Knights Templar to use latest imaging in search for Grail

"Baphomet," is just the reverse-letter Hebrew code for "Sophia," Greek goddess of wisdom, opposed along with all Gnosticism by the mystic Templars... "Baphomet" is, according to the Crusader chronicles, the god of the Saracens. Historians suggest that it is a corruption of the word Mohammed. Many Crusaders believed that the Muslims were idol worshippers, and they were supposed to worship a statue of "Baphomet" in their mosques. Sometimes it was just an image of a head that the Muslims were said to be worshipping. It is possible that the Crusaders were entering Eastern Churches, and mistaking the "Edessa head" images for Islamic idols.

[Templars] who BTW wanted to rebuild the Temple, so they would agree with me when I say: MR SHARON, TEAR DOWN THOSE MOSQUES on Temple Mt.!!!

The Templars did not want to tear down the mosque - they could have, it was in their control. Instead they occupied it and used it as a church. The Templars did not believe that any Jewish place of worship should be allowed in Jerusalem.

It was while they were occupying the mosque that the Templars seem to have picked up strange beliefs. When they went back to Europe, it was them who were accused of worshipping some "head" in their secret meetings. This is either a libel against them, or some reference to their secret rites.

Thanks for the reference. The whole topic is indeed a fascinating mix of history, religion and folklore.

St. Louis bought from Latin Constantinople the crown, cross, spear, robe, sponge, and shroud in 1240. Where are they now?I do not know about the shroud - I think the one he had was different from the Turin one. St Louis also had some holy thorns, from the crown of thorns, and they were in Sainte Chapelle, and were destroyed at the time of the French Revolution. Some of the relics you mention are in "Santa Croce in Gerusalemmme" which is a church in Rome. They have a number of passion relics - a nail, two thorns, wood from the cross and a placard which is said to be that placed on the cross during the crucifixion. This placard was hidden in the building, then rediscovered in 1492. It is worthy of some analysis. It has an inscription written in Latin and Greek - but written oddly - written backwards like Hebrew. It has been suggested that an uneducated Jew may have copied out an inscription, putting it in the form of his own language. There is no exact information on when or how it was made.

But, is Against Heresies a reputable book?

You're most welcome

Morning bump!

Thanks for your additions. The placard is a new one to me.

My faith is strong, and reading questionable material doesn't weaken it - just like hearing Tom Daschle talk doesn't make me believe him.

Doesn't compute around here :-)

Holy Blood, Holy Grail was an interesting albeit strange tale. As I'm always up for a good conspiracy I found the book quite fun. One can read any number of books without subscribing to what is in them. I had a Christian theology professor hand me his own personal copies of the Satanic Bible and the Tibetian Book for the Dead. Strange stuff, but reading it doesn't make one a Satanist or a Tibetian Buddhist.

Yes. I assume you have a point somewhere at the end of this line of questioning. Cut to the chase.

Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died. (Irenaeus Against Heresis, Book II, Chapter 22 section 4-6)

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,¹⁴⁵ He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged¹⁴⁶ by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had¹⁴⁷ appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God¹⁴⁸ -infants,¹⁴⁹ and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"¹⁵⁰ the Prince of life,¹⁵¹ existing before all, and going before all.¹⁵²

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month.
[In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"¹⁵³ when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,¹⁵⁴ and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.¹⁵⁵ And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.¹⁵⁶ Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? "¹⁵⁷ Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being¹⁵⁸ of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;¹⁵⁹ and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? "He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Aeons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:-

If Irenaeus is wrong, what else is he wrong about? And if he's correct, what else is incorrect in the NT which is supposed to be 'divinely inspired', thus infallible??

I'm always cheerful! :)

Sure is taking a while for you to get from "In the beginning..." to "Amen". Ever hear of a Concordance? ;)

Knight & Lomas also wrote The Hiram Key, another interesting read.

I see you posted at several other threads until about 7PM. Guess you fellasleep, or forgot about this one.

Early morning ping to remind you.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a hard book to read or understand, unless you know some French and Latin. I lst my copy about half way through it. I was fascinated with the creations of the order in Jerusalem and the attempts made by the king of France to destroy them including the assassination of a few Popes. The order was broken up but their wealth was hidden and many escaped using the orders merchant fleet. I need to get another copy and finish the book.

Try visiting http://www.smotj.org/ the official site for the American Order. There has been a lot of inane speculation about the Knights Templar. Quite and very principled organizations tend to get that. They were a lot like Freepers for their time, but with a lot more money and cool armor. Christian, Chivalry, Honor and Freedom are the four words that paint the correct picture.

Late afternoon/early evening reminder!

(1) St. Irenaeus' account is a dispute over the timeline of Jesus' ministry, not an assertion that Jesus was never crucified, or survived the Crucifixion according to the natural order or had children.

(2) You set up a false argument by wondering whether St. Irenaeus is qualified to judge the NT or if he can ever be wrong.

The fact is, the NT had not even been definitively collated by the time St. Irenaeus died - the Church had not yet rendered judgment on the Scriptural status of the various texts of the NT. St. Irenaeus may not have had access to all the data we have access to.

St. Irenaeus opined in error, but (1) he did not repudiate any Christian doctrine in erring and (2) he did not have access to all the chronological particulars - he was merely human. Nitpicking one of the inconsistencies in an enormous work full of such sound doctrine is inequitable.

(3) This is why the Church places the Scriptures on a higher level than the writings of the saints - because the of the disparity between the respective authors.

Ok. So your saying that Irenaeus is wrong. I didn't say that Irenaeus refuted the crucifixtion. I posted that Irenaeus said that Jesus lived to be at least 50.

I thought the Knights Templars had all been killed.

It will be *fascinating and interesting* to see which revelations make it into the revised copy.

Indeed. I wonder if they will correct the mistranslation of Isaiah found in Matthew. One bible so far has made the correction in Isaiah, back to what was written in the Masoretic text. BUT, they do leave the error in Matthew! So now, Isaiah reads young woman as it should but Matthew reads as virgin. LOL

The Revised Standard Version

Isaiah 7:14
14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

Finally a correct translation. How long if ever before the other bibles correct their texts?

The problem is when the Aramaic and the Hebrew texts are translated into Greek. Some mistranslations may be accidental, but some are purely deliberate. A deliberate one:

Isaiah 7:14 from the Tanakh (Jewish Bible from the Hebrew text)

Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

How did we go from “Young Woman” in the Old Testament to “Virgin” in the New Testament in quoting the same verse?

The word "HaAlmah" (which is in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Bethulah."

The Hebrew word “HaAlmah” was purposefully mistranslated by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, as “Bethulah” in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek.

According to the King James Version (KJV) the verses says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin" which came from the Hebrew word "almah." Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not virgin.

Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians? The Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin.

Some scholars further allege that "shall conceive" should have been translated as "is with" child which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time.

Other critics of Christianity's claim note that "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means “has Conceived." They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English.

The Jews, contrary to false tradition, did not translate the Prophets or the Writings into Greek. The Rabbis only translated the Torah. This means that Alexandrian Jews or non-Jews translated the rest of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek much later and the Rabbis from Palestine had nothing to do with it. This explains why pagan traditions crept into the text and the translation.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures chose another word in place of “almah-young woman” which conveyed a completely different idea... ”parthenos-virgin.”

71 Rabbis translated the Torah; yet it was not they who translated the sefer naviim (book of prophets)! It was the result of Essene (proto-Christians) authors who translated sefer naviim from Hebrew into the language of the pagans. When the Christian bible was translated to Latin, the mistake was intentionally kept in, even though the original Hebrew text was still available!

Not that it matters, because this isn't even a Messianic prophecy!

Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and according to Luke 1:31 was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.