Knights Templar to use latest imaging in search for Grail

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

[mgstarr]

For centuries the intricately carved stones of Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh have tantalised historians, archaeologists and devoted Christians.

A labyrinth of vaults beneath the 15th-century home of the Knights Templar is reputed to contain dozens of holy relics, including early gospels, the Ark of the Covenant, the fabled Holy Grail - and even the mummified head of Christ.

More than 550 years after the first foundation stones were laid, modern technology is about to put the legend to the test.

A group of Knights Templar, successors to the warrior monks who sought asylum from the Pope by fleeing to Scotland in the early 14th century and fought for Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, are to make a "non-invasive" survey of the land around the chapel.

They will use the latest ultrasound and thermal imaging technology in the hope of finding evidence of the existence of the vaults.

"The plan is to investigate the land around the chapel to a depth of at least 20ft," said John Ritchie, Grand Herald and spokesman for the Knights Templar.

"The machine we are using is the most sophisticated anywhere and is capable of taking readings from the ground up to a mile deep without disturbing any of the land.

"We know many of the Knights are buried in the grounds and there are many references to buried vaults, which we hope this project will finally uncover."Rosslyn Chapel, or the Collegiate Chapel of St Matthew as it was to have been, was founded in 1446 by Sir William St Clair, third and last Prince of Orkney.

Built as a celebration of Christ, it is also a monument to craftsmanship.

Bristling with flying buttresses and gargoyles in the highest Gothic style on the outside, the interior is carved with scenes from the Bible, the fall of man, the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the birth of Christ, the crucifixion and the resurrection.

"Rosslyn is an amazing building.

[muleskinner]

That would put a heinous new spin on his attitude!

It would explain much that happened at F.R. during his time of posting..

As to his whereabouts, may I present a postulation that A+Bert is/was a member of the Priory de Sion, and posted specifically to distract and disrupt.

Those on this thread who are posting in an insulting, combative style (and you know who you are), are therefore, a member of the Priory.

[Green Knight]

Oh, man. You're a hair splitter. How I hate hairsplitting. Would you like to argue what the definition of "is" is after we're through here?

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.

So someone who is blasphemous isn't a blasphemer? That's one mighty fine hair to be splitting, there.

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!

I paintbrushed it to all historians because the vast majority of historians aren't out writing in history books that Jesus died for our sins. But hey, if it bothers you so much that I'm including a small minority of historians in my paintbrush, then let me rephrase that line.

CCWoody: The vast majority of historians are blasphemers!

Better?

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

Ah, I see. Now you're the Arbiter of who's a Christian and who's not. Let me say right away that I'm Catholic, in case that matters.

[Henchman]

Is that where the watch company got its name?

[Velveeta]

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

That's not exactly it....the authors did state that as a hypothesis, however the more *likely* hypothesis they stated was that Mary Magdalene escaped to France after the crucifiction, with child

[CCWoody]

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

Found on the back cover of the book:

• Is it possible Christ did not die on the cross?
• Is it possible Jesus was married, a father, and that his bloodline still exists?

According to the authors of this extraordinary provocative, meticulously researched book, not only are these things possible-they are probably true! So revolutionary, so original, so convincing, that the most faithful Christians will be moved;....

Evidently, you need to reread this idiotic book again. I don't think you understood a word you read from it. Either that, or the people who sell this book are lying to sell this drivel.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

It'd probably be more accurate if you were to say that the Templars were one of the elements that may have been involved in the evolution of Freemasonry. There is some pretty good evidence that the institution of Feremasonry can be traced to the second king of ancient Rome, Numa Pompilus. [And I will have been a Feemason for 50 years in April.]

Coming from a long line of Freemasons, though I myself am not, I vote for an English pup in the early 1700's.

[Xenalyte]

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

(Deep cleansing breath . . . serenity now.)

As I said in three of my posts, the authors do not claim anything. They posit a possibility based on an interpretation of the historical evidence, which is what historians do for a living. Some are right, some are wrong, some are ignored, some are tinfoil-worthy.

The Baigent/Leigh/Lincoln books (along with those by Graham Hancock, Werner Keller, Roger Shattuck et al) are much like those books that ask, "What if the Civil War never happened? What if Hitler didn't off himself? What if we'd assassinated Castro? What if Kennedy lived?"

Bottom line: you don't have to read it, so don't worry about my literary interests. (Or my faith, although I'm touched at your concern.)

[CCWoody]

One can debate history or one can debate theology. ~ Long Cut

Well, gosh, when a historian, or anyone for that matter says that: "Jesus did not die on the cross" it is a blasphemy. I'm not aware of this artifical separation of history and theology clause you seem to be citing as a defense of blasphemy.

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. ~ Long Cut

Either "Jesus did not die on the cross" is a blapshemy or it is not. Make a stand man and quit wiggling around like a spineless worm.

Woody.

[Notforprophet]

Since you haven't read the book, you're hardly qualified to comment on it, IMHO. But let me take issue with one of your assertions:

To claim that Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered children by her is blasphemous.

I disagree with your position that Christ's alleged marriage to Mary Magdalene is blasphemous. First of all, Jesus is called rabbi quite often in the Gospels, and it is commonly known that in Jewish tradition only married men can become rabbis.

Secondly, at the wedding feast in Cana, the servants go first to Jesus' mother to complain about the wine running out, and then Mary goes to Jesus to tell him about the no wine situation. In Jewish tradition, the groom is the master of the wedding feast, and the mother of the groom is traditionally tasked with managing the feast itself. So it can be inferred, without fear of blasphemy, that Jesus may in fact have been the groom at that infamous wedding where He turned the water into wine.

Thirdly, as Jesus approaches the village where Lazarus lived with his sister, Mary Magdalene, He is told "Lord, if you had been here sooner your brother would not be dead." Why do you suppose Lazarus is referred to as Christs "Brother"? Do you suppose the term was used in the modern sense, or could it have been a literal reference?

Finally, in no way is it blasphemous to postulate that Jesus may have been married and that He may even have fathered children. The Bible is clear that the institution of marriage holds a special blessing in God's eyes, and there is no reason to think that any children of such blessed union would be anything other than average, regular human children. Jesus was the Son of God, that doesn't mean that His offspring enjoyed the same exalted deity. Moreover, how would it detract from Jesus' holiness? If marriage is a sacrament, blessed by God, how is it blashphemy to suppose that His Son might have been married and experienced that blessing while living as a mortal man among us?

Woody, you seem like a good enough sort. But don't rush to label someone or some book blasphemous, if you haven't even bothered to read it.

[Xenalyte]

Found on the back cover of the book:

STEP AWAY FROM THE BOOK. Didn't you see Raiders of the Lost Ark? If you gaze upon the book long enough, your eyes will melt.

(And seriously, dude, we don't have time enough for me to explain how very little a book's author has to do with its marketing strategy.)

[Xenalyte]

Coming from a long line of Freemasons, though I myself am not, I vote for an English pup in the early 1700's.

Knowing what I do of Englishmen and Freemasons, I'm inclined to vote that way myself. :)

[Notforprophet]

I have to step away from this thread for the night, it's almost 11:00 here and WAY past my bedtime.

Bump for catching up tomorrow...

[CCWoody]

Ah, I see. Now you're the Arbiter of who's a Christian and who's not. Let me say right away that I'm Catholic, in case that matters. ~ Green Knight

Well, there you go prattling on again. I never declared you a Christian or non-Christian. 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.

But, then, your historical exemptions argument as a defense for blasphemy was pathetic to begin with.

Woody.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

B) Historians will NEVER say that Christ was resurrected.

But historians (Tacitus, Josephus) DID 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?

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.

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.

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.

[CCWoody]

That's not exactly it....the authors did state that as a hypothesis ~ Velveeta

Well, Xenalyte has been adamantly denying that the book even discusses that. Obviously, somebody is a source of misinformation. However, since I copied those statements directly from the jacket cover of the book, I'll surmise that the lowfat version of Xena, warrior princess is the source of misinformation.

Woody.

[Dubya]

Hi Turk,
You are right. In America a man must be a Mason in order to belong to the arm of the Mason named the Knight Templer. It is most of the time joined by Masons who are Christians.

I don't know about Masons in other Countries.

[Long Cut]

I'll try to be polite, your insulting tone notwithstanding.

"Well, gosh, when a historian, or anyone for that matter says that: "Jesus did not die on the cross" it is a blasphemy. "

No, it is something else: a theory. It can, presumably, be proven or disproven by facts and observations of events and records. If the statement can be disproven by OTHER facts and observations, then do so, by all means. Simply calling it "blasphemy" however, misses the point. I presume that it also relieves you of the burden of providing proof that the statement is false, which I note that you have not.

"I'm not aware of this artifical separation of history and theology clause you seem to be citing as a defense of blasphemy."

It is hardly artificial. Or do you deny ANY difference between proven fact and belief based upon faith? It is hardly possible to equally compare the two.

"Either "Jesus did not die on the cross" is a blapshemy or it is not. "

It is not. It could be offensive to one of the faithful, but that hardly constitutes blasphemy. It also does NOT invalidate the statement.

"Make a stand man and quit wiggling around like a spineless worm."

Unworthy of response. I can see that you are unwilling to discuss this with any degree of objectivity. Does one unproven hypothesis so shake your faith, that you attack it so? Refute it on the merits, use some facts, but please, spare us the Hellfire and Brimstone. It hardly contributes to the debate.

[Velveeta]

You really would have to read the book to understand.

When I first read the book, I too felt it *was* blasphemous. That darn book started me on a very long journey and led me back to the church from which I had been estranged for so long...

I finally realized (for myself) that it's not just all about the Resurrection, but about His Life and His Teachings.

[Xenalyte]

Well, Xenalyte has been adamantly denying that the book even discusses that.

I denied that the authors present the marriage hypothesis as fact. I never denied the book's subject matter, for crying out loud.

[Xenalyte]

I finally realized (for myself) that it's not just all about the Resurrection, but about His Life and His Teachings.

What you said, and thanks for saying it.