Knights Templar Hid the Shroud of Turin

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

DVB wrote:

roscoe wrote:

Veronica means "Image of God". There was never a person called Veronica.

It's all in Knight & Lomas' "Second Messiah". There is no mystery of the Turin Shroud.

Not correct (but if you're citing Knight & Lomas for verification, that's hardly surprising!).

So tell me why it is that you trio ALWAYS reach for the ad hominem attack the instance you're cornered? By this ye shall know them.

How's it go. If you can't attack the message attack the messenger. Yep it does fool some indeed most.

DVB wrote:

There is a school of thought that says that Veronica derives from "True Image" (not Image of God or Head of God), but it is generally thought more likely to mean "a woman from Verona". Some fanciful sources say it's the Italian or Spanish equivalent of the Greek Berenike, meaning "Bringer of Victory". But "Head of God" or "Image of God" it ain't.

OK. Whatever. Ain't no Veronica any way.

Oh I forgot your other instant coffee tirade is the pedantry gambit.

By this ye shall also know them.

DVB · **Joined:** 20 Jul 2008 4:03 pm **Posts:** 683

roscoe wrote:

So tell me why it is that you trio ALWAYS reach for the ad hominem attack the instance you're cornered? By this ye shall know them.

Perhaps it is pedantic for me to point out that criticising the scholarship shown in the research in books by Knight & Lomas is not actually an ad hominem attack, it's an attack of substance. An ad hominem attack is what you yourself indulge in all too often, in attacking the character of people posting on this forum, rather than attempting to respond to the points that they have made.

jb1717 · **Joined:** 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am **Posts:** 2935

"Jacques eMolay was burned at the stake on March 19, 1314 together with Geoffroy de Charney, Templar preceptor of Normandy (not the same Geoffroy de Charney who came into the possession of the Shroud in the mid-1350, though he may have been related)." http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/demolay.htm

He also looks shorter than the shroud image to me. Look, he's a halfling, and bald as an eagle;

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 2:45 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

Oh boy, I can hardly wait for this one...

Fraid its true Tim.

I am happy to send you the article ... and face your criticism :lol:

I would hope you find it interesting on its own merits ..... ; )

I'm game. Is it posted somewhere or do you want to e-mail it to me? janicot1@yahoo.com.

TCP

DVB · **Joined:** 20 Jul 2008 4:03 pm **Posts:** 683

Roger wrote:

I have posted on the topic of serious Freemason historians debunking the "Templar Foundation" of Freemasonry myths several times on this forum and elsewhere, even quoting lengthy passages.

I don't believe doing so yet again will change certain people's desperately-held "belief systems".

I'll just say that it's always better to quote source materials as much as possible, rather than modern interpretative jumbles, particularly when they are as unscholarly (and blatantly erroneous at times) as Knight & Lomas.

Ditto, in two books on secret societies, and elsewhere.

As for Knight & Lomas, after I'd reviewed one of their books some years ago, a colleague asked me for my notes detailing some of their most blatant errors. When he put some of these points to the authors at a meeting, their response was somewhat illuminating: "You're focussing too much on factual truths; we're more interested in poetic truths."

One or two of Lomas's later solo books are worth reading -- with a certain amount of care -- but the three late-1990s books by the pair of them should really be filed on the fiction shelves.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

DVB wrote:

roscoe wrote:

So tell me why it is that you trio ALWAYS reach for the ad hominem attack the instance you're cornered? By this ye shall know them.

Perhaps it is pedantic for me to point out that criticising the scholarship shown in the research in books by Knight & Lomas is not actually an ad hominem attack, it's an attack of substance. An ad hominem attack is what you yourself indulge in all too often, in attacking the character of people posting on this forum, rather than attempting to respond to the points that they have made.

Just a minute my chin is dragging on the floor. Hello pan this is kettle.

I ask you trio to back up your wild claims again and again and every time you duck out of it. Oh and by the way I have evidence to back up that statement.

Now you came straight in and attacked Knight and Lomas by name, you made no attempt to question the validity of what they said you just questioned their character because they don't believe your horsefeathers. That's an ad hominem attack.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

Roger wrote:

I have posted on the topic of serious Freemason historians debunking the "Templar Foundation" of Freemasonry myths several times on this forum and elsewhere, even quoting lengthy passages.

Bluff challenged. Show me? I've had my belly full of your nebulous argument technique.

Roger wrote:

I don't believe doing so yet again will change certain people's desperately-held "belief systems".

No because it doesn't exist that's why. Who do you think you're fooling ay?

Roger wrote:

I'll just say that it's always better to quote source materials as much as possible, rather than modern interpretative jumbles, particularly when they are as unscholarly (and blatantly erroneous at times) as Knight & Lomas.

Thanks for the opinion. Now is there any meat to that nebulous statement or are you bluffing like you normally do.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

DVB wrote:

Roger wrote:

I have posted on the topic of serious Freemason historians debunking the "Templar Foundation" of Freemasonry myths several times on this forum and elsewhere, even quoting lengthy passages.

I don't believe doing so yet again will change certain people's desperately-held "belief systems".

I'll just say that it's always better to quote source materials as much as possible, rather than modern interpretative jumbles, particularly when they are as unscholarly (and blatantly erroneous at times) as Knight & Lomas.

Ditto, in two books on secret societies, and elsewhere.

As for Knight & Lomas, after I'd reviewed one of their books some years ago, a colleague asked me for my notes detailing some of their most blatant errors. When he put some of these points to the authors at a meeting, their response was somewhat illuminating: "You're focussing too much on factual truths; we're more interested in poetic truths."

One or two of Lomas's later solo books are worth reading -- with a certain amount of care -- but the three late-1990s books by the pair of them should really be filed on the fiction shelves.

What's the betting that if we got you to put out what these so-called "blatant errors" are we'd find that it just ran opposite to your OPINION.

So are you chicken or are you up for it let's see what these "Blatant errors" are.

So less of this nebulous argument technique that's fooling nobody and let's see whatcha got?

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

roscoe wrote:

Roger wrote:

Quote:

The authors soon paint a larger history of the Knights Templar, the Crusaders who were the originators of modern Freemasonry

Quote:

The chapter entitled "The Tarot and the Templars" fascinates with its explanation of how the allegorical cards were used by the Knights to instruct members in the secrets of Freemasonry, and how the Church misinterpreted the meanings of the Tarot and outlawed it.

All of which has been thoroughly debunked over the last 200 years, even by serious Freemason historians. That it even needed debunking is the saddest part of this saga.

Oooooooohhhh!! reeeesult!

Hello.

And you have evidence for this of course Gungadin?

I guess the answer to this question was a big fat zilch. He's bluffing

AGAIN

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 4:37 pm

Its interesting that Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention that the Hemorrhissa had suffered for 12yrs of her plague. Whilst this may be a common source indicator would that period of time have any other symbolism?
The story of Veronica or Bernice seems to be a folk tale but isnt mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. In 1143 the "Sudarium Christi which is called Veronica" was being 'censed' in Rome
However the Middle Ages were awash with holy relics or acheiropoietos similar in design or appearence. Although a cautionary note ascribes this word to a genre of Religious art rather than images 'not made by human hands'.
There were Sudariums of Andechs in Bavaria and Oviedo in Spain.
The Lirey shroud once in the posession of de Charny was allegedly the Shroud stolen from Besancon Cathedral and substituted with a copy.
The Cistercians at Cadouin in the Perigord had what they believed to be The Sudarium until it was discovered in 1933 to be 10cent Egyptian and covered with Koranic inscriptions. So, naturally, it was destroyed. :roll:

If the Turin Shroud's history is reliably charted from 1353 to present day then its earlier history is less so. Wilsons support for the Mandylion notion has the advantage of it being walled up and forgotten in Edessa for 500yrs. A handy way to jump half a milenium after its arrival there with Thaddeus.

Its arrival in Constantinople and being seen by de Clari as the 'Sydoine' in 1203 before the sacking in 1204 does seem to place it at the scene, and where else would an object of such repute been in 12/13th century?
So, if you discount the Knight/Lomas theory of de Molays shroud or Laidlers contention that a proto photograph image created it you are left with others like Currer-Biggs and Wilson who see the Mandylion and Shroud as one and the same.

Fascinating subject the shroud, even without entering the twilight world of Prince and Pickett.

lovuian · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 4:53 pm

bergeredearcadie

where did you publish it
I would love to read it?

In my research

I'm in the churches and some stations of the cross has Veronica and some don't

And your saying she is Mary Magdalene under another name which is Veronica

I like it too cool

I definitely can see that and I can see Magdalene is one of the Women of Jerusalem
also

She was with him all the way to the cross and to his burial and to his Ressurection

tingra · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 5:04 pm

Lovuian.....HOW OLD ARE YOU?????

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 6:22 pm

Thomas D. wrote:

If the Turin Shroud's history is reliably charted from 1353 to present day then its earlier history is less so. Wilsons support for the Mandylion notion has the advantage of it being walled up and forgotten in Edessa for 500yrs. A handy way to jump half a milenium after its arrival there with Thaddeus.

Its arrival in Constantinople and being seen by de Clari as the 'Sydoine' in 1203 before the sacking in 1204 does seem to place it at the scene, and where else would an object of such repute been in 12/13th century?
So, if you discount the Knight/Lomas theory of de Molays shroud or Laidlers contention that a proto photograph image created it you are left with others like Currer-Biggs and Wilson who see the Mandylion and Shroud as one and the same.

Fascinating subject the shroud, even without entering the twilight world of Prince and Pickett.

All very good points, Thomas.

TCP

DVB · **Joined:** 20 Jul 2008 4:03 pm **Posts:** 683

Sorry, everyone, I'd forgotten that Roscoe starts shouting the moment anyone uses quietly reasoned argument or substantiated historical facts; I apologise for my part in setting him off. I made a mistake in engaging with him again, having promised myself some time ago not to waste my time doing so. If he wants to rant at me, that's fine; it will be a one-sided shouting match.

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 6:49 pm

DVB wrote:

Sorry, everyone, I'd forgotten that Roscoe starts shouting the moment anyone uses quietly reasoned argument or substantiated historical facts; I apologise for my part in setting him off. I made a mistake in engaging with him again, having promised myself some time ago not to waste my time doing so. If he wants to rant at me, that's fine; it will be a one-sided shouting match.

Welcome to the terrible trio, DVB.

TCP

DVB · **Joined:** 20 Jul 2008 4:03 pm **Posts:** 683

TCP wrote:

Welcome to the terrible trio, DVB.

I feel both humble and proud to be counted as one of such a prestigious group.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

DVB wrote:

Sorry, everyone, I'd forgotten that Roscoe starts shouting the moment anyone uses quietly reasoned argument or substantiated historical facts; I apologise for my part in setting him off. I made a mistake in engaging with him again, having promised myself some time ago not to waste my time doing so. If he wants to rant at me, that's fine; it will be a one-sided shouting match.

Look at this.

They'll talk about anything except answer the questions I posed.

If anyone doesn't realise these people are fakes then they aren't very bright.

They make glib statements then chicken out of defending them.

listen up DVB. There is no hiding place on here. You make statements you defend them. That's the deal.

Pilrig · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 9:08 pm

lovuian wrote:

now that the Vatican says it
Everybody will agree

The Shroud of Turin was a prize of the Templars

Thanks TCP for the news

The trial was conducted by learned men who luckily wrote down their brilliance for history to finally see while it was hidden in the vaults of the Vatican

I think they got it from the ransacking of Constantinople

which Karma follows the Shroud

The Templars were involved in the sack of Constantinople ? I always thought it was the Venetians and the blockhead knights of France and Germany.

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 9:09 pm

roscoe wrote:

They'll talk about anything except answer the questions I posed.

Tut tut, Roscoe. The other night on one of your threads I asked if anyone could answer the following questions:

Who can name the seven dualist ecclesiae?

Which one did the Albigenses of Languedoc belong to initially?

Which one did they change to? When and why?

And finally, why did they later have to be consoled for the third time?

You flew into a rage over it. It surprised me that the soi-disant fount of all knowledge concerning the Cathars would pass up an opportunity to prove his mettle, but you reacted as though you were being set up and read me to filth for putting you on the spot.

Quote:

listen up DVB. There is no hiding place on here. You make statements you defend them. That's the deal.

Wow, what a gross sense of entitlement!

TCP

Pilrig · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 9:12 pm

jb1717 wrote:

Only it's NOT 14th century, the reweave is. It was in Constantinople long before that. The image is not Jaques de Molay, if that's what you're getting at.

Knight and Lomas would beg to differ. For what it's worth, I think their 'Second Messiah' hypothesis doesn't hold water.

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 9:23 pm

Pilrig wrote:

The Templars were involved in the sack of Constantinople ? I always thought it was the Venetians and the blockhead knights of France and Germany.

According to Stephen Dafoe, they were the first troops into the conquered city. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but between 1204 and 1261 there was certainly a Templar presence there.

TCP

Pilrig · **Posted:** 06 Apr 2009 9:36 pm

TCP wrote:

Pilrig wrote:

The Templars were involved in the sack of Constantinople ? I always thought it was the Venetians and the blockhead knights of France and Germany.

According to Stephen Dafoe, they were the first troops into the conquered city. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but between 1204 and 1261 there was certainly a Templar presence there.

TCP

I'd think that there was a Templar presence in Latin controlled Constantinople. I'm not sure if they were the first over the Golden Horn-side walls. But as the 4th Crusade was ostensibly to recover Jerusalem, they'd be in with the rogues, vagabonds and scum which made up that Crusade, all taken in by Doge Dandolo's avaricious spell

jb1717 · **Joined:** 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am **Posts:** 2935

Pilrig wrote:

jb1717 wrote:

Only it's NOT 14th century, the reweave is. It was in Constantinople long before that. The image is not Jaques de Molay, if that's what you're getting at.

Knight and Lomas would beg to differ. For what it's worth, I think their 'Second Messiah' hypothesis doesn't hold water.

They wrote that book before it was proven that the carbon dating samples were from a reweaved part of the shroud. Their whole hypothesis is therefore based on false information. The image is obviously not the bald DeMolay anyway. It's also not da Vinci. There are no images of known people who match the shroud image with acceptable accuracy.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

TCP wrote:

roscoe wrote:

They'll talk about anything except answer the questions I posed.

Tut tut, Roscoe. The other night on one of your threads I asked if anyone could answer the following questions:

Who can name the seven dualist ecclesiae?

Which one did the Albigenses of Languedoc belong to initially?

Which one did they change to? When and why?

And finally, why did they later have to be consoled for the third time?

You flew into a rage over it. It surprised me that the soi-disant fount of all knowledge concerning the Cathars would pass up an opportunity to prove his mettle, but you reacted as though you were being set up and read me to filth for putting you on the spot.

Quote:

listen up DVB. There is no hiding place on here. You make statements you defend them. That's the deal.

Wow, what a gross sense of entitlement!

TCP

And what's this supposed to mean?

I'll tell you what it means. It means that you made and pothers make glib statements and then when challenged on them you desperately try to changer the subject.

Here's my answer to your question

I don't know and I don't bloody care.

Oh and by the way up to now I've only read the first line. Once I realised that you were trying to drag the discussion away from the murdering exploits of the Catholic church I ignored your attempt at diversion.

You're trying to do it again and it's so obvious.

About Knight and Lomas

You involved yourself in the attack on their character you were challenged to put up your evidence. Time has clearly shown that you

CANNOT DO IT.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6956

Roger wrote:

http://www.esonews.com/auteurs/chrono-suaire.asp

to refresh memories on chronological events re. the Shroud:

Chronologie pour le Saint Suaire
par Daniel Castille

(Documentation réunie par Ulysse Chevalier qui permet de suivre les vicissitudes du Suaire de Lirey à Turin).

1349 16 avril Requête de Geoffroi I° de Charny auprès d’Innocent VI en faveur de la collégiale qu’il vient de fonder à Lirey.
26 avril Seconde requête au sujet des offrandes faites à la collègiale.

1353 juin Don d’une rente à Geoffroi I° par Jean le Bon.

1354 30 janvier Innocent VI approuve la fondation de la collègiale de Lirey.
30 août Concessions d’indulgences à la collègiale par Innocent VI.

1356 28 mai Henri de Poitiers, évêque de Troyes, félicite Geoffroi I° de l’achèvement de la collégiale.
19 septembre Mort de Geoffroi I° porteur de l’oriflamme à la bataille de Poitiers.

1357 5 juin Concessions d’indulgences par douze évêques aux visiteurs des reliques de la collégiale. Le Suaire n’est pas mentionné.

1357-1370 Premières ostensions du Suaire à Lirey. Enquête de l’évêque diocésain et leur interdiction.
Mariage de Geoffroi II avec Marguerite de Poitiers, nièce de l’évêque. après 1370 Mort de l’évêque Henri de Poitiers. Jeanne de Vergy, veuve de Geoffroi I°, se remarie avec Aymon de Genève.

1378 20 septembre Election de Robert de Genève comme pape d’Avignon (Clément VII).

1388 Mort d’Aymon de Genève.

1389 Reprise des ostensions et nouvelle interdiction de l’évêque diocésain (Pierre d’Arcis).
Appel des chanoines aux Pape qui confirme l’exposition et permission du roi de France. Appel de l’évêque. Lettre de Clément VII confirmant l’autorisation accordée par le légat Pierre de Thury d’exposer le Suaire. 4 août Charles VI, roi de France, ordonne au bailli de Troyes, Jean de Venderesse, de s’approprier le Suaire.
15 août Procès verbal de la saisie du Suaire.

1390 6 janvier Bulle de Clément VII au Chapitre de Lirey pour l’ostension et les conditions de celle-ci.
Lettre du pape à Pierre d’Arcis lui imposant le “silence perpétuel” sur le Suaire.

1395 18 avril Mort de Pierre d’Arcis.

1398 22 mai Mort de Geoffroi II de Charny.

1400 Mariage de sa fille Marguerite avec Jean de Baufremont qui mourra à Azincourt en 1415.

1418 juin Remariage de Marguerite de Charny avec Humbert de Villersexel, comte de la Roche.
6 juillet Lette d’Humbert déclarant avoir reçu, des chanoines de Lirey, la garde du Suaire.

1443 8 mai Sommation faite à Marguerite de Charny, veuve d’Humbert de Villersexel, par le Parlement de Dole, d’avoir à remettre le Suaire aux chanoines de Lirey.
9 mai Arrêt du même Parlement ordonnant, cette fois-ci, la restitution du Suaire aux chanoines.

1449 Chronique de Cornelius Zantfliet sur le “ faux” Suaire exposé à Chimay par Marguerite.
6 novembre Instance du Chapitre de Lirey auprès du Prévôt de Troyes en vue d’obtenir la restitution du Suaire.
Promesse faite par Charles de Noyers au nom de sa demi-soeur, Marguerite de Charny, de rendre le Suaire.

1452 13 septembre Ostension du Suaire à Germolles (Saône et Loire, Macon).

1453 22 mars Le duc de Savoie, Louis, cède à Marguerite de Charny, pour “service rendu” le château de Varambon (Ain) et les revenus de Miribel. C’est le prix probable du Suaire.

1457 29 mai Menace d’excommunication par la curie de Besançon contre Marguerite de Charny qui a conservé le Suaire.
30 mai Excommunication de Marguerit. Charles de Noyers négocie la levée de l’excommunication. Il ne versera jamais la compensation financière.

1460 7 octobre Mort de Marguerite de Charny.

1464 6 février Le duc de Savoie promet de payer la dette due aux chanoines de Lirey sous la forme d’une rente de 50 F sur les revenus du château Gaillard à Genève.
23 mai Mort du duc. La rente ne sera jamais versée.

1474 14 mai Supplique du Chapitre de Lirey au roi de France pour qu’il intervienne auprés de son cousin, le duc de Savoie, pour le paiement de la dette. Aucun effet.

1502-1535 Le Suaire est à Chambéry.

1532 2 décembre Le Suaire est endommagé dans l’incendie de la chapelle de Chambéry.

1535-1561 Le Suaire se trouve dans le Piémontais puis à Nice.

1561-1578 Le Suaire est de nouveau à Chambéry.

1578 14 septembre Le Suaire est à Turin.

All this to answer a question that was never asked.

You're becoming so transparent Roger.

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Knights Templar Hid the Shroud of Turin

Who is online