Platohedron : LUSENET : Aeon Flux : One Thread

I know this is gonna sound really dumb, but I just don't get the whole platohedron-creation-born-from-destruction concept thingie. Most of this has to do with the last episode, and it's all a bit foggy to me. How are Euclid's mathematical theories connected with the entire world being reborn? Plus, what's up with the entire Army of Dead vanishing just like that within in some sort of platohedron-ish shape??

-- Kaitlyn (, March 18, 2003


Sorry, i dont know either. Its quite wierd. But anyways you can add me if you want.

-- Bobby (, March 21, 2003.

Anyone else?

-- Kaitlyn (, March 25, 2003.

I have no idea, I'm watching it as I type watching for the second time trough and I have no idea.

-- Brandon (, March 28, 2003.

Ok, the platohedron is an object which is representative of the universe. In Reign the conquerer the Earth finally is envoloped inside the platohedron.... dammit im too hurt to explain this sorry dude

-- Mark (, March 28, 2003.

ok never mind ill explain it... Euclid wasn't really known for his mathamatical theories per say, but is better known for the basis of Euclidian Geometry which is what many of the basic ideas of today are established on, although some of his theories have some flaws in it. The world was destroyed and Euclid was drawing some of the geometrical patterns that we find consistant throughout all nature and for some people they believe that the very instant of creation can be described through pure geometry. But i think for you to fully understand it you would have to watch the series again or read something about time and a Michio Kaku book or something.

-- Mark (, March 28, 2003.

Uh...ok so lemme get this straight--when the platohedron became nonexistant, Euclid rebuilt everything through mathematics--geometry, mathematic solids, atoms, basic thoughts, and whatnot. So...when the world was barbaric, ruled by the Medes and Persians and all those other people, it was changed through Alexander's destruction, such as his wars and conquering. Therefore, the world was recreated from a new point of view, from mathmatics, the only form in which a world can revolve on...? Oi, so confusing.

-- Kaitlyn (, March 28, 2003.




-- Inu (, March 28, 2003.

Actually the theory behind the platohedran is involed in geometry, which is now known by some as sacred geometry. The platohedran consisted of the 5 platonic solids(there are five alone and always will be. Each solid was given a connection to an individual element acording on the mobility of both the object and the element. Earth, fire, wind, water, and the heavens. The instrument of truth that was created on samotrase island, which is the actual birthplace of pathagoras, is based on transendendial ratios such as pi and the long ignored Devine Ratio, or PHI. As for Euclic creating the new universe itself on the pavement I believe is merely symbolistic of the world that is based upon mathimatics and science that we live in today. At least that is my oppinion. Thanks for reading:)

-- Joshua Aldridge (, April 17, 2003.

Oi. Pathagoras? Dude. Pythagoras was a pretty good music theory guy, but he contributed nothing substantive to geometry -- just approximated pi worse than people two millennia before and babbled about sacred numbers. Instead of taking drug-addled speculation as mathematical fact, try to prove to yourself the theorems these people claim. You'll find the real deal, like Euclid's, are fairly simple and beautiful, and the meritless psuedo-math won't even be able to be described on paper.

-- The Querulous Qidd (, April 18, 2003.

Here's my spin on it, which is still a bit hazy. First, the platohedron contains all the knowledge of the universe. It is Everything. This is because plato placed the Earth inside it, thus making it the universe. We all know (or should know) that order arises from chaos. Now I didnt really know much about the real lives of Plato, Socrates, Pathagorus, and Euclid. But it seems as though Alexander was destined to structurally destroy the world, not physically. This old world was based on the mathematics of all those guys except Euclid. For some reason or another, it was not sound and had to be destroyed (so maybe they credited pythagorus in this series as knowing that some of his mathematics much be erradicated, since he is the one who prophecized the end of the world through Alexander). Now I'm a bit hazy as to "how" exactly Alexander did this (Just by defeating the army of the dead's king, which seemed to be himself???), but he was able to shatter the foundation of the world, of which Euclid was already working on rebuilding. That's just my speculation though and I doubt Peter Chung will ever give us what all of it "really" means, but I think he'd be happy with our discussions.

-- Marvin Carlisle (, April 18, 2003.

much = must

-- Marvin Carlisle (, April 18, 2003.

Heck, im just in love with this discussion, myself. +_+ x_x

Secret truth: I've loved to the point of feeling like I was going to have a/an heart attack. Thats no joke!

Doctor doctor... any advice?

-- Sam (, April 19, 2003.

To my mind, the Platohedron is similar in concept to the matrix -- not the technological matrix, but the matrix as described by Morpheus when he is first telling Neo what it is -- "the world pulled over your eyes." It refers to the human ability to build a mental model of our universe -- so instead of simply being active, non- conscious players, like many of the other animals we share this planet with, we also have the ability to _consider_ the world around us. This is both a blessing, and a curse. It allows us to create grand things -- but it can also become a mental prison. It was this particular version of the prison, built by Pythagoras, that Alexander managed to smash at the end of the series -- but it's followup was already being created by Euclid. We are perhaps now living in the "Euclidian Platohedron," although my sources tell me that within this lifetime, that too will be crashing down around us.

-- Nick Gold (, April 21, 2003.

Wow, what would the results be?

-- Sam (, April 23, 2003.

What about this for an idea. If much of Plato's work and world-view centered around form and matter, consider the following: what Plato understood to be "matter" per se i.e. the stuff that made up all of the universe, this is basically what we understand to be energy today -thanks Al E., so what is our modern correlation to form? My thinking is that it is mind. Thus, form and matter as we understand them a few thousand years later have merely shifted to mind and energy. When we actually have the technology and ability to effect control over energy by what our minds conceive, that is a serious leap forward. I just hope we're mature enough as a species to handle it.

-- Sully (, April 23, 2003.

Now what would possibly lead you to the conclusion that we might _not_ be mature enough? ;)

-- Nick Gold (, April 24, 2003.

Being mature is worthless, if you understood anything you could concieve the reason of being is insanity. now it the moment to laugh.

-- paralleladox (, April 24, 2003.

Being mature is worthless, if you understood anything you could concieve the reason of being is insanity. now it the moment to laugh.

-- paralleladox (, April 24, 2003.


I conceive the reason of being is to engender a state of mind conducive to learning and experiencing--insanity, too, is a state of of mind which one can learn from, although perhaps not in the most obvious of visibilities.

I ask you this: why would the conception of being be insanity?


-- T.Q. Fishe (, May 01, 2003.

Expand and collapse and so forth?

-- Sam (, May 01, 2003.

I think the answer to our collective maturity could ironically be answered with a line from the movie Jurassic Park when the chaos mathematician said "just because you can doesn't mean you should!"

-- DDAY (, May 07, 2003.

but where is the fun in that 8^)

-- DDAY (, May 07, 2003.

sorry but my english isnt very good but i know what the Platohedron is but i cant really explain in english all by my self so maybe one of you can im me and i can maybe explain

-- Christos (, May 08, 2003.


-- orgon6 (, May 17, 2003.

Lets first label insanity as not loss of mind, but rather distance from society. Plato wrote on both the physical and mental realities. The realm of ideas is based on the "Prime Mover" according to Aristotle. Thus establishing a connection between matter and mind. Aristotle also defines Truth as that which has been unconceled. If society, as we know it, lacks answers to obvious questions, then such society is self devolving; it lacks truth. If society, our world, curently lacks truth, then it is based on chaotic ground. If chaos does lead to structure, then perhaps the world is on the verge of rebirth. If such rebirth is distinctivly distant from society today, then insanity may be its name. Lets not forget "The Alagory of the Cave".

-- J Man (, May 21, 2003.

Can someone explain when he finds him self at the end of the world.. guessing he met with the devil... does he fight the devil or what? this show is based on historic fact BUT its placed in a much more tech advanced future... could this show be more on future happenings with someone like alexzander the great... i really think they should have ended it better because after he conquered india he also fought others.... before he dead and his horse dead....

-- dj (, May 31, 2003.

First, allow me to say that Reign The Conqueror is a joy to watch. I see a similarity between the Platohedron and the Square and Compass of Freemasonry. Both appear to be an effort to represent the Moral Order of the Universe in terms of Geometry. The rise of Alexander represents a threat to the Established Order, and so, he is seen by the Magi, (Webster: members of a priestly caste of ancient Media and Persia), as "The One Who Would Destroy the World." In an effort to maintain their own interest in the established Order, the Magi seek to kill Alexander before he meets Darius III of Persia in battle.

-- Carson C. Smith, FSA Scot (, June 26, 2003.

ok in miss spell words and i suck at math but i think i get the end of reign. ok here i go you when alex "destroyd the world" he didnt destroy it persay every thing go boom or well we would be dead but he simply paved the way for new ideas maybe even a new platowhatumayhusit made by new mathmatitionsand if you look closely in the show before the big battle they show euclid playing with the platowhatyoumaycall it shape thats just my take on the idea but hey in real life alex had short hair and didnt where a thung but he did value speed when he was a child he would only race nobalty and he would often win.

-- gregori louis (, July 02, 2003.

You should read the works of Joseph Campbell. Alexander was the epitome of man into myth concept that dominated Joe's work. A passionate man that would die for his fellow man and kill his fellow man just as readily. Life feeds on life. The serpent that swallows his own tail. Pairs of opposites like the fluidity of the movement of the serpent to the ever darting fiery tongue of it. Math, like the language of myth, is just a representation of the world put into terms humans can relate. Check out cabalistic theory or the film Pii to catch a glimpse of the two as one. A perfect circle would destroy the universe. Pii will always be a spiral for you and me. The one becomes the two; the two becomes the three and for those many to become one again would be to refuse life and death. 1:4:9 these numbers hold the mysteries of the universe just as a flower contains untold dimensions of being. I hope you give some thought into these words that have all been written before by untold brothers and sisters. All things are Buddha things. The music of the spheres will always be...

-- Shaun Carter (, September 11, 2003.

you ever seen the Hellraisor movies, or Cube the new one. The 4th dimentianal cube from it and the platohydron I think are linked. I forgot its name but the cube has something to do with eternity and dimentions. Also look up the Masons, Alexander himself was a mason, and the eyes on his sholders were the all seeing eye. There are modern masons called the Freemasons, but I think they are a pompas political and far less sofisticated version. I think the old ways are still around some where but they dont like their pressance being known as much. Eh there is just to much and the more you figure out the less you know.

-- leland gillis (, November 17, 2003.

well what i think of the platohedan is that its all true well most of you probobly dont understand but im just so into the whole Alexander the great thing you know and plato direas of the persan empier Alexander the great was the king of babolon the babolonean empier and he had struck the world with his great tactics and oh so powerfull army he had the world ha i dont expect you to under stand!!!!

-- Stacy Littronis Peswall Linne Ayers (, November 20, 2003.

One of Plato's theory is that of the proof of life. It is part of the three proofs which states that in order for there to be creation there must be death. In other words opposites derive from opposites. Death from life and life from death. It is cyclical. Reading some of Plato's and Socrate's theories on life clears up a lot of the ocnfusion.

-- (, November 26, 2003.

the truth to many of the questions people look for, for so long are all found in simplicity, there are many paths to truths in questions but as many of you may find it is always the simple thinking that leads you to where you want to go. after gaining so much knowledge on a subject you lose or forget the base of the truth you are looking for. all can be found in the beggining because the beggining is the end, many people beliive that the universe does not have an end because you mereley cannot concieve it, but in fact it can be concieved because everything has a beggining therefore the end to the universe does not lie trillions of miles away, the end is mereley the beggining and that is where u find your answer. just like the concept that there must be death in order for life and life in order for death. so do not be fooled by the puzzles made by man, simply find the beggining and the answer will be there, how you get to the begginin? you dont. you understand it

-- paul esquivel (, December 04, 2003.

In order to understand this whole series you kinda need the idea of a thermoplastic reality. In greek mythology the universe was in a state of unformed chaos which was ruled over by morpheus(the god of dreams) who was neither part of or seperate from the chaos. Eventually a creator god came out of the chaos and through his WILL created the beginning of the universe . this universe has rules but is still essentially formed out of chaos and is surronded by chaos. By traveling to the edge of the world as it was and forcing his will on "the beyond" Alexander allowed the world which didnt extended past the land of the hindus to change and encompass more then previously. Realisticly, alexander is really a pawn of fate, he doesnt even really understand his purpose until after the universe has been remade and sees euclid who could be seen as either creating the new rules of the universe or an extension of the universe creating itself. It also interesting to point out that Alexander is also conceived by chaos to create more "order" from chaos and that in this world view its entirely possible that the greeks and macedonians didnt come in to existence until after someone else discovered the edge of the world. oh yeah, euclidean geometry has been proven to be only one possible geometry by several mathmaticians including Rieman whos geometry of curved surfaces allowed Einstein to create his general theory of reletavity about a hundred years ago and smashes through the classical framework the human brain has created in order to function withen the gravity well of planet earth.

-- mark welch (, March 24, 2004.

Indeed, it was this very rule which Jesus's own parents (Joseph and Mary) had themselves broken. And this was the reason why the Jews were split in opinion as to whether Jesus was, in fact, their true Messiah. When a dynastic child was conceived at the wrong time of year, the mother was generally placed in monastic custody for the birth so as to avoid public embarrassment. This was called being 'put away privily' and Matthew states quite plainly that, when Mary's pregnancy was discovered, 'Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily'.

In this instance, special dispensation for the birth was granted by the angelic priest Simeon who, at that time, held the distinction of 'Gabriel', being the archangel in charge. The Dead Sea Scrolls detail that the archangels (or chief ambassadors) were the senior priests at Qumrân who retained the traditional Old Testament titles of Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Sariel, etc. In the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, however, the rules of wedlock had been obeyed to the letter, and their first child was properly conceived in December AD 32, to be born in September AD 33.

From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated - for six years if the child was a boy and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at the designated 'time of restitution'. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent and the father would enter the 'kingdom of heaven'. This kingdom was actually the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed Leader of the Pilgrims. In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly Leader of the Pilgrims was designated with the title 'Cloud'.

So, if we now read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the Leader of the Pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the time of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).

If we now look at St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail. Paul actually tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven when he actually had no entitlement to such a sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah - a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the line of Aaron and Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and that 'for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law'. As a result of this express change of the law, it is explained that Jesus was enabled to enter the kingdom of heaven in the priestly Order of Melchizedek.

In September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven. There is no reference to this child being a son (as there is for the two subsequent births) and, given that Jesus returned three years later (in AD 36), we know that Mary must have had a daughter on this occasion.

By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44. The period from the first of these two births to the second restitution in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. This fact is also conveyed by the use of cryptic wording - the same cryptic wording afforded to the AD 44 child - so we know that this third child was also a son.

In accordance with the scribal codes interpreted from the Dead Sea Scrolls, everything cryptic within the New Testament is set up beforehand by some other entry which explains that the inherent message is 'for those with ears to hear'. Once these codes and allegories are understood, they never ever vary. As Dr Thiering has pointed out, they mean the same thing every time they are used, and they are used every time that same meaning is required. For example, the Gospel of John explains that Jesus was called the 'Word of God': 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us'. John goes to great lengths to explain the relevance of this definition and subsequent entries give details such as 'the Word of God stood by the lake' and 'the Word of God was in Samaria'.

Messages conveying information about fertility and new life are established in the Parable of the Sower, whose seed 'bore fruit and increased'. Thus,when it is said that 'the Word of God increased', those 'with ears to hear' would recognise at once that Jesus increased - that is to say, he had a son. There are two such entries in the Acts, and they fall precisely on cue in AD 37 and AD 44.

Probably the most misrepresented book of the New Testament is the book of The Revelation of St John the Divine - misrepresented by the Church, that is, not by the book itself. This book is quite unlike any other in the Bible. It is dubbed with terrible supernatural overtones and its straightforward imagery has been savagely corrupted by the Church to present the text as some form of foreboding or prophecy of warning. But the book is not called The Prophecy or The Warning'; it is called The Revelation.

So, what does the book reveal? Chronologically, its story follows the Acts of the Apostles and the book of The Revelation is, in fact, the continuing story of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their sons - particularly the elder son, Jesus Justus. It follows his life and details his marriage, along with the birth of his own son. This much misunderstood New Testament book is not a foreboding or a warning as the fearful Church would have us believe. It is precisely what it says it is: a revelation.

As we saw earlier, ordained priests of the era were called 'fishers'; their helpers were called 'fishermen' and baptismal candidates were called 'fishes'. Jesus became an ordained fisher when he entered the Kingdom of Heaven, but until that time (as explained by St Paul) he held no priestly office. In the rite of ordination, the officiating Levite priests of the Sanctuary would administer five loaves of bread and two fish to the candidates, but the law was very firm in that such candidates had to be circumcised Jews. Gentiles and uncircumcised Samaritans were on no account afforded any such privilege. Indeed, it was this particular custom which Jesus had flouted at the so-called Feeding of the Five-thousand, when he presumed entitlement to his own liberal ministry by offering the loaves and fish to an unsanctified gathering.

Apart from eventually becoming a fisher, Jesus was also referred to as the Christ - a Greek definition (from Khristos) which meant the King. In saying the name Jesus Christ, we are actually saying King Jesus, and his kingly heritage was of the Royal House of Judah (the House of David), as mentioned numerous times in the Gospels and in the Epistles of St Paul.

From AD 33, therefore, Jesus emerged with the dual status of a Priest Christ or, as is more commonly cited in Grail lore, a Fisher King. This definition, as we shall see, was to become the hereditary and dynastic office of Jesus's heirs, and the succeeding Fisher Kings were paramount in the continuing Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled (by arrangement with King Herod-Agrippa II) to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).

From the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary's flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in France, especially in Provence and the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy - until her story was suppressed by the Vatican.

Mary Magdalene's exile is related in the book of The Revelation, which describes that she was pregnant at the time. It tells also of how the Roman authorities subsequently persecuted Mary, her son and his heirs: 'And she, being with child, cried and pained to be delivered. And behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and seven crowns stood before the woman for to devour her child. And she brought forth a man-child. And the woman fled into the wilderness. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war forever with the remnant of her seed - which have the testimony of Jesus Christ'.

It was to Gaul that Mary was said to have carried the Sangréal (the Blood Royal: the Holy Grail), and it was in Gaul that the famous line of Jesus and Mary's immediate descendant heirs, the Fisher Kings, flourished for 300 years. The eternal motto of the Fisher Kings was 'In Strength' - inspired by the name of their ancestor, Boaz (the great-grandfather of King David), whose name similarly meant 'In Strength'. When translated into Latin, this became In Fortis, which was subsequently corrupted to Anfortas, the name of the key Fisher King in Grail romance.

We can now return to the Grail's traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500 BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the Sacred Vessel - the vas uterus: the womb.

And so, when fleeing into France, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal in the sacred chalice of her womb - just as the book of The Revelation explains. And the name of this second son was Joseph.

The equivalent traditional symbol of the male was a blade or a horn, usually represented by a sword or a unicorn. In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon and in the Psalms of David, the fertile unicorn is associated with the kingly line of Judah - and it was for this very reason that the Cathars of Provence used the mystical beast to symbolise the Grail bloodline.

Mary Magdalene died in Provence in AD 63 and, in that very year, Joseph of Arimathea built the famous chapel at Glastonbury in England as a memorial to the Messianic Queen. This was the first above-ground Christian chapel in the world, and in the following year Mary's son Jesus Justus dedicated it to his mother. Jesus the younger had previously been to England with Joseph of Arimathea at the age of twelve, in AD 49. It was this event which inspired William Blake's famous song Jerusalem: 'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green'.

But who was Joseph of Arimathea - the man who assumed full control of affairs at the Crucifixion? And why was it that Jesus's mother, his wife and the rest of the family accepted Joseph's intervention without question?

As late as the year 900, the Byzantine Church (which had split from the Church of Rome) decided to announce that Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of Jesus's mother Mary. And from that time, portrayals of Joseph have shown him as being rather elderly at the Crucifixion, when Mother Mary was herself in her fifties. Prior to the Church announcement, however, the historical records of Joseph depicted a much younger man. He was recorded to have died at the age of 80 on 27 July AD 82, and would therefore have been aged 32 at the time of the Crucifixion.

In fact, Joseph of Arimathea was none other than Jesus Christ's own brother James, and his title had nothing whatever to with a place- name. In fact (like Nazareth), the place later dubbed Arimathea never existed in those times. It therefore comes as no surprise that Joseph negotiated with Pilate to place Jesus in his own family tomb.

The hereditary 'Arimathea' title was an English corruption of the Graeco-Hebrew style ha-Rama-Theo, meaning 'of the Divine Highness', or 'Royal Highness' as we use the term today. Since Jesus was the senior Messianic heir (the Christ, or King), then his younger brother was the Crown Prince - the Divine (Royal) Highness, Rama-Theo. In the Nazarene hierarchy, the Crown Prince always held the patriarchal title of 'Joseph' - just as Jesus was a titular 'David' and his wife was a conventual 'Mary'.

In the early 5th century, Jesus and Mary's descendent Fisher Kings became united by marriage to the Sicambrian Franks, and from them emerged a whole new reigning dynasty. They were the noted Merovingian Kings who founded the French monarchy and introduced the well-known fleur-de-lys (the ancient gladiolus symbol of circumcision) as the royal emblem of France.

From the Merovingian succession, another strain of the family established a wholly independent Jewish kingdom in southern France: the kingdom of Septimania, which we now know as Languedoc. Also, the early princes of Toulouse, Aquitaine and Provence were all descended in the Messianic bloodline. Septimania was specifically granted to the Royal House of David in 768, and Prince Bernard of Septimania later married a daughter of Emperor Charlemagne.

Also from the Fisher Kings came another important parallel line of succession in Gaul. Whereas the Merovingian Kings continued the patrilinear heritage of Jesus, this other line perpetuated the matrilinear heritage of Mary Magdalene. They were the dynastic Queens of Avallon in Burgundy: the House del Acqs - meaning 'of the waters', a style granted to Mary Magdalene in the early days when she voyaged on the sea to Provence.

Those familiar with Arthurian and Grail lore will by now have recognised the ultimate significance of this Messianic family: the Fisher Kings, the Queens of Avallon and the House del Acqs (corrupted in Arthurian romance to du Lac).

The descendant heirs of Jesus posed an enormous threat to the Roman High Church because they were the dynastic leaders of the true Nazarene Church. In real terms, the Roman Church should never have existed at all, for it was no more than a strategically designed hybrid movement comprised of various pagan doctrines attached to a fundamentally Judaeo-Christian base.

Jesus was born in 7 BC and his birthday was on the equivalent of 1 March, with an official royal birthday on 15 September to comply with dynastic regulation and the month of Atonement. But, when establishing the Roman Church in the 4th century, Emperor Constantine ignored both of these dates and supplemented 25 December as the new Christ's Mass Day - to coincide with the pagan Sun Festival with which his Imperial subjects were familiar. Later, at the Synod of Whitby held in England in 664, the bishops also expropriated the Celtic festival of Easter (Eostre), the Goddess of Spring and Fertility, and attached a wholly new Christian significance by aligning it with the Resurrection of Jesus. In so doing, they actually changed the date of the old festival to sever its traditional association with the Jewish Passover.

Hence, today's two main Christian festivals (Christmas and Easter) are spurious Roman inventions and, historically, they have nothing whatever to do with Jesus. Christianity, as we know it, has evolved as a composite religion quite unlike any other. If Jesus was its living catalyst, then Christianity should rightly be based on the teachings of Jesus himself - the moral and social codes of a fair- minded, tolerant ministry, with the people as its benefactors. But orthodox Christianity ('churchianity') is not based on the teachings of Jesus: it centres upon the teachings of the bishops, which are entirely different.

There are a number of reasons for this, the foremost of which is that Jesus was deliberately sidestepped in favour of the alternative teachings of Peter and Paul: teachings which were thoroughly denounced by the Nazarene Church of Jesus and his brother James - teachings which the Nazarenes called 'the faith of fools'.

Only by removing Jesus from the front-line could the popes and cardinals reign supreme. When formally instituting Christianity as the State religion of Rome, Constantine declared that he alone was the true Saviour Messiah - not Jesus! As for the Bishops of Rome (the popes), they were granted a fabricated Apostolic descent from St Peter, since the legitimate Messianic descent from Jesus and his brothers was retained within the parallel Nazarene Church.

The only way for the Roman Church to restrain the heirs of Mary Magdalene was to discredit Mary herself and to deny her bridal relationship with Jesus. But what of Jesus's brother James? He too had heirs, as did their other brothers, Simon, Joses and Jude. For all its effort to forge a new scriptural history, the Church could not escape the Gospels, which state quite clearly that Jesus was the Blessed Mary's 'firstborn son', and so Mary's own motherhood also had to be repressed.

As a result, the bishops portrayed Mother Mary as a virgin and Mary Magdalene as a whore - neither of which description was mentioned in any original Gospel. Then, just to cement Mother Mary's position outside the natural domain, her own mother, Anna, was eventually said to have borne her daughter by way of immaculate conception!

Over the course of time, these contrived doctrines have had widespread effect. But in the early days it took rather more to cement the ideas because the original women of the Nazarene mission had a significant following in the Celtic Church. These included Mary Magdalene, Martha, Mary-Jacob Cleophas and Helena-Salome, each of whom had run schools and social missions throughout the Mediterranean world. These women had all been disciples of Jesus and close friends of his mother, accompanying her to the Crucifixion, as confirmed in the Gospels.

In the face of such records, the Church's only salvation was to denigrate women altogether; to deny them not only rights to ecclesiastical office, but to deny them rights to any status in society. Hence, the Church declared that women were all heretics and sorceresses!

In this, the bishops were aided by the words of Peter and Paul, and on the basis of their teachings the Roman Church was enabled to become wholly sexist. In his first Epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote: 'I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp any authority over the man, but to be in silence'. In the Gospel of Philip, Peter is quoted as saying that 'Women are not worthy of life'. The bishops even quoted the words of Genesis, wherein God apparently spoke to Eve about Adam, saying 'He shall rule over thee'.

The Church Father Tertullian summed up the whole Roman attitude when writing about the emergent disciples of Mary Magdalene: 'These heretical woman! How dare they! They are brazen enough to teach, to engage in argument, to baptise. It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church, nor to claim a share in any masculine function - least of all in priestly office'.

Then, to cap it all, came the Roman Church's most amazing document, The Apostolic Order. This was compiled as an imaginary conversation between the apostles after the Last Supper. Contrary to the Gospels, it supposed that Mary Magdalene had been present at the event, and it was agreed that the reason why Jesus had not passed any wine to Mary at the table was because he had seen her laughing! On the basis of this extraordinary, fictitious document, the bishops ruled that, even though Mary might have been a close companion of Jesus, women were not to be afforded any place within the Church because they were not serious! But why has this sexist attitude persisted within the Church to the present day? Because Mary Magdalene had to be discredited and removed from the reckoning so that her heirs could be ignored.

Notwithstanding the avid sexist movement, the Messianic heirs retained their social positions outside the Roman Church establishment. They progressed their own Nazarene and Celtic Church movements and founded Desposynic (Heirs of the Lord) kingdoms in Britain and Europe. They were a constant threat to the Roman High Church and to the figurehead monarchs and governments empowered by that Church. In fact, they were the very reason for the brutal Catholic Inquisition because they upheld a moral and social code which was contrary to High Church requirement.

This was especially apparent during the Age of Chivalry, which embraced a respect for womanhood, as exemplified by the Knights Templars whose constitutional oath supported a veneration of the Grail Mother, Queen Mary Magdalene.

Prior to the Middle Ages, the individual stories of the Grail family were historically well known, but when the Church began its reign of fanatical persecution, the whole Nazarene and Desposynic heritage was forced underground. But why did the vengeful persecutions begin at that particular time? Because the Knights Templars had not only returned from the Holy Land with documents that undermined the Church's teachings, they also established their own Cistercian churches in opposition to Rome. These were, however, not just any churches - they were the greatest religious monuments ever to grace the skylines of the western world: the Notre Dame cathedrals of France.

Despite their present-day image, these impressive Gothic cathedrals had nothing whatever to do with the established Christian Church. They were funded and built by the Knights Templars in collaboration with their Cistercian allies, and they were dedicated to Mary Magdalene - Notre Dame (Our Lady) - whom they called 'the Grail of the world'.

This, of course, defeated every dogma that the High Church had encouraged, and the bishops retaliated by re-dedicating numerous other churches to Mary, the mother of Jesus. But, in so doing, they made a strict decree that all artistic portrayals of Mother Mary (the Madonna) must henceforth show her dressed in 'blue and white only' - so as not to grant her any rights to ecclesiastical office in the male-only priesthood.

Mary Magdalene, on the other hand, was being portrayed by the world's greatest artists wearing the red mantle of cardinal status, the black robe of a Nazarite High Priestess, or the green cloak of fertility, and there was nothing the Church could do about it. The bishops' only option was to proclaim the practice sinful and heretical because, in having previously elected to ignore Mary Magdalene and her heirs, she was for all practical purposes outside their jurisdiction.

It was at that time that Grail lore was itself denounced as a heresy by the Vatican. The 6th-century prophesies of Merlin were expressly banned by the Ecumenical Council, and the original Nazarene Church of Jesus became an underground stream, aided by such notable sponsors as Leonardo da Vinci and Sandro Botticelli. In those days, the Church policed and controlled most literature in the public domain and so, in order to avoid outright censorship, the Grail tradition became allegorical and its message was communicated by way of secret watermarks, esoteric writings, Tarot cards and symbolic artwork.

But why should Grail lore and the prophesies of Merlin have posed such a problem for the Roman Church? Because, within the context of their adventurous texts, they told the descendant story of the Grail bloodline - a bloodline which had been ousted from its dynastic position by the Bishops of Rome who had elected to reign supreme by way of a contrived apostolic succession.

This succession was said to have been handed down from the first bishop, St Peter (indeed, this is still the promoted view), but one only has to consult the Church's own Apostolic Constitutions to discover that this is simply not true. Peter was never a Bishop of Rome - nor of anywhere else for that matter! The Vatican's Constitutions record that the first Bishop of Rome was Prince Linus of Britain (the son of Caractacus the Pendragon), who was installed by St Paul in AD 58, during Peter's own lifetime.

From the 1100s, the powerful Knights Templars and their cathedrals posed an enormous threat to the male-only Church by bringing the heritage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to the fore in the public domain. The cardinals knew that their whole establishment would tumble if the Messianic descendants gained the upper hand. They had to be crushed - and so the brutal Inquisition was implemented: a hideous persecution of all who dissented from the rule of the bishops.

It all began in 1209, when Pope Innocent III sent 30,000 soldiers into the Languedoc region of southern France. This was the home of the Cathars (the Pure Ones), who were said to be the guardians of a great and sacred treasure -a mysterious secret which could overturn orthodox Christianity. The Pope's so-called Albigensian Crusade lasted for thirty-six years, during which time tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered - but the treasure was never found. In 1231, the main thrust of the Inquisition (or Holy Office as it was called) was instituted by Pope Gregory IX during the course of the Languedoc massacre, and it was set against anyone who supported the Grail heresy. By 1252 the torture of victims was formally authorised, along with execution by burning.

Heresy was a wonderful charge to level against captives, because only the Church could define it. The victims were tortured until they confessed and, having confessed, they were executed. If they did not confess, then the torture continued until they died anyway.

One recorded form of torture was to spread the victim with fat, and then to roast him alive (upwards from the feet) over an open fire. These savage persecutions and tortures were openly waged for more than 400 years, to be extended against Jews, Muslims and Protestant dissenters. But the Catholic Inquisition was never formally terminated. As recently as 1965 it was renamed the Sacred Congregation and its powers are theoretically still in force today.

Undaunted by the Inquisition, the Nazarene movement pursued its own course, and the story of the bloodline was perpetuated in literature such as the Grand Saint Grail and the High History of the Holy Grail. These writings were largely sponsored by the Grail courts of France (the courts of Champagne, Anjou and others) and also by the Knights Templars and the Desposyni. In the course of this, Arthurian romance became a popular vehicle for the Grail tradition. Consequently, the Templars became a specific target of the Inquisition in 1307, when the henchmen of Pope Clement V and King Philip IV of France were set in their direction. The papal armies scoured Europe for the Templar documents and treasure but, like the Cathar inheritance, nothing was found. Nevertheless, many Knights were tortured and executed in the process.

In all this, however, the Templar hoard was not lost and, while the Vatican emissaries were searching, the treasure and documents were locked away in the Chapter House Treasury vaults of Paris. They were under the protection of the Templar Grand Knights - those styled the Guardian Princes of the Royal Secret - who loaded the hoard one night onto 18 galleys of the Templar fleet at La Rochelle. By daybreak, the ships had set sail for various destinations - notably Portugal and Scotland. The latter were welcomed, upon their arrival, by King Robert the Bruce who, along with the whole Scottish nation, had been excommunicated by the Pope for challenging the Catholic King Edward of England. The Templars and their treasure remained in Scotland, and the Knights fought with Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314 to regain Scotland's independence from Plantagenet England.

Subsequent to the Battle of Bannockburn, Bruce and the Guardian Princes founded the new Order of the Elder Brothers of the Rosy Cross in 1317 - from which time the Kings of Scots became hereditary Grand Masters, with each successive Stewart King holding the honoured title of Prince Saint Germain.

But, why was it that King Arthur, a Celtic commander of the 6th century, was so important to the Knights Templars and the Grail courts of Europe? Quite simply, because Arthur had been unique, with a dual heritage in the Messianic line. King Arthur was by no means mythical, as many have supposed, but he has generally been looked for in the wrong places. Researchers, misguided by the fictional locations of the romances, have searched in vain through the chronicles of Brittany, Wales and the West of England. But the details of Arthur are to be found in the Scots' and Irish annals. He was indeed the High King of the Celtic Isle and was the sovereign commander of the British troops in the late 6th century.

Arthur was born in 559 and died in battle in 603. His mother was Ygerna del Acqs, the daughter of Queen Viviane of Avallon, in descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. His father was High King Aedān of Dalriada (the Western Highlands of Scotland, now called Argyll), and Aedān was the British Pendragon (Head Dragon or King of Kings) in descent from Jesus's brother James. It is for this reason that the stories of Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea are so closely entwined in the Grail romances. Indeed, the coronation records of Scotland's King Kenneth MacAlpin (a descendant of Aedān the Pendragon) specifically refer to his own descent from the dynastic Queens of Avallon. King Aedān's paternal legacy emerged through the most ancient House of Camu-lot (England's Royal Court of Colchester) in a line from the first appointed Pendragon, King Cymbeline, who is well-known to students of Shakespeare.

By the 6th century, Messianic descendants had founded Desposynic kingdoms in Wales and across the Strathclyde and Cambrian regions of Britain. Arthur's father, King Aedān of Scots, was the first British monarch to be installed by priestly ordination when he was anointed by Saint Columba of the Celtic Church in 574. This, of course, infuriated the Roman bishops because they claimed the sole right to appoint kings who, according to them, were supposed to be crowned by the Pope!

As a direct result of this coronation, Saint Augustine was eventually sent from Rome to dismantle the Celtic Church when St Columba died in 597. He proclaimed himself Archbishop of Canterbury three years later, but his overall mission failed and the Nazarene tradition persisted in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and across the breadth of northern England.

An important fact to remember is that the Grail dynasts were never territorial governors of lands. Like Jesus himself, they were designated guardians of the people. The Merovingians in Gaul, for example, were Kings of the Franks - never Kings of France. King Aedān, Robert the Bruce and their Stewart successors were Kings of the Scots - never Kings of Scotland. It was this implicitly social concept which the High Church found so difficult to overcome, for the bishops preferred to have dominion over territorial kings who were authorized by the Pope. Only by maintaining ultimate spiritual control over individuals could the Church reign supreme, and so whenever a Grail dynast came to the fore he was met by the wrath of the papal machine.

In 751 the bishops managed to depose the Merovingian succession in Gaul, and they established a new tradition whereby kings of the Carolingian succession (that of Charlemagne) had to be approved and crowned by the Pope. But the Church could never topple the Desposynic lines in Scotland, even though the old Celtic kingdoms of England had been dismantled by Germanic Anglo-Saxons from the 6th century.

Even into the Middle Ages - long after the Norman Conquest of England - the Nazarene Church and the long prevailing cult of Mary Magdalene were prominent in Europe. Women's rights of equality were upheld throughout the Celtic structure, and this was an enormous problem for the male-only priesthood of orthodox 'churchianity'.

The underlying principle of the Grail monarchs was always one of Service, in accordance with the Messianic code. Hence, they were kings and common fathers of their realms, but they were never rulers. This key aspect of the Grail Code was perpetuated at the very heart of nursery tale and folklore. Never did a valiant cardinal or bishop ride to the aid of an oppressed subject or a damsel in distress, for this has always been the social realm of Grail princes and their appointed knights.

The Grail Code recognises advancement by merit and acknowledges community structure, but above all it is entirely democratic. Whether apprehended in its physical or spiritual dimension, the Grail belongs to leaders and followers alike. It also belongs to the land and the environment, requiring that all should be as one in a mutually unified Service.

Throughout the ages, parliaments and governments have had as much trouble as the Church in confronting the Messianic social code, and the position is no different today. Presidents and prime ministers are elected by the people. They are supposed to represent the people - but do they? In actual fact, they do not. They are always affiliated to a political party and they achieve their positions by way of majority party vote. But not everybody takes the trouble to vote and sometimes there are more than two parties to vote for. Consequently, at any given time, more than half the people of a nation may not be represented by the political party in power. In this regard, even though a majority vote has been applied, the democratic principle fails. What emerges is not 'government BY the people FOR the people', but 'government OF the people'.

Jesus confronted a very similar situation in the 1st century. At that time, Jerusalem and Judaea were under Roman occupation, with King Herod and the Governor, Pontius Pilate, both appointed by Rome. But who represented the people? The people were not Romans; they were Holy Land Jews: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the like. Apart from that, there were large numbers of Samaritans and Gentiles (non- Jews; the Arab races). Who represented them? The answer is 'no one' - until Jesus made it his mission to do so. This was the beginning of the Grail code of non-affiliated princely service: a code perpetuated by the Messianic dynasts in their continuing role as people's guardians. The Grail code is based on the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality, and it was particularly apparent in the American and French Revolutions, both of which discarded the lordship of despotic aristocracy. But what has replaced it? It has been replaced by party politics and largely non-representative government.

Many people have asked me why the hitherto suppressed information in Bloodline of the Holy Grail is coming to light at this particular time. The fact is that the information has never been suppressed by those whom it concerns. It has been suppressed by outside power- seekers who have sought to serve their own interests, rather than serve the communities they are supposed to represent. Today, however, we are in a new age of questing as many people grow more disillusioned with the establishment dogmas that prevail. We live in an age of satellite communications, sound-barrier travel, computers and the Internet - so the world is effectively much smaller than before. In such an environment, news travels very quickly and the truth is far more difficult to restrain.

Also, the very fabric of the male-dominated Church and governmental structures is being questioned, and it is generally perceived that the old doctrines of spiritual control and territorial management are not working. More and more people are searching for the original, uncluttered roots of their faith and for their purpose in society. They are seeking more effective forms of administration to combat the all too apparent slide into social and moral decline. They are, in fact, questing for the Holy Grail. This quest for new enlightenment is considerably heightened by the coming new millennium and there is a widespread feeling that this should also present a new Renaissance: an era of rebirth wherein the precepts of the Grail Code are acknowledged and practised - the precepts of liberty, fraternity and equality. Indeed, Grail lore spells out loud and clear that the wound of the Fisher King must first be healed if the wasteland is to return to fertility.

| Back to Page One |

-- Ashley Blue (, March 27, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ