THAT IS ANOTHER HISTORY THE DA VINCI CODE Reality or Fiction? Today I return to collaborate on the channel, this time with JJ Priego, from Historias de la Historia. On his channel, he will tell us about the life and work of the great Leonardo da Vinci in great detail. In this video, I'm going to take care of talking about the truths and lies of The Da Vinci Code. For those of you who have not read the Dan Brown novel of 2003 or the Ron Howard film of 2006, I will give you a short summary of the topic at hand. Jesus Christ existed and was married to Mary Magdalene. He wanted her to be his successor and leader of that early Christianity, but the apostle Peter seems to have had the oppressive vein of machirula and decided to take charge of the group. When the poor little Jesus was crucified, Mary had to go into exile in France, and inside her she carried their daughter, Sara. From here would come a holy lineage hidden by the Church for centuries, and which started the Merovingian Dynasty in France. This royal blood was called the Holy Grail, or Holy Grail. These descendants of Christ were protected by a group known as the Priory of Sion, and one of their members was Leonardo da Vinci, who was leaving works of art with hidden messages on this whole subject. I'm not going to analyze script holes like I do on my other channel. I am only going to focus on the historical events that are mentioned during the works. Is it all a fiction or is there some truth in Brown's work? It is a tricky issue, and many religious people once complained, because if it is proved that the Gospels are all lies, the foundations of the Church would crumble. Or perhaps the new dogma would be accepted and that's it. Who knows? Let's start by talking about the Priory of Sion. What the hell is that? "They are the protectors of the living descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene." For starters, it seems that everything to do with the Priory of Sion was a fraud. It all begins in 1956, when a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard created this organization and invented a past that never existed. He said that it was founded by a crusader knight, Godofredo de Bouillon during the 1st Crusade, who created the Order of Sion and that this would be the seed of the Priory. The Order of Zion did indeed exist, but that was an order that eventually dissolved and disappeared. Taking advantage of real events from the past, Plantard began to invent a story that he was the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, descendant of the Merovingian kings and even of Jesus Christ himself, and that he was the true heir to the throne of France. In fact, he was an anti-Semitic filonazi whose idea was to overthrow the French government of Charles de Gaulle and rise as king to purify that nation so screwed up after the Second World War. In The Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, the Priory of Sion are a group of good people who want to protect the lineage of Christ from those who want to destroy it, that is, some dark councils within the Catholic Church. Among some of its members we find Isaac Newton, Sandro Boticelli, Victor Hugo or Leonardo da Vinci. "And I also." Those that did exist really were the Knights Templar, warrior monks who fought in the Crusades with the intention of liberating Jerusalem and the Holy Land in general from the hands of the Muslims. Here I leave you the video dedicated to the Crusades. In the Da Vinci Code these Templars are said to have been the armed arm of the Priory of Sion, but it is false. The Templars were created by a crusader named Hugo de Payens, and as I have already said, the Priory never existed. And it is also said that all the Templar buildings are circular, not like the Christian cathedrals with a cruciform plan, and that this referred to some pagan symbolism, in plan as worshiping the sun. And that is false. The Templars were very Christian, and they built buildings of all shapes and sizes. And round Christian buildings there have been quite a few; I already spoke in the videos of the Art History of the Martirium, or of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, which also had that shape. And military constructions in the form of a tower also exist in fists, and after all, they were military. Okay, but ... how does all this relate to the Holy Grail? The first records of the Holy Grail begin in the Celtic folklore of Britain, and gained fame thanks to all the legend that emerged around the myth of King Arthur. All this was mixed with Christian ideas, and from there came the story that the Holy Grail is the cup from which Jesus Christ and the Apostles drank at the Last Supper. And also the cup that the uncle of the Virgin Mary, José de Arimatea, kept the blood that flowed from the crucified body of Christ. But all that arose in the High Middle Ages, not in the time of early Christianity. On the other hand, nowhere is this Holy Grail associated with the Virgin Mary, with Mary Magdalene, or with a lost offspring of Jesus Christ. It is simply a powerful and divine cup that the knights of the round table were commissioned to find. The fact is that, during the Crusades, it is said that the knights of the Order of the Temple, the Templars, found that Holy Grail under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and became rich and very powerful when they returned to France. And everything was going very well until the French King Philip IV and the Church suddenly accused them of worshiping the devil, and began to persecute them until they were finished with all of them. That arrest and persecution order took place on October 13, 1307. The Da Vinci Code says that this is where Friday the 13th comes from. That's true. From that fact, Friday the 13th became a bad omen date. In Spain and other countries it is Tuesday and 13, but well, it comes for something else that has nothing to do with it. The question is ... Why were they being persecuted? Did these Templars hide a dodgy secret for the Church ... Or did they just need to shake them off because they were almost more powerful than the King of France himself? It is not known, but I doubt very much that they would make a fortune by blackmailing the great powers of the Church. They had the support of many religious, such as Bernardo de Claraval, and it seems that they were trained first on the basis of donations from the faithful and then dedicating themselves to financial activities. But of course, with that power ... and knowing the secret of Christ ... why did they never say anything? If they were true to the Holy Grail creed ... this was the best time to tell the truth, if there was any secret truth to reveal. How long did these people plan to keep the secret? I do not see it much sense. Let us now turn to the fascinating world of the apocryphal Gospels. What is true in them? Do they exist or is it all a trolley? And if they exist ... does anyone speak of the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ? Ok, as you know, the New Testament has 4 Gospels. Luke's, Matthew's, Mark's and John's. There is more? You are right. Technically yes. It is quite a complicated matter, because any random writing of the time with a small group of followers could already be considered a gospel. Two are mentioned in The Da Vinci Code. The first is the Gospel of Philip. Now listen to this. It is from the Gospel of Philip.
- Felipe? -Yes. It was removed at the Council of Nicaea ... along with all that gospel that made Jesus appear human and not divine. This Gospel of the Apostle Philip seems not to have been written by Philip. It is called that because it is quoted, but nothing else. It was found inside a pot at the Nag Hammadi site in Egypt in 1945. More than 40 texts of Christian Gnostic scroll were found, which is the current, let's say ... more esoteric. And it is that the Gnostics arose from the second century, when the canonical Gospels were already widespread. Probably this Coptic community in Egypt took parts that they liked and discarded other parts that did not, as in the Council of Nicea but in underground catacombs. And so they developed a new doctrine. "And the companion of the savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all his disciples. And he used to kiss her ..." "But here he says nothing about marriage." It is true that in that document it is mentioned that Mary was a companion of Christ, and that he kisses her on several occasions, but that does not have to imply that they were married or were a couple. Also, many of the sentences are too ambiguous to make something clear. In short, the Gospel of Philip could not be considered a gospel because it seems that it was written much later, in the year 250 or so, and the text is not like the other Gospels. It is like a dialogue and in a completely different style. And its authorship is a mystery; could have been written by anyone. It could be a fan fiction about the life of the Yisus of some colgao. "You laugh?" The 2nd they mention is the Gospel of Mary. –And this is from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene herself.
"Did you write a gospel?"
-Could be. And more of the same happens. Mix gnostic ideas, authorship is unknown and many fragments are missing. It is called like this because Mary is mentioned, and it is not clear if it is Magdalena or another Mary. In short, Maria Magdalena is not mentioned much in either the apocryphal or the official texts. Much less that he had a loving relationship with Jesus Christ. So ... where does the idea that Mary had a child with Jesus Christ come from? All this movement became popular during the 80s of the 20th century with the publication of several books on the subject. In The Goddess of the Gospels or Holy Blood, Holy Grail, titled in Spain as The Sacred Enigma, its authors claimed that Mary Magdalene came to the south of France, to Provence, He had his daughter Sara, daughter of Jesus, and that his descendants brought the spring onion to members of the Merovingian Dynasty. And also the topic of the Priory of Sion comes up as protectors of these people. By the way, when these authors read what Dan Brown had written, they sued him for plagiarism, although he eventually won the trial. "Case closed." Did the Merovingians have the blood of Christ in their veins? Some time ago I dedicated a video to the Merovingians, above I leave you a link in case you want to see it. There you can see that there should not be much relationship between an immigrant family from Provence in 33 and these Merovingians from the Frankish tribe who arrived in Gaul around 500. Because they were not indigenous. They were Germanic tribes living further north, between the Netherlands and Germany more or less. And they did not arrive in France until the end of the 5th century. The uncles conquered Gaul after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and stayed to live there. And contrary to what is said in The Code, the Merovingians did not found Paris. They made it the capital of the Frankish Kingdom, yes, but it already existed since the Gallic tribes of the Parisii settled there hundreds of years before. And then the Romans came and called her Lutetia, but her other name remained, Civitas Parisiorium, or Paris. On the other hand, the Merovingian dynasty became extinct, and was succeeded by the Carolingian. According to the Sacred Enigma, Dan Brown and all these people, it is said that the Merovingian king Dagobert II, had a secret son by the year 670, Sigebert IV, who would be a descendant of Christ, but there is no evidence of any of that. With the fame of such conspiranoias, a History Channel program took DNA samples from peña from the Merovingian dynasty and found that they had no relationship with people from the Middle East. And being HC I hoped they would find that they had alien blood, or that they descended from Adolf Hitler even though he hadn't been born yet ... things like that, but hey. What about Emperor Constantine? Was he pagan all his life? Did you make the Christian religion the official of the Roman Empire to achieve stability? To speak of the Emperor Constantine we have to know a little about the context of the time. It was the year 306, and the Roman Empire was cracking everywhere. In those years there were up to 7 emperors at a time fighting for power. Since the appearance of Christianity, Christians had been persecuted by emperors, who were pagans, but Christianity became so widespread that it was impossible to stop. It is difficult to know if Constantine I was a pagan all his life, but during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge it seems that he had a vision and ordered his soldiers to paint on the shields the Christism symbol of Jesus Christ. "And in 325 AD he decided to unify Rome under one religion: Christianity." No. He only decreed that they stop persecuting Christians with the Edict of Milan (313). But beware, it was not made by the official religion of the Empire. This was done by Emperor Theodosius I years later with the Edict of Thessalonica (380). And then Constantine, on his deathbed, had himself baptized into Christianity by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Was it because he really believed it or was he just trying to unify an empire that was going to hell? Maybe a little of both. Winning the favor of the increasingly influential Christian group helped him consolidate his power, no doubt. But it is difficult to know if he really believed in all that. And now we are going to talk about it. Did Constantine really use the Council of Nicea to create a unique doctrine and make Mary Magdalene's followers disappear entirely and turn her into a prostitute? It was Constantine I who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 to bring together the leaders of all Christian communities, some 300 bishops, and create a unified dogma. Although it should also be noted that most of these bishops were from the eastern part of the Empire. Western Christians obeyed what the bishop of Rome, Sylvester I, said, who sweated heavily from the rest of the Christian patriarchs. He wanted to be recognized as the main bishop. He sent representatives to Nicea, yes, but he stopped going. Both in this ecumenical council and in many others there were heated debates between different Christian groups on different aspects of religion. Some religious even ended up with a clean host. It is true that many issues were debated around dogma, but Brown's novel says that Christ was a mortal prophet until the Council made him God. "Until that moment in history ... Jesus was for the majority of his followers a powerful prophet ... a great man ... But, a man after all. A mortal." And no, long before, the great majority of Christians took him as part of God the Father and later resurrected. So very deadly it couldn't be either. Most of the discussions centered on whether the Yisus was God Himself or whether Yisus was a creation of God, and was on a lower echelon of divinity, but still superior to all of us. That was basically Arianism. Many gospels and Christian texts with which to make the book of the New Testament were discarded. But there were not 80 or 200, but a few. The Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of Peter the Apostle, here I leave you a list of the apocrypha. There were also letters between random Christians, although many of dubious origin. Although the big question is ... were they discarded to hide a secret lineage of Christ with Mary Magdalene? There is no proof of this. During the aforementioned council the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were taken, in addition to the Letters of Paul, not arbitrarily ... but because they were the most widespread writings among the Christian communities by far. And many other texts were discarded because they did not have sufficient support from these groups. They just weren't very widespread or were very minority. If in the end the only ones who consider a text canonical are the same who have written it… there is little point in accepting it. Anyway, if Jesus had had a child with Mary Magdalene I think it would be known. There would be no way to hide it no matter how much Pedro managed to gain control of the movement. The others would be faithful to Christ, both apostles and other Christians, and would not allow such a coup. I do not see it much sense. Which, in addition, could be considered as a script hole in both the novel and the movie. If Peter is supposed to have eliminated Mary Magdalene and exiled her to France to impose her doctrine, what need did Constantine have to cover it all up again to impose the same doctrine again? We know of many different types of Christianism that participated in these Ecumenical Councils: Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Syriacs, Copts ... And none ever spoke of a secret son of Jesus. We only have some half-broken parchments found in Egypt that say that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene. Ultimately, Constantine did not make Mary Magdalene a prostitute. That was Pope Gregory I in 591, but because he mistakenly identified a prostitute from the Gospel of Luke with Mary Magdalene. Then the Vatican admitted the mistake in 1969. Better late than never. Does that mean that the Church is super patriarchal and wants to eliminate everything feminine as divinity? On the one hand, the ecclesiastical structure is deeply masculine. There are no female popes, no female bishops, no priestesses or anything like that. In this sense, the woman is only relegated to the role of nun and the end. Will we ever see a Mama or a pope as the leader of the Catholic Church? Because saying "the Pope" would be strange. On the other hand, the figure of the Virgin Mary as a divinity and as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven is very powerful in dogma. And Mary Magdalene was not so far repudiated, but is the patron saint of repentant sinners. In fact, especially in Orthodox Christianity, she is revered as a saint. Did the medieval Inquisition start a witch hunt to destroy a Christian female tradition? Did they kill 5 million as they say in The Da Vinci Code? Perhaps the blackest period in both the Catholic and Protestant churches was that of the Inquisition, created in the Languedoc in 1184 to persecute the Cathar heretics. Many people were condemned at the stake for not agreeing with the prevailing dogma, but there is also a lot of black legend about it, but it will be the subject of another video. It is very difficult to estimate the number of witches and witch victims of the Inquisition. 5 million is undoubtedly an exaggerated figure. Everything indicates that during the Modern Age there were about 110,000 trials, which would have produced about 60,000 executions. That they are not few, obviously, and the places where there were more were France, Switzerland and Germany mainly, in the time immediately after the Protestant Reformation. Then the book called Mallus Maleficarum is mentioned, which was written by a Dominican monk named Heinrich Kramer. And it was a book that really existed, and it was a book that even other religious people frowned upon for their bestial procedures for hunting witches, unethical and even illegal. But still, this book has absolutely nothing to do with trying to destroy the Priory of Zion or undermining Christian groups that wanted women to have a much greater role in the Church. Leonardo da Vinci belonged to the Priory of Sion? Is it true that the painting of The Last Supper has secret messages? Leonardo was a genius, of that there is no doubt. For a long time he devoted himself to painting pictures commissioned by the Catholic Church, among them the aforementioned one about the Cenita. In The Last Supper Jesus Christ and the 12 apostles appear. But wait ... Is that the Apostle John or is it ... Mary Magdalene? Things as they are, looks like a woman. However, at that time it turns out that Juan used to represent him in other Renaissance works as a young beardless man with long hairs, a little effeminate. In fact, this is Da Vinci's painting of Saint John the Baptist. And here we can see other versions of John the Apostle in other pictures about the Last Supper. "What up." “The grail has never been a cup. It is literally the ancient symbol of femininity. " It looks like there are glasses. And they are also all sitting on one side of the table. That is really weird. –Waiter, reserve only this side of the table for me, so that the picture turns out better. "But, sir." You cannot reserve only one side of the table. –I am the son of God, I can do what I want. "This is the original symbol of the masculine. As you can imagine, the symbol of the feminine is just the opposite. It is called the chalice." In Antiquity? Since when? The relationship between the triangle in the Christian religion is that of 3 faces of the same God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. –Pagan symbols of masculine and feminine ...
–Fused in one ... In Judaism it does not mean union between man and woman, but rather it expresses the relationship between the above, God, with his children, those below. Plus the 12 points that represent the 12 tribes of Israel. In short, that all are Illuminati. Nor does the Mona Lisa have secret messages from Egyptian gods as the novel says. Mona Lisa is not an anagram of Amun and Isis, who apparently had her pictograph L'isa. False. Everything indicates that the woman in the painting was a Florentine noble named Lisa Gherardini, wife of the wealthy merchant Francesco Giocondo, and Mona is a contraction of Madonna, madam. However, this painting was not titled Mona Lisa until long after da Vinci's death. Anyway, people see what they want to see, and that is called pareidolia. As I told in the History of Africa video, if you unite Africa and South America the head of a Carnotaur comes out. Does that mean that a Heavenly Carnotaur from outer space is trying to tell us something? Was Jesus Christ a Carnotaur? In summary. Are there true facts in the novel and in the movie? Yes. Is there also a lot of pseudo-history and cheap conspiracy? Too. This is good? Of course it does, a novelist can write what the fuck he wants. Is it okay to sell it as the true story? Well that's a little ugly already. Anyway. If you want to know the true story of one of the characters I have spoken about, Leonardo da Vinci, do not forget to stop by JJ's channel, Historias de la Historia. And remember that my books are already available in ...
