One question regarding the Holy Grail that the early medieval writers asked was “who does it serve?” Well, let’s have a look at the current Grail world and see if it is serving us, or are we serving it?

Very briefly and for those among us who have been on the planet Sanity for the last few of years, the Da Vinci Code is a fiction based around a man who discovers a code that reveals the true identity of the Holy Grail to be nothing more than the very bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.

Unfortunately the author, mystery school code Dan Brown, claimed his now infamous book to be based upon real factual organisations and events. This however could not be farther from the truth.

Priory of Sion

This supposedly ancient and enigmatic group allegedly once had Leonardo da Vinci himself as a Grand Master, not to mention Nicolas Flamel and Isaac Newton. However, there is no truth in it at all. Sion was the name of a hill nearby the residences of Pierre Plantard and Gerade de Sede – two of the original creators of the Priory of Sion hoax.

The documents of the Priory secreted in the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris have been proven to be forgeries. In fact the only truthful copies of anything for Mr Plantard in the Paris Library are newsletters from the 1950’s for a rather boring housing association, homekartz complaining about the state of the streets, and even this is in extremely poor French.

All the instigators of this surrealist hoax have admitted their creation on record. On the one hand they said it was a surrealist joke and on the other a kind of egotistical ploy to be accepted by society.

Sang Real

One of the main pieces of evidence for the books about the bloodline of Christ, from Holy Blood, Holy Grail to The Templar Revelation has been the interpretation of the original term used for the Holy Grail – San Graal. In the 80’s book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent et al, we find that they interpret this differently, placing the g from graal onto the end of san, making sang real. This then translates as royal or holy blood. Mistaking a simple error by a 15th century writer – the only ever time the error was made until the 1980’s – they based an entire theory upon something that was simply not true. Sir Walter Skeat, one of the greatest etymologists England has ever created even said a hundred years ago that this error was “very early falsified” and for what ends he did not know. He pointed out that in fact the original concept meant mixing bowl, which of course relates entirely with the theory I put forward in The Serpent Grail.

Leonardo da Vinci

So, now that we know the true etymology of san graal and that the Priory of Sion never in fact existed, we should also know that Leonardo could not have been a grand master of a none existing order that protected a secret that also didn’t exist.

In fact, all the historical background and information on Leonardo reveals that he was a skilled and wonderful artist – so no great revelation there then.

However, there are those strange elements of his paintings, which the Da Vinci Code and others pick up on. Take the female looking character in the Last Supper for instance. Many have pointed to the fact that this individual looks remarkably feminine. Well, elmbrookpsych he does. Others have pointed to the Mona Lisa as being not quite feminine enough and that surely the sitter must have been a boy. Using these assumptions many have claimed that Leonardo was therefore homosexual. It is more and more amusing by the day just how far this rubber band can be stretched, before it comes hurtling back and hits somebody in the face.

So what is the truth? Is that a lady in the Last Supper? No.

There was a tradition of painting the disciple that Christ loved, John the Evangelist, as a slightly boyish individual, thereby bringing questions to the mind of many as to whether Jesus himself was gay. In fact I discovered this to be part of an ancient Gnostic tradition whereby the two Johns, John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, were two sides to the duality – male and female, positive and negative, which needed to be rejoined in-order to be complete. Therefore John the Evangelist was perceived as the feminine principle in this relation, whereas John the Baptist was the manly bearded wild figure.

It was also part of the hidden tradition of the painter’s guild of the time to include androgynous elements within their paintings for this very reason. This androgynous element is there as a symbol of the the union of opposites mentioned before, of man and woman, of male and female, of the two sides of our mind which need bringing into union once again to form the perfect human.

Did Jesus and Mary marry and have children?

To answer this one we need to break it down.

Firstly, if Jesus married Mary Magdalene then we have to admit that Jesus and Mary existed in the first place. Although we have a substantial amount of textual evidence for these biblical characters, this is due to the sheer amount of copying being carried out hundreds of years after the supposed event. We have no actual texts naming either character from the period, most of the texts date hundreds of years after.

Even if we do admit that these people were real, then we would have to admit that Jesus did walk on water, cast out demons into pigs and die and resurrect. That, or we would have another option: That the character of Jesus, just like that of Robin Hood and King Arthur, was based upon a real man somewhere and all the extra mythical and mystical elements were added into the story. Just as Robin married Marion (Mary) and Arthur married Guinevere, so too in this way – that is mythical – Jesus may have married Mary – even though there is no textual evidence for this.

Both Marion and Mary are the same and imply water and wisdom. Guinevere comes from similar roots especially as the queen of heaven, adfox which was a title for Mary the Mother of Jesus and Isis the Mother of Horus- and as many scholars have pointed out the two Mary’s may in fact be amalgamations of a much older myth.

Guinevere is also the ‘queen of serpents’ and therefore knowledge and wisdom and her name is related in etymology to Eve which means female serpent and is an indication of wisdom.

Just as the early Christian church was forming groups such as the Gnostic Ophites or serpent worshippers, raising their communion cup to the good serpent they were also splitting the threefold mother goddess – Mary – into distinct parts. First the Mother Mary, then the Sister Mary and then Mary Magdalene, a mysterious element and we shall see why.