Knights Templar to use latest imaging in search for Grail

New Zealand Herald ^ | 01/06/03 | The Independent (?)

[muleskinner]

A Dagobert II Roi et a Sion

Is Dagobert II related to A+Bert?

[CCWoody]

I would also rather be called a blasphemer than a man who accused others of mortal sin without first according them the elementary courtesy of reading what they have written. ~ John Locke

I don't think I have specifically accused anybody of being a blasphemer. I did say that to claim that Jesus did not die for anybody's sins is blasphemous. That is different. If I wish to accuse the author specifically of blasphemy, I will then cite specific statements of blasphemy.

Woody.

[oldtimer]

Hi Brother:

I am coming up on 39 years as a Mason.

Have visited Rosslyn Chapel twice including the Masonic museum upstairs, and have the read the book The Temple and the Lodge written by non-Mason brit historians. The Knights Templar were the founders of Freemasonry.

Finally for you tinfoil types out there, my Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ.

[Green Knight]

Big difference whether a man existed and if whether he was resurrected from the dead. If you're looking for evidence of that having happened, you gotta set the bar just a wee bit higher than if you're trying to figure if a man actually lived.

[Xenalyte]

Is Dagobert II related to A+Bert?

Oh, dear Lord, I hope not. That would put a heinous new spin on his attitude!

Where did that old coot get to, anyway?

[Xenalyte]

Have visited Rosslyn Chapel twice including the Masonic museum upstairs, and have the read the book The Temple and the Lodge written by non-Mason brit historians.

I just recommended that book to MGStarr, the kindly thread originator. You just gotta love Templar history!

What was it Eco said about 'em in Foucault's Pendulum - when the Templars rear their heads, you know you're dealing with a crackpot.

[CCWoody]

So I've answered your question - be fair, and answer mine. Have you read the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail or not? Thus far you've refused to answer that very basic question. ~ Notforprophet

I have not answered because it is not relevant to the discussion. I have kept my discussion to 3 specific statements, which also happened to be attributed to the book. To claim that Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered children by her is blasphemous. To claim that Christs death and resurrection is open to intrepretation is also blasphemous.

To answer your irrelevant question: I have not read that book.

Woody.

[scouse]

You might like to read the article at this place.

"http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/renneslechateau.html"

[Green Knight]

But, I am still amused about your mind numbed prattle to the lurkers.

Amazing. Where do you get this stuff? I'm talking to YOU. Not to some non-existent Lurkers who seem to be always invisibly hovering around me and reading my posts.

CCWoody: Blasphemy is blasphemy.
Green Knight: You forgot about the occupational excemption.
CCWoody: Wonderfully intelligent argument.

LOL! That's actually pretty funny. But the conversation is more like this:

CCWoody: Historians are Blasphemers!
Green Knight: Aren't you over-reacting just a WEE bit much?
CCWoody: Stop talking to all those invisible people who follow you around!

Well, gosh, even granting your silly assertion about purpose, are you now going to argue that when a historian says "Jesus did not die for anybody's sins" he really didn't purpose to say exactly what he said?

I doubt many historians put it in THAT way. But no, I'm just saying that he's only commenting about what he knows. He doesn't know for certain whether Jesus did or didn't die for our signs, so he doesn't say that's what happened.

P.S. The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

And there's no possible redemption for them, is that it?

[CCWoody]

Holy Blood, Holy Grail ~ The book's central hypothesis - that Jesus survived the Crucifixion and together with Mary Magdalene founded a bloodline that later became the Merovingians in France (protected by the Knights Templar and later by the Freemasons) amounts to a stunning amount of blasphemy. Is there anybody here who denies that this is the books central hypothesis?

[oldtimer]

Am very proud to be a Scottish Rite 32KCCH Mason.

My father was a Mason, my middle son is a Past Master of the Lodge. My grandmother was an Eastern Star.

Having been there, and having accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I have never, never found anything that would conflict with my belief that the Masonic fraternity is anything but what should be an organization that promotes peace, harmony, justice and freedom for all.

[Xenalyte]

I have not answered because it is not relevant to the discussion. I have kept my discussion to 3 specific statements, which also happened to be attributed to the book. To claim that Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered children by her is blasphemous. To claim that Christs death and resurrection is open to intrepretation is also blasphemous.

Okay. I'm putting this in very short words for you.

The book DOES NOT CLAIM ANY OF THAT. As a matter of fact, IT CLAIMS NOTHING.

NOTHING.

What part of that do you not understand?

I seriously cannot make it any simpler than that.

[agincourt1415]

First of all if you read my post - I didn't say that, my post was a cut and paste of a review by a Mr. Colin, from another internet site.

I take issue with labels of Mormans, Baptists, Catholics, and any other religious preference, its not good manners.

I don't use labels to characterize someone whom I don't know.

By the way discussing the historical possibility that Jesus may have been married or had childen, does not threaten my beliefs.

Years ago I discussed this with Clergy and I have gotten some positive responses and one has asked to read the book.

One Cleric admitted that he could not rule out the possibility (that Jesus could have had descendants) and it is also true his brothers could have married and had offspring.

[Xenalyte]

Is there anybody here who denies that this is the books central hypothesis?

Good Lord, man. If you were reading what I've written, you'd know that I am denying that vehemently.

(Or is that too big a word? I'm concerned about our lack of communication here.)

[Long Cut]

Seems to me that a historian, at least a decent one, must concern himself only with facts, those things either proven or provable. Absent those, he must then utilize the most likely story extant, until such time as he has facts to either confirm or deny the original history. That, quite simply, is the scientific method.

The available records clearly show that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for political and religious crimes by the Roman govenment of the period. Thus, historians are perfectly within their craft to state so.

The questions of his "dying for our sins", or "the Resurrection" are only testified to as fact in the Bible and by those faithful to it. While fine for them, this does not meet the standards of proof required for history's sake. That is hardly a blasphemous statement, as truth cannot be blasphemous.

One can debate history or one can debate theology. One cannot debate both at once, as there are completely differing standards of proof for both. One does NOT, in all cases, invalidate the other.

Religious dogma CAN be useful to the science of history, as it can provide possibilities which can be investigated of unexplained events. History, likewise, can be of value to the religious, in telling the tales of religious figures as actual events, and their signifigance to the world at large.

No one, no historian, could deny, for example, the impact that Jesus had upon world history. They must, however, explain that impact by what is recorded as provable fact. Alas, faith, however strong, cannot meet this requirement.

Slinging the "blasphemer!" tag around too readily only burdens those seeking objective truth, and comes too close to the refusal to see, or look upon such truth. What can be so frightening about it, that the eyes must be shut?

[Green Knight]

Would it be alright if I clone your brain and replace mine with the clone? LOL!

You pretty much said what I've been trying to say for quite a while, now, in a single post and much more eloquently. THANK you!

[CCWoody]

CCWoody: Historians are Blasphemers! ~ Green Knight

I never said this. Your dishonesty is stunning and funny. I did say that to claim that Jesus did not die for anybody's sins is blasphemous. You are the one who paintbrushed this to be all historians and are now busy burning this straw man down. You have lost this argument from the start and don't even know. Funny!

The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

And there's no possible redemption for them, is that it? ~ Green Knight

Just checking to see if you can recognize some basic doctrines of the Bible.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

Good Lord, man. If you were reading what I've written, you'd know that I am denying that vehemently. ~ Xenalyte

You'd think that the people who sell the book wouldn't make such lying claims about the book.

Woody.

[Long Cut]

You're very welcome. I much mislike the word "Blasphemer". As some might know, I am sort of, well, up to my eyes in the current war. Our enemies purely LOVE to justify their evil by utilizing that term, and would erase therefore the past thousand years of progress we have made. If we would defeat them, we must not set science and religion at one another's throats.

Nor, in fact, must we close our eyes to objective truth. It has a way of making itself known, nonetheless.

[Hootowl]

I found "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" a fascinating read 20 or so years ago, notwithstanding that it was complete hockum. The authors claimed, as I recall, that someone stole all their supporting documentation.