A Conversation for The Knights Templar
? Started conversation Jan 17, 2001
To anyone interested in the Knights Templar, I would like to recommend "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco.
It's a novel, I admit, but a LOT of historical info about the Templars can be gleaned from it: Eco researches thoroughly before he writes about something.
(Also informative about Hermeticism, Gnosticism, alchemy and others, the novel is one great paranoia-inducing conspiracy-theory. )
littleNero, master and collector of useless information Posted Apr 13, 2001
Nice to meet you here...Kareem (wasn´t there a "Doctor" in front, month ago?) -- where, if not in interesting places, yep?
What about Charles de Mornay...the french king..(I bet it was a Louis..)...the still existing branch of knights templars in Scottland...
Joseph of Arimatraea... a dukes family in France, who leads their origins directly to Jesus Christ etc.??
What about the Albigenser, the "Rosenkreuzer"(cruci ferentes)....
Lot´s of interesting information to discover...
PS: "The Foucault´s Pendulum" is amazing, well written, but I think, you must have made lot´s of historical studies to understand the cross-referenceas....
KevinM Posted Mar 2, 2004
The Merovingian dynasty connection is nonsense. No evidence exists Christ even sired children let alone that descendents still exist.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted Feb 10, 2005
No evidence exists that Jesus was the son of any god either. If a billion people say something, it doesn't make it true.
If a handful say something, it doesn't make it untrue either. I respect your beliefs but please don't slander others' like that.
If you read your history KevinM, you'll find there *is* evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a romantic relationship (eg the Gospel of Philip, or in fact a few Guide Entries). The Merovingian connection, though, is as credible as the Resurrection.
The Da Vinci Code offers a speculative interpretation of these stories, as well as the nature of the Templars.
KevinM Posted Feb 20, 2005
SOrry your so far out in left field your not even in the same galaxy as reality. HEres some facts: First Dan Brown was a liberal christian basher who wrote a piece of tabloid trash that no historian would take seriously. Even the founders of the Blood delusion(the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail) will tell you that Browne's book is nonsense.
Second no document written any thing like the time of Christ supports the idea that Mary had a romantic relationship with Jesus. The Gnostic Gospels like Paul, Mary Magdalene and Thomas were written in the first and second century. THe four gospels themselves are the oldest known documentation of the life of Christ(dating prior to 60 AD). Based on what? Textual clues and the carbon dating of known fragments. As for these purely modern delusions being credible why? Because some author looking to make a buck invented it close to two thousand years after the death of Christ? No where in any historical text either the gospels or the heretical later texts you champion does it even imply that Jesus had a child. None of the early church fathers ever mention it in there writtings. Why is this idea as credible as an event for which four seperate accounts exist that are in almost perfect agreement(the resurrection)? Please by all means show me actual historical documentation for these delusions if it exists. Name the exact place in any gospel gnostic or other wise that documents the children of Christ?
KevinM Posted Feb 20, 2005
For accurate information(as opposed to Liberal historical revisionism) allow me to also recommend: The bible(where first hand accounts clarify Christ said he was divine which means he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the messiah (under ancient law prophets are 100% accurate when speaking as prophets so he can't have been that), The Davinci Hoax(an excelent disection of the many blatent lies in Dan Brownes propaganda), and Faith on Trial(a lawyers look at the evidence in support of the four gospels). I have studied history and the legends of the many texts that claim to record the life of christ. Despite the popular modern myths they are flawed innacurate accounts that can not be reliably traced back to the time period of Christ. On the other hand all available evidence supports that the gospels were written no later then the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in 60 ad(common sense folks why command people to worship at a temple that doesn't exist any more?). I'm tired of the fact people insist these anti christian theories be taken seriously just becuase some one can find some vague refference in a text that the vast majority of Christians have ignored for the entire history of the religion. The divinity of Christ has been always widely accepted as a christian tenant(contrary to the lie Brown tells the council voted in an overwhelming majority that Christ was one with God with only 2 dissenters and the question wasn't was Christ divine? it was was Christ part of God or a lesser god?). Study your factual history instead of the conspiracy theories.
The factual reasons for the fall of the Templars are obvious and require no conspiracy. King Phillip le Belle was a greedy jerk who orchastrated the destruction of the order to get his hands on there money. Do you believe that little green men are secretly controlling the US government? That conspiracy is every bit as credible as the Holy Blood one.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted Mar 17, 2005
Sorry I haven't replied earlier Kevin, but I haven't logged onto H2G2 for some time. You seem to have misunderstood me to some extent. I described the Da Vinci Code as 'speculative', and I don't believe in conspiracies, nor that Browne's conclusions are wholly justified. That fact aside, I find your attitude deeply offensive and have submitted a complaint to the Moderators. The 'Code' is an innocent novel, and while it does take some factual evidence (in addition to some far-fetched conclusions) it does not deserve to be labelled 'propaganda' or 'blatant lies', merely 'fiction'. My research into the alternative stories of Christ has been quite thorough, and I wager I know a good deal more about it than you do. Though I am a Witch and not a Christian, I attend one of the most conservative Catholic schools in Melbourne and studied the story of the Council of Nicaea, among other things, in great detail last year. Before Nicaea, opinion was divided as to Christ's divinity or lack thereof. I have studied the Bible thoroughly and found little or nothing relevant, though I will investigate the other texts you recommend. The Bible however is not an historical record, any more than the Apocryphal Gospels of Thomas, Philip, or Mary Magdalene are.
The Guide is not a forum for proselytism or ridicule, but for honest discussion. I hope the Editors deal with you appropriately. In the meantime, keep faith in your own way and let me keep it in mine.
KevinM Posted Mar 26, 2005
Oh the editors are going to be more angry with me big whoop. What I said was in fact completely accurate. The book is a series of lies passed off as fact. The dates exist, a few of the groups exist and thats about it. It grossly misrepresents Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and frankly is incredibly offensive to me and most other people who have done any research beyond liberal anti christian propoganda. Instead of studying the lies why don't you study some actual christian history. Its considerably less revisionist then Browne and his fellow conspiracy theorists make it out to be. You keep your beliefs never said you don't have the right to. Just don't tell me I have to show respect to a badly researched book of propoganda fundamentally no different then the idiots who think aliens landed at Roswell. The book is offsensive but like most non christians that fine with you becuase its only offensive to christians.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted Mar 30, 2005
For your information Kevin my parents and almost all my friends are Catholic, and they enjoy the Da Vinci Code because they appreciate it for what it is: a work of fiction. You obviously have not even seen it because nowhere does Brown pass it off as fact. I do not believe in conspiracy theories, and I do not believe that the descendants of Christ (if they ever did exist) could ever be verified.
A more concrete point you seem to have overlooked is that Dan Brown himself is a Catholic, as he mentions in the introduction to Angels and Demons. In this book, the prequel to the Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Church are the good guys.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I *have* studied real Christian history in some depth for the last five years.
In hindsight, the Editors were probably right to leave you alone. I have a low tolerance for proselytists like yourself, and probably overreacted somewhat. However in future I suggest you follow your own advice and be sure of your facts.
Finally I am not telling you to show respect to the novel. Just please don't show active disrespect; don't slander it, and don't slander the Roswellians either for that matter. We all have a right to be stupid. This is not the place.
KevinM Posted Apr 12, 2005
You know what that bluntly is the problem with society. People have this nonsensical idea that all ideas should be treated as being equal. They aren't. NEver have been, NEVER will be. Do I respect the fact people have the right to beleive any ridiculous and infantile notion that crosses there mind? Absolutely. Does that mean I'm afraid to call a spade a spade? No. Browne isn't catholic. He can claim any delusion he wants but when he publishes a book he claims is based on facts(a complete lie) thats a blatent attack on catholcism his true colors come shining through. If he was a fan of the Catholicism in any sense of the word he'd have based his book on fact not wildly inaccurate speculation. Lets consider again some of his lies:
1) He claims the vote that decided Catholic doctorine as being that Christ was part of God was only one of many views(true but the question was was Jesus part of God or some lesser divinity no christian was actually proposing that he was a human prophet let alone that the Magdalene was divine).
2)He also claims that it passed by a slim margin: only two votes out of 98 were against the decision not slim by any stretch of even the most deluded imagination
3)He claims that the Grail was the womb of Magdelene: The grail doesn't exist. It was invented in the 12th century as a literary device. Its oldest known refference is as a plate that appears to Percival that has no connection what so ever to Jesus, the last supper or the crucifiction these were added by later authors like Mallory.
4) He claim the templars were destroyed for protecting the secret: The reason the templars were destroyed was simple greed. No elaborate conspiracy theory is needed(Ockains razor alone discounts a grand conspiracy)
Its also interesting that the original archetects of this whole blood line delusion the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail have spoken up to say he's full of it. Browne is a some what talented author passing of pure fiction as if it had some basis in reality. He should be given the same credibility as Sylvia Browne or any other con artist using the supernatural to make money.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted Apr 16, 2005
Brown does not make any 'claims' whatsoever with regard to 'facts' in his novel, except that the Priory of Sion exists. I already know the facts you have quoted, and I know that Brown is either mistaken or more likely creating an 'alternative', fictional history. Why don't you have a go instead at the authors of 'Holy Blood Holy Grail', who did make such claims and have now confessed that they put in the suggestion about the Priory's link to the line of Christ simply because they didn't actually have any real information about the Priory's secret.
Those who have real supernatural powers are not con artists. Only those who claim to possess such powers but don't (and these are far more common) are the con artists. I do not use my magick simply for personal gain at the expense of others. The Threefold Law (or karma) prohibits it.
The problem with society is people taking advantage of other people. Some ideas and theories, to be sure, are more valid than others, but like I said, we have a right to be stupid, so long as we harm no one else. Who is the Davinci Code harming?
KevinM Posted Apr 17, 2005
It has a right to be stupid and I have a right to call it such. Is it harming any one? Only those foolish enoough to take its propoganda at face value(which are many). Does that mean people aren't entitled to call it garbage? NO. I have as much right to my oppinion as Dan Browne has to his own. I have as much right to voice that oppinion as he does. His own book claims to be based in real organizations and events(not just the Priori which he blatently misrepresents but he excells at that) if thats the case he should base it on accurate information or admit its the 100% fiction that it really is.
As to the realm of the paranormal in general(supernatural properly is only that which directly orginates from God or his angels) its filled with frauds, charlitans and con artists. You can practice magick any way you like but that doesn't change the reality that there are people like Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, Uri Geller, and John Edwards who are using the tricks of stage magicians to seem to have paranormal powers. That is who I specificly meant(hence naming one of the biggest of all New Age con artists Browne in the original statement) not the whole of the paranormal.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted Apr 30, 2005
My bad. I thought you were claiming that everything 'supernatural' was bogus. I completely agree with you re John Edwards etc. - he gives all us witches a really bad name - but what does that have to do with Dan Brown? And please could you refrain from using the Christian-centric rhetoric - if I were half as touchy as you are I would be deeply offended. As it is, I am merely mildly derisive (and would be if you exclusively referred to my world-view too). Supernatural things derive from whatever supernatural being one happens to believe in. In your case, that happens to be one god. In my case, it is an entire hierarchy.
Browne has nothing to do with anything supernatural. Nor does he claim that his fiction is anything but fiction - all he claims is that the artwork, architecture, etc. is accurate. He makes no claims regerding the 'history' behind his tale. Not that anyone can prove history. I defy you to demonstrate one situation - even hypothetical - where it causes any sort of harm.
KevinM Posted May 1, 2005
You know what this is pointless. If you want to think its fine to publish complete lies about a religion and claim it has some basis in reality heres a thought. How about I write a fictional novel tracing the origins of Wicca to Aleister Crowley, the Marquis de Sade and Giles de Reis painting the entire religion as a group secretly worshiping demons while puting up a false front of godess worship. Is that acceptable to you since its only fiction using real people, places and times?
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted May 1, 2005
Perfectly acceptable. So long as, like Dan Brown (and unlike eg. Sylvia Browne/John Edwards/etc.), you acknowledge its fictional nature. Of course, people will just as soon believe you as we believe that Brown's fictional history is true.
But not right now, please. Wicca has had enough bad publicity in Melbourne in the last week. You know, of course, that some Catholic priests have been charged with and found guilty of paedophilia. or maybe you don't, I don't know how global the problem is, but in Australia it has been the case. In the last week a similar thing happened to a Melbourne witch. Of course he is no more a witch than the priests mentioned are Christian, ie. in name rather than deed. We have all had to retreat into the closet, so to speak, for the time being.
Peace, cuio vae.
KevinM Posted May 1, 2005
Ok thats actually a better answer then I expected. I stil disagree with the idea Brown is presenting his theories as fiction(the story is the fictional part not the underlying nonsense about Magdelene and the Grail). Regardless the point does remain a lot of people do take it seriously and do think its a well thoguht out theory based on accurate information.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted May 2, 2005
Of course the underlying 'nonsense' is supposed to be fiction, what are you talking about. I don't *think* even Brown believes it, certainly the readers of his novel don't. He does raise some interesting questions, though, such as what is that woman doing in The Last Supper? There are in fact several old paintings and engravings around, which Brown doesn't even mention, that depict a woman in that scene.
KevinM Posted May 2, 2005
Its not a woman for starters its one of the Apostles. Thats been the widely accepted view among art historians for a long time. Also if you don't think many of his readers think his fantasies about the Grail have a basis in reality i suggest you take a look around the web. A lot of people seem very sure that he is talking about a real conspiracy. I mean its not suprising since people also think George W Bush is a reptilian but the point remains.
Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! Posted May 3, 2005
Premise: People are idiots.
Fact: I am not an idiot.
Therefore: I am not a person. I am nobody.
Premise: Nobody is perfect.
Therefore: I am perfect.
- Rocky Kozuch.
How long is a long time? The particular part of the painting had been obscured until the 1950s. But Leonardo was at least a little kuku.
drguido Posted Oct 10, 2008
I'd like to make a few statements. Human beings are (in our times at least) completely subjective, with thoughts and precepts that go back thousands of years concerning everything. Most of these things, ideas, concepts etc. have been fictionalized. Why do people have a problem with this being applied to religion? Like Rushdie before him, Brown will be persecuted despite his beliefs because he gives a new take on familiar ritual acts that people come to love more than the concept of living and letting other people live.
another thing, people have a tendency to take that which appeals to them to heart, such as alien abduction (an externalization of looking for release or freedom in our society) or conspiriacy theories (the idea that big business/politics is bad because of it's corrupting influence on those involved). As far as religion goes, is there not a case for saying that those who are interested by what Mr Brown has to say might not turn, eventually, to gaining the same viewpoint as yourself, Mr KevinM? Surely, no one will deny that the Catholic Church needs a boost in their public image, and a boost in interest levels...
also, I never found vitriolic ranting helped me put my point across, personally i prefer a nice, even tempered argument...
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: ? (Jan 17, 2001)
- 2: littleNero, master and collector of useless information (Apr 13, 2001)
- 3: KevinM (Mar 2, 2004)
- 4: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (Feb 10, 2005)
- 5: KevinM (Feb 20, 2005)
- 6: KevinM (Feb 20, 2005)
- 7: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (Mar 17, 2005)
- 8: KevinM (Mar 26, 2005)
- 9: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (Mar 30, 2005)
- 10: KevinM (Apr 12, 2005)
- 11: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (Apr 16, 2005)
- 12: KevinM (Apr 17, 2005)
- 13: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (Apr 30, 2005)
- 14: KevinM (May 1, 2005)
- 15: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (May 1, 2005)
- 16: KevinM (May 1, 2005)
- 17: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (May 2, 2005)
- 18: KevinM (May 2, 2005)
- 19: Roccondil - Let others rise to take our place until the Earth is free! (May 3, 2005)
- 20: drguido (Oct 10, 2008)