In the interests of showing you you that i am not attacking you (and that it is all in your head) i will answer the questions you have posed. After this, i am not going to respond to your childish behaviour.Perhaps you should ask Henry Lincoln from where he got precisely the same quote.
I will. I suspect he will say he read Charpentiers book too. But if he has checked the Latin manuscripts that are extant and the quote appears, this will be excellent news. I suspect all of the repeating of this quote attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux, however, traces back to this book by Charpentier. As i understand it, Charpentiers book was published in around 1966 (if not earlier).And speaking of context any chance of you addressing the other points I raised in the same posting which you completely ignored
I didnt ignore them. I just dont accept them as any kind of proof to support your ideas and theories. That is all. I focused on the Bernard of Clairvaux quote because that seemed more tangible, and as i explained before, i wondered if you knew the primary source that this alleged Bernard of Claivaux quote came from. Alas you did not.
But i will answer the points you raised: Tell me about Sir Charles Warren and the Palestine Exploration Fund of 1860? and the British Enginneers map of 1894?
And what do you want me to tell you? I just dont accept the evidence presented. I can posit myself that the early Templars investigated under the Temple Mount and the other religious holy sites in Jerusalem. Of course they would. It doesnt mean they found anything.After their return from Palestine the Templars received International status as a Sovereign Order at the Council of Troyes. From this point onwards the Templars received gold and land from kings. Yep methinks we can safely say that the Templars found something.
And why would you think they found something just because land started being donated to them? At the Council of Troyes they were officially recognised, and given their Rule by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. There was also a crisis in these years, and the Order was in danger of falling apart before it had even began. You confuse the rank and file of the Templars with the upper echelons of those who 'founded' the Order. Most of the soldiers who went on the First Crusade went home to Europe after Jerusalem was in the hands of the Christians. The Templars were formed to protect the Holy Sepulchre as well as other Christians etc....and to help protect the newly won city of Jerusalem.I take it you also know that the Templars bought land around Peyroles in 1127, a charter says so.
Yes, i know that. A very interesting Templar, Hugh Rigaud, was in the Rousillon area recruiting men and donations. He must have been close to Hughes de Payens, and he may have travelled in the company of Robert de Craon, the next Grand Master of the Templars. They (the early Templar order) also had donations around Esperaza and Campagne. Lords at Rennes also were involved with the Templars (somewhat later i believe). I dont know what exactly you want to suggest because the early Templars were in the vicintiy of Peyrolles?All you've said is that YOU don't have a direct quote from him. I wasn't aware that you were the oracle and knew all there is to know about everything.
Dont you read anything properly Roscoe? Dont you re-read what you write? You said YOU knew where the quote came from. I dont. I thought, if you know, thats great, we can get to the bottom of where the quote is in the primary sources. Because it is a very intruiging quote which requires explanation if its correct. As it turned out, you dont know where the quote is from. And i have no idea why you should then try and turn it around as a fault on my part, that i 'dont know everything'.Let me tell you something, until about a month ago I didn't know Louis Charpentier had made reference to this. I just threw in his name for Roger actually so I'd get the response "Oh don't believe anything he says".. I placed this very quote in a thread on this forum about a year (eighteen months) ago. This is before I knew that Louis Charpentier had also said it. The thread got ignored of course.
And why do you have to play stupid games about trying to piss Roger off? I mean, how old are you? Cant you be more professional? You stuck your oar in instead
Well excuse me, if none of us knew you were having a private little spat and game with Roger. Excuse me for interrupting your childish behaviour, and excuse me that you are now having a tantrum because i asked you to provide a primary source for a quote, that now we find out you were just playing about with because you wanted to entice Roger so you could have an argument with him.
And your tone of language ('you stuck your oar in') is aggresive and nasty. And spiteful. I actually think you should be reported to the Moderator.You ignored them and homed in on this and it was clear to me that you didn't really want to know you just wanted to have a go at me and this is why you are getting nothing from me right now
Oh i did want to know. And believe me, i dont need anything from you. But even if i did, its clear that you dont know where the primary source is which contains this quote. If you want to believe i just wanted to have a go at you, well thats you being a bit paranoid again.My so-called agressive stance is to directly attack those who directly attack me (like you did).
I didnt attack you Roscoe. But i got very annoyed when you presumed to know what my motives were in asking for the source. And the fact that you got it all so utterly wrong, i couldnt actually let you carry on thinking you had got it right in your head. You may also care to look at what you wrote, and see that it was you being aggressive to me and that you were coming out with all manner of insults.Oh by the way - We live close together
I could answer this but i am not going to.I only ever quote you things that are in the public domain
It doesnt mean that the quotes are correct because they are in the 'public domain'. That is the WHOLE point. You dont just read things on the internet, or in a book .. and believe it. You check facts, check sources, as much as you can do. You look at the archives yourself, or consult those who have seen them as much as you can. With such an important quote by Bernard of Clairvaux, you go to the source, not Lincoln or Charpentier, where you heard or read it. You go and look at the extant Latin rule manuscripts that survive, and check the veracity for yourself. Not only is this more exciting, it is 'proper' research .... not what you are doing.
Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. I do not have anything to say to you anymore Roscoe.
But when i have seen the manuscripts of the Templar Latin Rule, and when i know exactly what is written that Bernard spoke, i will tell you, and then give the source. Once you have that you can post the quote til your hearts content, and your source will no longer be 'I saw Henry Lincoln say it in a film called 'Shadow of the Templars' in 1979', and then i read it in a book by Charpentier a month ago, on page 69
You can actually say 'A researcher i know tracked down the quote in one of the four or five remaining medieval manuscripts that contain the early Templar Rule (i will supply you with the exact manuscript title and where it is kept if and when i find it)'. Wont that be much better for you?