Skip to comments.
Knights Templar to use latest imaging in search for Grail
New Zealand Herald ^
| 01/06/03
| The Independent (?)
Posted on 01/06/2003 2:11:30 PM PST by mgstarr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 281-297 next last
To: CCWoody
Well, there you go prattling on again. I never declared you a Christian or non-Christian.
Nope. You just saw fit to throw in something hoping to trip me up. As you say, checking to see if I recognize basic Bibical doctrines. Guess I gotta establish my "Christian Street Cred" before I stick my head into one of these discussions, huh?
It should be evident for all to see that the first to start lying about the other with these emotional outbursts has lost the argument. And you have been declaring your lost position nearly every post.
What're you gonna tell me, next? That I'm being snippy? LOL! I'm not here to "Win" or "Lose" arguments. I'm here to discuss things. If that's how you see things, then go ahead and declare yourself "Winner". I don't care. Doesn't change my opinion that your labelling people as blasphemers (And people who, according to you, utter blasphemy are by definition blasphemers, despite how close you'd like to split that hair) is an over-reaction at BEST.
But, then, your historical exemptions argument as a defense for blasphemy was pathetic to begin with.
Judging from your reaction to a book which
you haven't even read, the fact that you find my argument pathetic I personally find heartening.
To: CCWoody
Well, Xenalyte has been adamantly denying that the book even discusses that.Actually, I agree with Xenalyte. The authors don't claim anything, they present their findings and *several* hypotheses.
To: Xenalyte
Sadly, Ma'am, I believe your arguments are wasted here. Your opponent has his eyes shut so tightly that his ears are stopped.
That he denies your claims, whilst never having read the tome in question, pretty much invalidates any comments about it.
To: mgstarr
To: mgstarr; All
Thanks for starting this thread, there has been some enlightening discussion.
I can't wait to see what they find....or don't find. I went to Rosslyn in 1995, it's a beautiful place.
Bedtime, goodnight all. Peace.
To: mgstarr
There was a special on the Rosslyn Chapel on one of the cable channels--don't remember if it was the History, Discovery or Travel Channel. But the special suggested that there were hidden meanings in the architecture, in the stone figures, even in the cut of the angles of the buildings, that it all bore a Templar stamp.
186
posted on
01/06/2003 9:05:28 PM PST
by
Ciexyz
To: Long Cut
That he denies your claims, whilst never having read the tome in question, pretty much invalidates any comments about it.
Hey, if lack of knowledge is license to comment for Barbra and Sean and Moby, it oughta be good enough for him. :)
To: CCWoody
"Are you going to now call me "anal" like you did another poster a few posts back? "He might not, but I will....
Woody, relax a little.... you're among friends and no one here is attacking Christianity.
To: Forgiven_Sinner
B) Historians will NEVER say that Christ was resurrected.
But historians (Tacitus, Josephus) DID say He lived.
Never said historians don't say he lived.
And history by His enemies (the Jews) say His body did not remain in the tomb. They said his disciples stole His body. His disciples (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul) all testify that He was resurrected. So we have two alternative explanations of the historical fact of the empty tomb. Which do you find more believable? That His disciples all were martyed and died for what they knew was a lie, or that He was resurrected?
Speaking for myself, I believe the latter. But it doesn't bother me to see others who believe in more earthly reasons for what happened in the life of Jesus. Just pray that they find their way to having Faith in the truth.
Unless there's indisputable proof that he was resurrected (And face it, there isn't. Why else is it called "Faith"?), then no serious historian will ever claim that he was resurrected.
There is no indisputable proof for many historical facts. When there are ancient documents, there are various interpretations of the accuracy of such documents. Julias Caesar's historical work has only one copy known in extent--and historians believe it. There are 8,000 copies of the New Testement of various ages, from about 100 AD to 1000 AD.
Maybe I should've used a term other than "indisputable proof". But for a historian, you have to at the very least meet a certain bar of proof. And for something like someone rising from the dead, the bar is set high, indeed. It's at that point in which FAITH enters the equation. But the study of history doesn't deal with faith and isn't supposed to. It deals with what can be proven.
There are very few indisputable facts indeed. Even Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" "I think, therefore I am", is disputed by those who believe all our behavior is deterministic and our feeling of free will is merely an illusion.
Well, that's less a historical fact then it is a philosophical disagreement. One doesn't have to believe that it's true to believe that he said it.
We believe what we have been taught to believe, generally, and what is consistent with our experience. Since I have experienced God in my life, I have indisputable evidence. May you also receive such evidence.
Unnecessary as I already have the evidence I need. My whole business, here, is defending historians. It isn't their role to prove the Bible right. It's to try to piece together history with whatever evidence they can find. The more impossible the event the higher the bar is set to prove that it happened. I don't need a historian to tell me who and what Jesus is. Just I understand that by their professional standards, they can't go out and say "Jesus is the Son of God and died for ous sins". Though many of them may believe it, personally.
To: mgstarr; Xenalyte
To: CCWoody
"blasphemy is the assertion that Christ did not die for anybody's sins and that Christ was not raised from the dead. I have yet to see anybody deny that this book made such assertions. "Well Woody, I have read this book and, although it's been several years ago and I could have a faulty memory, I certainly recall no such claim made by these authors.
They did claim that Christ was married and had children, but to my recollection, they made no such claim that he was not crucified and I don't believe they made any attempt to address the resurrection directly.
Now, have you read this book? or not?
By the way, as I understand Christianity (and I am a sincere Protestant) I've read nothing in the scriptures which prevents Christ from having been married or from having children. I also know of nothing in the scriptures which says that he was married or had children, but if some theory exists that he might, that would not be necessarily blasphemy in my understanding.
Cheers,
Lloyd
To: Green Knight
To be honest, I've neve understood the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thing with regards to history. What exactly constitutes "extraordinary evidence"? Eyewitness testimony? There were eyewitnesses (over 500 individuals that we know of) to the fact that Christ was up and walking around after His death. Not only did many of these eyewitnesses attest to seeing Him die, and then appear again alive, but many also reported seeing Him perform acts both miraculous (appearing suddenly in locked rooms, etc.) and mundane (eating and cooking fish).
How can one set a higher bar than that? What kind of evidence would one have to produce -- a working videotape of Christ coming out of the tomb? A signed affadvit from Jesus Himself? What? -- to make the case?
The witneses to Socrates' death reported what they saw. So did the witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection. The difference is that the witnesses to Jesus' resurrection were each tortured to death rather than deny that they saw what they saw. There is more historical evidence to support the death and resuurection of Jesus Christ than there is to support the merely physical life of the Sage of Athens -- and we may confidently accept both as truth.
192
posted on
01/06/2003 9:32:04 PM PST
by
B-Chan
To: Xenalyte
I read the blood grail book a long time as well. I remember coming away with my own theory. I thought it was more plausible to believe that Jesus's brothers and or sister somehow escaped from Israel to continue the 'holy ' family blood lineage. Since Jesus could trace his ancestry back to Adam. Likewise, the descendants of Jesus's brothers children could as well. The fact that the present queen of England sits on the "throne of David" is significant to the continuance of 'Holy blood' in their lineage, according to their beliefs.
193
posted on
01/06/2003 9:58:33 PM PST
by
juzcuz
To: Cultural Jihad
Did you mean to go visit 'come-bash-christianity.com' instead?Did you mean to read my post before responding blindly and without understanding? The only people I bashed were the story writers for blasphemously suggesting that anyone could possibly have the mummified head of Christ and the authors of various "historical romances" about what happened to the KT after they got massacred by Phillip. The KT was not about Christianity, it was about secular power dressed up in a Christian knightly order. The stories about it - like the legend that they discovered the head of John the Baptist in Jerusalem and that it spoke to give them guidance, like the legend that they moved all their treasure out of France and are still today using it to control the world - look a whole lot like Indiana Jones.
To: mgstarr
195
posted on
01/07/2003 5:30:20 AM PST
by
Prolix
To: Rye
Now there's a flashback. I remember my parents having that book. Never read it, but as a child I thought it a very interesting title lol
To: RightWhale
Some acceptance of coexistence might be a plus. It doesn't matter how much "acceptance of coexistence" we can come up with... and I'm as willing as the next guy to live and let live... the Pathans won't rest until they own Jerusalem outright.
Not that I think that'll ever happen. It just looks like peaceful coexistence is something of a pipe dream.
197
posted on
01/07/2003 6:04:57 AM PST
by
Oberon
To: crystalk
Some also say the Grail is actually not just a silver cup....
Some say the Grail is the vessel containing the Blood of Christ.......the most common vessel for holding human blood is a human body and that means the Grail is a metaphorical person.....the child of Jesus who escaped israel for France.
198
posted on
01/07/2003 6:05:00 AM PST
by
bert
To: Xenalyte
.....And I was worried about Echelon! Those pesky Plantards are everywhere these days....
Yep!!
I've been waiting for this thread for 5 years.
To add to the reference list herein above:
For additional reference read The Messianic Conspiracy and the Templar Revelation.
199
posted on
01/07/2003 6:22:29 AM PST
by
bert
To: mgstarr
We are the Knights who say 'NI'
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 281-297 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson