The Real Da Vinci Code with Tony Robinson

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113



In this one-off Channel 4 documentary, former Blackadder star Tony "Baldrick" Robinson, now an amateur historian and Labour Party activist, sets out to discover the facts about the Holy Grail and cut through the thicket of mystery that surrounds the sacred subject.


The Real Da Vinci Code with Tony Robinson - YouTube
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Nobody has ripped this to shreds yet? Do you mind if I do as I can find an error even before the credits are finished rolling? Until I start putting a time stamp to it the general theme can be listed at least.
The role of Mary M. would seem to be in question.
The cup is the prized object, it was a cup, the only thing 'magical' is that Jesus once held it. He also wore a robe that when touched caused virtue to leave it and help however had touched it. Change into a different robe and the old one wouldn't heal anything. The rider in the first deal can be viewed as God, the crown He wears is a plain gold band, about as subdued as you can get. Why no flash, when you are God the deeds are the flash and those parts are what people remember.
The supper was the transition that would come with the change in law as far as conduct towards each other starting 3 1/2 years after the cross when Peter began to preach to the Gentiles. By rights Rome was gathered by Peter as he would have authority over all the letters that make up the NT. Jesus was last seen alive doing things for the 12 Tribes that was also the completion of the bruise to the heel in Ge:3:15. In light of that he and Mary M. could hook up and have children back in the day. Jesus didn't as He wife will be the one called the beloved disciple and while she is also a female she is not Mary M. She was the equal to a female Priest in that she was a daughter of Aaron and she was also a Disciple of John the Baptist. There is more than a few verses that point to that being 'the case'. The case for the cup being just a cup is that it is not mentioned anyplace else while the cross is covered in much greater detail so it can be assumed that was more important to God when giving us His summation of 'what will be'.
The bad news it is a long subject because there are so many passages that reference it, the good news is we only have to finf and read them, they put themselves in the right order and context, that is the good news and Ge:3:15 is where it starts and Re:12 is an expansion in that verse. The cross and all things written about it are the bruise to the heel material, the rest would fit into the events associated with 'the other bruise'.
The validity of the writing is what this program is about, that's fine, the words say that when Stephen was killed the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem while most Christians left the area. That would mean they would be about the only ones that would experience Luke:21:12-24. I would use that as an argument that the Gospel was being preached as early as that, I would also promote that in the 40 days after the cross the Apostles fasted for the same 40 days that Jesus did when God baptized Him with the same spirit just before his 40 day fast.
James mentions a scattering so that points to it being written after the predicted scattering. Those can be used to promote that the 4 Gospels were written by the original witnesses and the miracle part back them is the writers were all Jews who had never met a single Gentile. They were all at the Acts:2 language event so they could have written the Gospels down in perfect Greek at any-time after that event. The book also shows that when things are open that Gods acts sooner rather than later so that should also be part of the 'considered things' when reading and putting the passages in the right place.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
The difference between milk and meat is the milk in the OT will make yoy something in a low tone, meat in the OT will make you gulp as a reflex. These are meat references.

0:55 the rememberance is a reference to the elimination of tha Passover as had been practiced since the time of the exodus with Moses. The blood sacrifices justified God sending Jesus to the grave for the absolution of sin, in this case it was Adam's sin that was being cleansed as Jesus is from the same Priest-hood as Abraham had. The blood sacrifice was to stop with the cross and the reason is the same as it will be from that point in time and on. That is why when Christ comes down as the King of Kings he has a feast set out for the birds and animals to feast on, it's called payback. The sip of wine and breaking of unleaven bread was the first passover meal for the era that is a progression from stage 1 inder the 10 Commandments. The change from doing deeds to be in sin also changed at that time, sin is now classified as when a person first starts to think about doing a sin. When the Priests plotted to kill Jesus that was not a sin under OT Law, it would be a sin under NT Law.


Isa:1:11-20:
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?
saith the LORD:
I am full of the burnt offerings of rams,
and the fat of fed beasts;
and I delight not in the blood of bullocks,
or of lambs,
or of he goats.
When ye come to appear before me,
who hath required this at your hand,
to tread my courts?
Bring no more vain oblations;
incense is an abomination unto me;
the new moons and sabbaths,
the calling of assemblies,
I cannot away with;
it is iniquity,
even the solemn meeting.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth:
they are a trouble unto me;
I am weary to bear them.
And when ye spread forth your hands,
I will hide mine eyes from you:
yea,
when ye make many prayers,
I will not hear:
your hands are full of blood.
Wash you,
make you clean;
put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes;
cease to do evil;
Learn to do well;
seek judgment,
relieve the oppressed,
judge the fatherless,
and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
plead for the widow.
Come now,
and let us reason together,
saith the LORD:
though your sins be as scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they be red like crimson,
they shall be as wool.
If ye be willing and obedient,
ye shall eat the good of the land:
But if ye refuse and rebel,
ye shall be devoured with the sword:
for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isa:66:3:
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man;
he that sacrificeth a lamb,
as if he cut off a dog's neck;
he that offereth an oblation,
as if he offered swine's blood;
he that burneth incense,
as if he blessed an idol.

Isa:34:-81:
Come near,
ye nations,
to hear;
and hearken,
ye people:
let the earth hear,
and all that is therein;
the world,
and all things that come forth of it.
For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations,
and his fury upon all their armies:
he hath utterly destroyed them,
he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
Their slain also shall be cast out,
and their stink shall come up out of their carcases,
and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved,
and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:
and all their host shall fall down,
as the leaf falleth off from the vine,
and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
For my sword shall be bathed in heaven:
behold,
it shall come down upon Idumea,
and upon the people of my curse,
to judgment.
The sword of the LORD is filled with blood,
it is made fat with fatness,
and with the blood of lambs and goats,
with the fat of the kidneys of rams:
for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah,
and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.
And the unicorns shall come down with them,
and the bullocks with the bulls;
and their land shall be soaked with blood,
and their dust made fat with fatness.
For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance,
and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
Yea,
they have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delighteth in their abominations.



La:2:13-17:
What thing shall I take to witness for thee?
what thing shall I liken to thee,
O daughter of Jerusalem?
what shall I equal to thee,
that I may comfort thee,
O virgin daughter of Zion?
for thy breach is great like the sea:
who can heal thee?
Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee:
and they have not discovered thine iniquity,
to turn away thy captivity;
but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment.
All that pass by clap their hands at thee;
they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem,
saying,
Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty,
The joy of the whole earth?
All thine enemies have opened their mouth against thee:
they hiss and gnash the teeth:
they say, We have swallowed her up:
certainly this is the day that we looked for;
we have found,
we have seen it.
The LORD hath done that which he had devised;
he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old:
he hath thrown down,
and hath not pitied:
and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee,
he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries.

Isa:56:7:
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer:
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.


All in all Jesus knew all of that when he took a sip, if you were there and all that was laid out how big a sip would you take. How many barrelas of wine did the verse take to cover in full in the private talks? Just enough Scripture to swat the flies away.

Lu:24:27:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
Am I the only one who can never understand what MHz is on about? He's less conherent than Mad Gerald.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
Preaching to the Gentiles sounds way better than Genitals

It's not his (or is it her?) religious stuff which bothers me. As a proud Christian I have no bother with preaching Christianity (especially Protestantism). It's just that most of his or her posts are just gobbledygook.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Am I the only one who can never understand what MHz is on about? He's less conherent than Mad Gerald.
Getting somebody that agrees with you only means you need to find somebody who knows as little about God as you do. I'm thinking you won't have to look very far. Cliffy says he's ripped it apart, he wasn't able to put it back together again though. Perhaps that is his real area of expertize.
I could claim to be unable to understand your claim as that is a brand new name for me, since I am talking about the God of your Queen and country you should at least know a little bit about it. The odds are if you posted some of their themes on what the various passages mean (that I posted) then that should be a better version rather than just sounding stupid coming from somebody who claims yo be an 'expert'. The part that is the thorn up your *** is that when confusion exists it is the one who is not the expert that is confused.
Once you can say, 'You are wrong.' and then follow it up with an explanation of why it is wrong then I'll let you play the expert. Until then you could show me where ISIS has shown that they are even hinting that they would not back up for a truck full of KKK members. (who don't even have to talk to you to know if they hate you or not)
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,561
7,074
113
Washington DC
It's not his (or is it her?) religious stuff which bothers me. As a proud Christian I have no bother with preaching Christianity (especially Protestantism). It's just that most of his or her posts are just gobbledygook.
Christianity is gobbledygook. So what's the problem?
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Am I the only one who can never understand what MHz is on about? He's less conherent than Mad Gerald.

It's not his (or is it her?) religious stuff which bothers me. As a proud Christian I have no bother with preaching Christianity (especially Protestantism). It's just that most of his or her posts are just gobbledygook.
You are batting 100 in that evaluation


HIM? he's simply batty.......
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
Well, I certainly agree that racists are a problem, but isn't that kind of off topic for this thread?


We at Ukip are going to wipe you all out, don't you worry about that, sunny jim. Such despicable comments like the one you made will no longer be acceptable.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
You all? What "you all" would that be?

When Ukip and their releated parties start sweeping all before them across the Western world, Left-wing scumbuckets like you will no longer be allowed to make racist comments about Christians and white people. Such things will become - better late than never - as unnacceptable as all other forms of racism.

Now cut it out, or else you might find yourself in a spot of bother. You've been warned.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Um, I think the three of us need to have a conversation about the definitions of words. Such as 'better' 'awesome' 'funny'....just off the top of my head.
Usually that means a spontaneous comeback, since said comeback is always dependent on the last rememberance of the term that had any emotional impact on a person that is almost always chocked back and then the topic becomes one that you add to the 'unmentionable pile' and then you become something defined as being 'touchy' or 'testy' or even a 'busy-body' in the affairs of others. Then again, being a troll means it is easy to never agree with somebody because they are never wrong, when you have to disagree with something that they are right about then it just makes you look stupid. Sooner or later you end up being much more insane than I will ever be. You already admitted you have one form of insanity when you mentioned you and Karrie had 'chats' about me when doing it 'above board' (a new term for you most likely) might have got you an answer that was more related to hating me for my historical views of the Jews in WWII being based on a photo of a plaque rather than a number displayed by Colpy as being the more accurate one rather than my attacking a mother's instinctive reaction to having a child killed by a bad driver. (a sub-compact sliding into a school buss at low speed is not a life threatening event should have been the issue) Pretty clicky bunch, why would I admire that and why do you admire it when it is a bad trait rather than a good one? I'm thinking this being a troll part is wearing out as you are looking to the trolls for answers rather than them giving you support for your answers.