“You’re joking, right? We’re talking about the freaking CROSS here. It didn’t originate with the Templars or the Swiss. It began at Calvary. And it became an emblem for medicine in an era when most nurses were nuns”
True, the concept began at Calvary, but I believe the Templars were the first order to use the red cross.
The esoteric meaning of the cross concept on Calvary is the Ruby Cross, the four points of which correspond to the attributes of sacrifice, selflessness, service and surrender, which the Knights exemplified.
The concept of the Calvary cross also indicates the nexus where spirit meets matter, the vertical bar being spirit and the horizontal representing matter. The center point is the point of divinity in man.
IMHO, the concept of the crucifix is an idea that runs counter to Christ’s teaching. Jesus was on the cross for 3 hours; the church has had him there 2000 years. His victory over death, not his death, was what I believe he wanted us to focus on.
These are concepts I believe the Templars knew and were a threat to the church.
Wow. You make a lot of presumption.
>> IMHO, the concept of the crucifix is an idea that runs counter to Christ’s teaching. Jesus was on the cross for 3 hours; the church has had him there 2000 years. His victory over death, not his death, was what I believe he wanted us to focus on. These are concepts I believe the Templars knew and were a threat to the church. <<
Then why were the Knights Templar conducting the tours to go visit Golgotha? Why did they adopt the cross as their emblem? Why did all the churches they helped establish have huge crosses hanging in them?
Consider that the pope regarded them as innocent of the crimes he had jurisdiction over, heresy, but noted that they were probably guilty of crimes he didn’t: spitting on the cross as a matter of ritual, sexual misconduct, etc. If the pope were slandering them by accusing them of misconduct, wouldn’t he have made public his slander, and downplayed is vindication? Wouldn’t he have slandered them about things in his purview? Instead, what we have is the pope fighting with Philip that the Knights were innocent of the crimes in his purview, even though he believed the Knights to be guilty of other severe crimes. The disbanding of the Knights was only sensible (and hardly a grave punishment!), since they no longer served their purpose, and, fairly or not, had become quite infamous.
Philip was a nasty man, including having committed horrid atrocities against the Knights Templar. But he hardly represented the Catholic Church, even having been ex-communicated. The action of the Catholic Church was to stand up to Philip and declare the innocence of the Knights. For this the Church is hated?
True, the Church “seized” the Knights’ money. But was this evil? Was not the money collected from pilgrims for the purpose of protecting the Holy Land? Were not the Knights sworn to poverty? If the Knights kept any money for any purpose other than for the Church, it’d be misappropriation of funds.
Amen - and to follow what HE taught, what HE spent those years teaching - over and above what so many others, whose teaching are followed more, taught and were often in conflict with The Way. Jesus' teachings stand on their own. Beautiful. Simple. Profound and a direct connection...