Niteshade007 said:
It's certainly plausible, but I don't find it very probable that a cup from dinner was carried around for hours and then used to catch his blood. I'm not denying that it did happen, I'm just pointing out the possibility that it didn't.
That's fine. I agree with you. It was the doubting about the story of Jesus's existence that made me question your words.
I think that it is plausible that the Holy Grail as we know it entered mythology as either the cup that caught his blood or the cup that he drank from. Then the second part of the myth might have been added, whichever part came later.
I would say that the origin of the Grail in mythology probably evolved from either of these:
-The story of magic cauldrons appearing in the Celtic tales of King Arthur and then being changed to something Christian along with his story changing to something Christian.
-Or, as often happened, a native of the Holy Land selling a fake relic to a pilgrim. In this case, the relic would have been a cup that was supposedly the Cup of Christ, just like chunks of wood were claimed to be pieces of the "True Cross."
...but "a billion people can't be wrong" isn't one of them.
I don't recall that being mentioned by anyone here. If you want some true arguments for Christianity, I'll be happy to supply, though not in this thread for fear of being put in the "sin bin" for being off topic.
You know, there's a saying involving a whole lot of flies and some cow manure...
In this case, Agnostiscm is the manure and you are a fly.