The Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene's womb

The argument

The story of the Holy Grail can be traced back to Arthurian legends. These legends were coded with information refering to the bloodline of Jesus Christ. The legends of the Holy Grail are centered around the idea that Jesus was royalty and had fathered several children. In the various legends, the Holy Grail can take on many different forms as an object; these objects include a cup and a dish. However, there is significant doubt that the Holy Grail is a cup because it has never been used in a way to represent a vessel. Many believe that this is because in the painting of 'The Last Supper' the cup is absent in the painting. This suggests that Davinci knew the true history and that was why Mary Magdalene was included in the painting instead. In legends when the Holy Grail is refered to as a bowl, it is being used to symbolize not just Mary Magdalene's womb caring on the the bloodline of Christ but it also represents the boat that Mary took to escape to France. According to legend, the boat that Mary Magdalene escaped in didn't have oars or a mast. This meant was that the boat was oval shaped and that there were no men on the boat as an oval shaped boat was largely associated with women. The meaning behind the Holy Grail is largely feminine and shaped in a V-shape or a chalice. The legend is further expanded with the belief that Mary Magdalene was associated with the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar were said to have originated in Jerusalem and it was reported that Mary Magdalene had begun her association with the Knights Templar while she was still in Jerusalem herself. Mary Magdalene continued this assocation and travled with the Templars to Egypt and the English village of Glastonbury with the Holy Grail. The story of Mary Magdalene being trained as one of the Templars has helped furthered the idea that the Holy Grail was not a physical golden chalice but was instead Mary Magdalene herself with her womb as the "golden chalice."

Context

In the fall of 2014, an article was written about a document reported to be 1,500 years old that was unearthed in the British Library. This document, known as "The Lost Gospel", was translated by Professor Barrie Wilson and writer Simcha Jacobovic from Aramaic to English. "The Lost Gospel", according to Wilson and Jacobovic, reveals that Jesus had married Mary Magdalene and fathered two children with her.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The fact that Mary Magdalene was painted into da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' is not symbolic of anything. Da Vinci simply wanted to paint a female version of John the Baptist to distinguish John as Christ's youngest disciple. Making Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife and as symbolic imagery for the Holy Grail as the womb for Christ's children underminds her role as an independent woman who was spiritual enough to understand the mind of Jesus Christ without being his wife. To sexualize Mary Madgalene also underminds her role as simply a devout follwer of Christ; books such as 'Holy Grail' and 'The Da Vinci Code' help create a mythology around real figures and tarnishes there real accomplishments.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The chronology defeats the premise. The Grail enters the written record with Chrétien de Troyes in the late twelfth century, more than a thousand years after the events it is said to encode, and in that telling it is a serving dish rather than a vessel of any bloodline. The bloodline reading originates in a twentieth-century book whose central document, the Priory of Sion dossier, was acknowledged in French proceedings to have been fabricated in the 1950s. [Rejecting P2] The move works only by presenting a modern reading as the recovery of an old one. Nothing in the medieval material identifies the Grail with a person, and the chalice-as-feminine interpretation was applied afterwards. Symbolic resonance is not evidence of intent, and a reading that cannot be distinguished from an invented one carries no evidential weight. [Rejecting P3] Neither support survives inspection. The figure to Christ's right in the Last Supper is John, painted in the beardless, youthful convention standard in Italian art of the period — a point the argument's own body half concedes by explaining the appearance as a stylistic choice — and the Templar association is a later legend with no medieval documentary basis. None of it reaches the conclusion in any case: an interpretation of a symbol cannot demonstrate a marriage or children, for which the historical record supplies nothing.