. What's the
worst
> forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age you
seen?
> Please observe that I ask about forgeries and forgers forging them
before
> 1500 AD.
The story of the discovery of a supposedly ancient lawbook during
repairs to the Jerusalem Temple in the reign of Josiah is quite a
spectacular case of a document made to seem older than it was.
Alan
|
|