holy grail, does it exist?

DrJones56

IndyFan
thegreatimposter said:
PS - the Ark DID do damage to others, 'cause they didn't know how to carry it, remember?

I'm not saying it didn't have powers, no no no, I'm saying AFTER Jesus died, it left, but beforehand, it was one badass box. :D
 
Cite? Reference?

thegreatimposter said:
If you found an object, or was "given" an object that could destroy city walls, or wipe out whole armies, would YOU leave it lying around for others? Or would you hide it? Hence the Indy movies.

PS - the Ark DID do damage to others, 'cause they didn't know how to carry it, remember?

Where are you getting this from? The Bible or an Indiana Jones book?
 

bob

New member
The whole concept of the Indy type relics actually existing and having powers are very, very silly; for two reasons.

1. A complete lack of historical evidence for these 'super relics' supposed powers, there is no need to explain them as they are just very dodgy myth and legend.
2. I really have objections from a theological point of view even though i am an athiest, i cannot imagine an omnipotent begin leaving ultra holy (TM) artifacts lying around the world. Also these artifacts being in some way passive objects like a gun that functions like a machine.
 

DrJones56

IndyFan
bob said:
The whole concept of the Indy type relics actually existing and having powers are very, very silly; for two reasons.

1. A complete lack of historical evidence for these 'super relics' supposed powers, there is no need to explain them as they are just very dodgy myth and legend.
2. I really have objections from a theological point of view even though i am an athiest, i cannot imagine an omnipotent begin leaving ultra holy (TM) artifacts lying around the world. Also these artifacts being in some way passive objects like a gun that functions like a machine.
You're an atheist, you don't believe. Christianity along with Judaism are based on faith, therefore we don't need proof, we just believe, like it or not.

I respect your opinion, and in some ways you're right, but then again, you're not coming from the same perspective as me. You only believe what you see, that's alright, but in any case, I would call it silly, just not proof.

But, hypothetically speaking, let's say a HUGE archaeological dig were to take place in Jerusalem and they were to find the ark and they could prove without a doubt that it was the 'One True Ark', what would you think then?

Just curious :)
 
Look faith is all very well, but what is the basis for your "faithful" intepretation that some of these objects do what somebody says they do?

The Holy Grail appears in no theological document. It is an ancient urban legend. It comes from the Arthur Legend as reduced to writing a century or so ago. Using theological logic there is no particular basis for its existence or its alleged powers. I'd go so far as to contend that it is inconsistent with the teachings and documents of the religions it is linked to.

I've asked where the traits attributed to the Ark of the Covenant come from and get no answer. In Isaiah there is talk of the fire and retribution of God, but it is not linked to the Ark necessarily. Where does it say outside of an Indiana Jones novel that the Ark was some sort of spiritual ray-gun?

Faith stems from a spiritual interpretation or understanding. The Holy Grail comes from an entertaining myth or work of fiction. As far as I can tell it comes from nothing more serious than that. I suppose I could read a Superman comicbook and say I have faith that men can fly if they come from alien planets, but it would be pretty lame.
 

bob

New member
I respect faith to a certain extent but not to the extent that i have to ignore all of my rules about evidence. Tangible artifacts such as the Ark or the Grail or not ones that i accept on Faith, they exist in the physical world and so they conform to them. The Grail is worse than an Urban legend the first tales of it do not occur until deep into the dark ages there is no evidence that takes what we call the Holy Grail Legend beyond Medieval Northern Europe; and the only information on it comes from romanticised ballards about a legendary 6th century British warlord! It is just a pure legend no truthes are in there what so ever in a society obsessed with the getting of Relics the Grail just became the mystical ultimate Relic that Greedy monks dreamed of having to boost their income.

I really think that faith has come to depend more on Spiritual truthes than Enchanted knick nacks lying around Europe....

And if they did find the true ark in Jerusalem and it started smiting the unbelievers etc then i would really have no choice..would i?; i mean why would God leave his Holiest artifacts out for anyone to find?
 

DrJones56

IndyFan
Broomhandle Davis said:
Look faith is all very well, but what is the basis for your "faithful" intepretation that some of these objects do what somebody says they do?

The Holy Grail appears in no theological document. It is an ancient urban legend. It comes from the Arthur Legend as reduced to writing a century or so ago. Using theological logic there is no particular basis for its existence or its alleged powers. I'd go so far as to contend that it is inconsistent with the teachings and documents of the religions it is linked to.

I've asked where the traits attributed to the Ark of the Covenant come from and get no answer. In Isaiah there is talk of the fire and retribution of God, but it is not linked to the Ark necessarily. Where does it say outside of an Indiana Jones novel that the Ark was some sort of spiritual ray-gun?

Faith stems from a spiritual interpretation or understanding. The Holy Grail comes from an entertaining myth or work of fiction. As far as I can tell it comes from nothing more serious than that. I suppose I could read a Superman comicbook and say I have faith that men can fly if they come from alien planets, but it would be pretty lame.
You have a good point, Bible doesn't make itself easy to understand, that's why scholars spend their entire life trying to figure it out. Where's Greg when you need him? :p


bob said:
And if they did find the true ark in Jerusalem and it started smiting the unbelievers etc then i would really have no choice..would i?; i mean why would God leave his Holiest artifacts out for anyone to find?
Trying to figure out God: one of the biggest mistakes man ever made, that's what happened in bable, and sadly nobody learned.

And in any case, what makes you think it would 'smite' anybody? Now, after Christ's Crucifixtion, it's just a gilded box like I said, just a relic, a Museum peice. God doesn't want to FORCE anybody to believe in him, that's why he gave us a mind of our own, why did he do it? He loved us, He wanted us to be free, He wanted us to decide, He wanted you to believe in Him for real, not just because you had to, and that rings true today. So please, don't missunderstand what it's all about. That's all.

And if we did find it, the Muslims would go nuts...

And Bob, you also make another good point, why would God leave him on Earth? Maybe the reason we havn't found them is because he took care of them himself. And don't say "Maybe it's cause they don't exist..." :p because you won't have a worthy argument with me because I'll just call you crazy. :D
 

DrJones56

IndyFan
Okay, after reading the thread and replies, I have this to say:

There is no 'Holy Grail'. There might have been a chalice that Jesus used at the Last Supper, that's it. Then, this was thrown into a mythological meat grinder in the dark ages and that's where the whole 'eternal life' came from. So, if you even found the 'Holy Grail', it wouldn't do a thing for you.

As far as the Ark, maybe what was happening that the Jews witnessed was so far beyond their comprehension, that they put it in their own context and did their best to interpret it. Now looking at their mind set, what they saw to them could be completely different to us, so to understand what really happened is nearly impossible, you just got to take it for what it is and make your own conclusion/theory.
 

bob

New member
because you won't have a worthy argument with me because I'll just call you crazy. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I can live with that :)
 

DrJones56

IndyFan
bob said:
because you won't have a worthy argument with me because I'll just call you crazy. :D

I can live with that :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Haha, well by that I ment you can't make a worthy argument by saying it doesn't exist, but hey, that's what the forum title is, look who's talkin... :p

I think it's safe to say Jesus drank from something at the last supper, but it had no special powers, I think that's a fair statment we can all agree on. Any objections?
 
Re: Cite? Reference?

Broomhandle Davis said:
thegreatimposter said:

PS - the Ark DID do damage to others, 'cause they didn't know how to carry it, remember?

Where are you getting this from? The Bible or an Indiana Jones book?

Book of Samuel:

"Seven months the Philistines were punished with the presence of the ark; so long it was a plague to them, because they would not send it home sooner."

"The Philistines consult how to send back the ark. (1-9) They bring it to Bethshemesh. (10-18) The people smitten for looking into the ark. (19-21)"

Thanks for the dis, but you know, maybe you should READ the Bible before talking about it...
 
Just so we're clear:

Samuel 2:

6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

Kinda sounds like the Ark aint somethin' to mess with, hunh? Which is why, by the way, the deleted scenes for raiders of the lost ark include one in which Sallah is about to reach out and touch the Ark when Indy stops him, bearing a warning from the priest who gave Indy the measurements for the staff of ra. "Don't touch the Ark."

So, yeah, I got it from an Indy book, and MOVIE!!
 

westford

Member
To go back to the thing about the horn bringing down the walls of Jericho, etc - surely it wouldn't simply be the artifact or the person who could make these miracles occur, but that big guy (I think some folk call him 'God' or something) acting through them. So if Joshua had kept the horn and tried repeating the trick elsewhere, it wouldn't work - unless God agreed to do his big bad wolf thing again ("I'll huff and I'll puff...").

As you may know, I'm not religious, so quoting chapter and verse of a book at me isn't going to mean much. But to me, it would make more sense if a religious artifact only had power if the divine gave it power as it was used in its intended manner, rather than letting it have power all the time so that any old person could come along and use that power for their dastardly deeds.

That would mean that someone (let's say me) could pick up the holy grail thinking "ooh, nice cup" and use it to drink from without any divine power being involved - I'm not seeing it as an instrument of power, but as a cup. Then someone else could come along and find the grail where I'd left it. Perhaps they'd see it for what it was, and through their faith they'd be able to use its powers - presumably God would be able to reward them if their intentions were honourable, and punish them if not. Likewise if someone came across a false grail and tried to use it as the true grail, God wouldn't be impressed, but if it was me picking up what looked like another nice cup, God wouldn't be too bothered (or he'd have a good laugh at the dumbass mortal).

Well, that's my theory anyway, and it fits quite well with the Indy films too.
 
Re: Re: Cite? Reference?

thegreatimposter said:
thegreatimposter said:
Thanks for the dis, but you know, maybe you should READ the Bible before talking about it...

Asking for the cite is not "dising," it is asking where you found it. It is asking for you to disclose for the benefit of others so we all don't have to read the Bible cover to cover...again.

I have my thoughts now that you have provided the references. Personally I don't think those quotes give rise to the conclusion that the Ark can be "used" by anyone or that it has powers in and of itself.

You were talking about how someone was not lifting the Ark correctly and I was wondering where that came from. It didn't seem Biblical to me.

[Edited by Broomhandle Davis on 05-03-2003 at 03:02 pm]
 
Broomhandle, My apologies, you are absolutely right, there is no harm in asking for evidence. You're wording came across a little disrespectfully I thought, but maybe I read it with the wrong intonation.

Now to the meat:

Specific instructions we're given to the priests who were to carry the Ark. Once the Ark was stolen, and given to the Palestinians, people died. This is because they didn't know the instructions, so to speak. While Moses and the Hebrews were crossing the desert for forty years they habitually made camp every eight to ten paces and took a break. (Maybe that's what took so long) Some speculate that the Ark was in fact a Manna machine, used to create Manna frokm the atmosphere to live off of while they were in the wastelands. Also could be the reason people revolted against Moses because they'd been eating the same thing everyday. I'll get back to you with quotes.

And again Broomhandle, I am thoroughly enjoying these debates so keep it comin'...
 
I have an issue twith the property and ownership of God. When the burning bush spoke to Moses, God identified himslef as the "God of the Hebrews." And during the Visions at Fatima, the first Angel introduced himself as the "Angel of Portugal."

I don't get it.

But in these cases it would be conceivable that the "God of the Hebrews" would provide them with something (a tool) to further their cause. ie, the Ark of the Covenant. My argument is if God NEEDS a tool to help his people, than his power is limited. I mean, hey God, why not NOT allow the Egyptions to enslave the Hebrews, or just intervene yourself? Why use Moses?

So, He needs to give people something of power instead of just showing up himself, I'm betting it'll retain that power for others, because obviously God doesn't have ultimate control, or he wouldn't need to go through these "Corrections". The key is having access to operating instructions...
 
thegreatimposter said:
...So, He needs to give people something of power instead of just showing up himself, I'm betting it'll retain that power for others, because obviously God doesn't have ultimate control, or he wouldn't need to go through these "Corrections". The key is having access to operating instructions...

Now, there's a very good argument for leaving magical tools lying around. They are a component of free will. Man has a brain so he can select good or evil. He can also use his brain to employ tools for good or evil.

There are all sorts of natural tools lying around all the time rivers and trees and plants, etc. Man has the power to use them to make his life better...or worse. These sacred objects are sprinkled around to "turn up the heat" and let man elect good or evil on a larger scale.

Better (though I stll don't buy it).
 

westford

Member
thegreatimposter said:
My argument is if God NEEDS a tool to help his people, than his power is limited. I mean, hey God, why not NOT allow the Egyptions to enslave the Hebrews, or just intervene yourself? Why use Moses?
Maybe God was trying to teach a lesson. I mean, I could have grown up without knowing how to tie my shoelaces cos my parents would do it for me, but is that really helping me in the long term? What if my parents were too busy to tie my laces one day? I'd have to go out without shoes, or risk tripping up and breaking my neck...?

I can't believe I'm arguing this when I don't even believe in God, but there ya go! :p I just love a debate! :D
 
It's great to debate, helps exercise your knowledge of a subject.

To respond:

Learning to tie a knot would develope out of necessity or you would choose to make SLIP ONS! God doesn't need to come down and hold our hands so to speak when Nature has endowed us with the ability to eveolve and adapt. My problem is that God is trying to correct "Mistakes" through the use of power objects.

In fact, God must be fallible because he had to wipe everyone out, save Noah and his Ark to clean the slate...
 
Top