Knights Templar hid the shroud of Turin

[kissbang]

The Knights Templar, an order which was suppressed and disbanded for alleged heresy, took care of the linen cloth, which bears the image of a man with a beard, long hair and the wounds of crucifixion, according to Vatican researchers.

The Shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral, has long been revered as the shroud in which Jesus was buried, although the image only appeared clearly in 1898 when a photographer developed a negative.

Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives, said the Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and did not surface again until the middle of the fourteenth century. Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Dr Frale said its fate in those years had always puzzled historians./QUOTE]
/www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6040521.ece

[kidflash2008]

There are some who claim the Shroud of Turin is that of a Templar Knight, but the history of the Shroud does actually date before the Knights were formed. Who made the Shroud and why is still a mystery.

[Truthed]

Anyone see the Secrets Of The Knights Templar special on national geo last night?

[Tecnos]

Jacques De Molay.

The second 'Messiah'.....

[Tecnos]

Who made the shroud isn't a mystery. (it's been documented)

The date it was created isn't a mystery. (it's been dated)

Who wore it isn't a mystery. (it's been proven)

Jacques De Molay.

Two Masonic historians, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, have written a controversial book called The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud, and the Great Secret of Freemasonry, which claims that the Turin Shroud is actually an image of Jacques de Molay, not of Jesus Christ as is common belief. They claim that when King Philip IV of France and Pope Clement V seized and dissolved the Order of the Knights Templar, one of the French king's inquisitors, Guillame de Nogaret, tortured and crucified de Molay in a parody of the crucifixion of Jesus. He then put a cloth on de Molay's head, and de Molay's face was imprinted on the cloth. The authors claim that one of the reasons the Knights Templar were suppressed was because they knew a secret true history of Jesus which had been distorted by the Roman Catholic Church. According to Knight and Lomas, Jesus considered himself not God, but a Jewish revolutionary working to establish God's kingdom on Earth, and that the Templars' initiation ceremony involved a denial of Jesus as God.

Apart from Knight and Lomas' suggested scenario, there is a connection in the provenance of the Shroud of Turin and the Templars. Geoffroi de Charny's widow Jeanne de Vergy is the first reliably recorded owner of the Turin shroud; his uncle, Geoffrey de Charney, was Preceptor of Normandy for the Knights Templar. This uncle is the same Geoffrey de Charney who was initially sentenced to lifetime imprisonment with de Molay, and was burned with de Molay in 1314 after both proclaimed their innocence, recanting torture-induced confessions.

I'm sure that I've posted a link to the book "The Second Messiah" by Messrs Knight and Lomas on this site in the past couple of days....

Then again, I could be wrong.... but I'm not.

If you want me to get smart on your 'asses' I will. but just take it from me. Research it.

[Tecnos]

And so I did........

The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry (Paperback) ISBN: 0-09-922732-0


Books about Secret Societies

[kidflash2008]

Originally Posted by Tecnos

Who made the shroud isn't a mystery. (it's been documented)

The date it was created isn't a mystery. (it's been dated)

Who wore it isn't a mystery. (it's been proven)

Jacques De Molay.

I got my information from the book by Colin Wilson's Mammoth Book of Mysteries. He also quotes the theories from the above writers and finds there is evidence of the Shroud that dates before Jacques De Molay. It is also questionable on how they knew about the wrists being used for crucifixion instead of the hands. All artwork and statues showed the hands being used, so the torturers would of nailed Jacques De Molay's hands.

I also saw a special a while back in which the dating of the Shroud is put into question because of a substance that was used to protect it. The chemicals of the substance were not part of the equation when the Shroud was tested. So far the Shroud has not been retested, as the Duke of Savoy (who now owns the Shroud) has not allowed more portions to be cut from it.

While I am ordering Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas' books from the library, I have also read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which was the first to really touch on the subject of Jesus being a regular man and having descendants from Mary Magdalene. I do not disagree with that aspect, but I do wonder the true origins of the Shroud.

As you can see, I have also done my research, too. I think it could be possible for it to be Jacques De Molay, but am not convinced it is. I still think it was Jesus, although I also agree that Jesus was a man. He was called King of the Jews because he was a direct descendant from David through his father Joseph. Joseph may not have claimed to father Jesus early on, as he was entitled to be the king, and if he had an heir, that person would be in danger.

This is a complicated theory, and I do not think they are all 100% correct. I do think the basics are correct, but I still believe the Shroud of Turin to be a mystery. Until the Duke of Savoy allows the Shroud to be tested by modern means now available, a lot of the information about it will remain inconclusive.

[Tecnos]

Mr Kidflash....

I'm not in contention with your points that you have raised... at all.

I agree that 'Joshua Ben Joseph' was an ordinary man.....

So was his brother, James (who, I put to you, was crucified on the mount)....

If you regard the language: "Jesus" is the Latin form of the Greek 'Iesous', which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation."

"Christ": Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias, means "anointed." According to the Old Law, priests (Exodus 29:29; Leviticus 4:3), kings (1 Samuel 10:1; 24:7), and prophets (Isaiah 61:1) were supposed to be anointed for their respective offices; now, the Christ, or the Messias, combined this threefold dignity in His Person.

Joshua Ben Joseph (please don't comment if you have only read Dan Brown)..... Was simply a bloke, who 'knew more'........

Speaking of Dan Brown, there is creditable comment that "Robert Langsford" is the focus of Mr. Browns muse, and is, in fact the projection of "Robert Lomas".

Mr. Lomas is a York Rite Mason....... So what?

In short: Jesus was probably not the 'son of God', he was probably black, he was probably a gypsy, he probably had a girlfriend (and kids)..... and probably wasn't devine.

It's only the 'half arsed rewritten book called the "New Teatament" that calls him devine'!!!!!!

[Tecnos]

PS: I believe in "God"......

[kidflash2008]

I do think Jesus was a man, but the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" states that he was of royal blood, as he was directly descended from David. He also had many brothers and sisters, and the book states he was probably crucified, although they give other references that state someone was crucified in his place.
I happen to think he was crucified, but was given a drug that made him unconscious. The authors of the above mentioned book go into great detail on how it was accomplished and quote Scripture as references.

Early Christians believed that Jesus was a regular man, who was also a teacher. The divinity and virgin birth claims were not officially added to the Church Doctrine until the Council of Nicea.

BTW, I have never read a Dan Brown book. I have read many other authors on this subject, and find it quite fascinating. Many modern day Jews and Christians scoff at the idea that most temples in the past were also dedicated to Isis/Ishtar. The belief in Isis was so great during the early church, that the leaders made Mary a virgin and gave her "goddess" stature (Mary, Mother of God). Eventually, the Virgin Mary replaced Isis.

It is really nice to have a mature discussion on such a controversial subject. I cannot have a discussion of religion like this with my family, as they are a mix of devout Catholics and Born Again Christians. My mother yelled at me when I said something along the line of "Thank Goddess". I keep my Pagan beliefs to myself.