Baphomet

Eginolf · **Posted:** 14 Jun 2011 8:11 pm

TCP wrote:

She's a "Moor" too. Bet you can't guess why though... :mrgreen:

I don't have to guess because I know what you are thinking of - the Mari of the Basques being the origin of those Black Madonnas. :mrgreen:

tingra · **Posted:** 14 Jun 2011 8:28 pm

TCP wrote:

The Pope has control over the Templars, the Templars control Philip's purse strings, and Philip controls the Pope.

TCP

precisely.

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Hi FS,

FS wrote:

Quote:

They were "tipped off" by Clement himself as early as June 1307 that the Order was under suspicion, but the official Papal inquiry didn't begin 'till August and the actual raids weren't 'October.

And to elaborate... in Poitiers in May 1307:

Quote:

James de Molay raised the matter of certain charges that had been made against members of the Temple and asked the Pope to institute an enquiry...Allegations of gross impropriety appear to have been made by some knights who had been expelled from the Order...[and] had first been told to King James II of Aragon...[before reaching] King Philip of France. Philip mentioned the rumours to Pope Clement at Lyons at the time of his coronation in 1305, and again in May 1307 when the King was in Poitiers. On 24 August 1307, Clement V wrote to King Philip IV about these accusations, saying that though 'we could scarcely bring our mind to believe what was said at that time' he had subsequently heard 'many strange and unheard of things' about the Temple and so 'not without great sorrow, anxiety and upset of heart had decided to institute an inquiry. In the meantime, while he recovered his health, the Pope asked that no precipitate action be taken.

It was probably this letter that gave the pretext to the claims by Philip that his Templar arrest warrants had been issued with prior consultation 'with our most holy father in Christ, the Pope'...

All of this was before the arrests and 'forced' confessions...

Regards,

Spartacus

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1799

Quote:

@ Davinho...i beg to differ, how do you account for the fact that the image was fixed uniformly in the linen by some sort of intense radiation that burned the fabric uniformly... it wasn't direct contact with the body that produced the image, but an intense split second flash of light that emanated from it.

The program I was refering to recreated the technique they believed was used and were able to produce a very good example themselves. I can't remember the exact details (but it was a form of photography using basic tools available in Da Vinci's time) and obviously the researchers could only guess at the technique but their example was passable and I would tend to lean towards this explanation before a supernatural one. I think Da Vinci's shroud was supposedly a better reproduction of something that was already in existance but was looking a little dated (so to speak)

Quote:

a three-dimensional encoded chart of the front and back of a Man that also happens to have the important characteristics of a photographic negative.

and this is pretty much what they recreated in the TV prog

Quote:

This is the theory embraced by Lynn Picknett. IMHO however, there is overwhelming evidence that the Turin Shroud existed centuries before Leonardo was born...

mm like I said they did address this point. They believed the older Shroud was a poorer example using an inferior technique and Da Vinci was sercetly commisionsed to create a better replacememt. If I remember the older Shroud had been kept from public eye for centuries before then the one we now know was publically aired.

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Hi Davinho,

Davinho wrote:

Quote:

mm like I said they did address this point. They believed the older Shroud was a poorer example using an inferior technique and Da Vinci was sercetly commisionsed to create a better replacememt. If I remember the older Shroud had been kept from public eye for centuries before then the one we now know was publically aired.

Fair enough. However, IMHO, the Hungarian Pray manuscript alone completely discredits the claim that Leonardo created the Turin Shroud. This is a link to a quick description. If you're interested, take a look:

http://www.shroudforum.com/exhibit/praycodex01.htm

The L shaped poker holes and the peculiar weave are particularly relevant IMHO... the 3D elements are also extremely interesting...

Regards,

Spartacus

wayward · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 11:17 am

Spartacus Paraclete wrote:

Hi Davinho,

Davinho wrote:

Quote:

mm like I said they did address this point. They believed the older Shroud was a poorer example using an inferior technique and Da Vinci was sercetly commisionsed to create a better replacememt. If I remember the older Shroud had been kept from public eye for centuries before then the one we now know was publically aired.

Fair enough. However, IMHO, the Hungarian Pray manuscript alone completely discredits the claim that Leonardo created the Turin Shroud. This is a link to a quick description. If you're interested, take a look:

http://www.shroudforum.com/exhibit/praycodex01.htm

The L shaped poker holes and the peculiar weave are particularly relevant IMHO... the 3D elements are also extremely interesting...

Regards,

Spartacus

I don't think anybody believes that "Leonardo da Vinci" created the cloth, only that he created the image on the cloth. Wouldn't he have used a very old cloth to begin with? Remember he was trying to fool the people around him at the time.
Who else could have done it? Unless of course you do think it authentic. :wink:

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1799

Quote:

I don't think anybody believes that "Leonardo da Vinci" created the cloth, only that he created the image on the cloth. Wouldn't he have used a very old cloth to begin with?

of course, according to the theory he was very meticulous about sourcing authentic cloth

jim · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 1:33 pm

Sheila wrote:

from what i've read here and there,the fabric wasn't in direct contact with the body and the image seems to have been produced by an intense and brief flash of radiation that lasted for a split second which emanated from the body and impregnated the linen cloth....the general opinion being that this radiation took place at the moment of the resurrection.

The problem with the emanating radiation theory is that experiments prove a photographic negative cannot be formed by this method. This is due to the fact that energy radiating out from a source would emanate out in every direction and would not be focused whatsoever. What you end up with is just one big blur with minor intensity changes, not a focused negative image. It would be like turning on a light bulb in front of photo sensitive paper and expecting to see the image of a light bulb once developed. It just doesn't work like that. Experiments using a camera obscura and some basic readily available chemicals have produced the exact same type of superficial burns on cloth as found on the shroud.

lovuian · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 2:46 pm

Tingra

Quote:

Lov, you are missing all the political implications involved in the lead up to the Templar downfall. Pope Nicholas IV had tried to join the Templars and the Hospitallers into a new single order, this would have made it stronger and in his opinion more able to recover the holy land, it had also been suggested that the leadership of the new campaigne be offered to one Christian sovereign but both the grand masters of the various orders opposed it. Clemens V started the idea of amalgamation again and asked the heads of both the Temple and Hospital to produce a plan for a new crusade, de Molay was firmly against it, he suggested that the military leadership should not be entrusted to Philip but rather to James II or Aragon, the catalan king. Do you think Philip was unaware of that? Also the pretext of Philips crusade was to take Armenia and make it a French dependency, the Temple had a province of its own in Armenia and the local leaders would never allow French cavalry within their fortresses. All of this put a huge spanner in the works and as far as Philip was concerned the Templars were controlling the nuts and bolts.

Yes Tingra good point and I do understand Phillip saw the Templars as a threat (there is more to it than that) :wink:

I'm just not going to give the Pope a pass here

DeMolay didn't and he was there burning at the stake
and I know the Templars weren't all nice guys....I guess the saying you live by the sword you die by the sword
rings true

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Wayward wrote:

Quote:

I don't think anybody believes that "Leonardo da Vinci" created the cloth, only that he created the image on the cloth. Wouldn't he have used a very old cloth to begin with? Remember he was trying to fool the people around him at the time.
Who else could have done it? Unless of course you do think it authentic. :wink:

For what it is worth, my gut instinct is that the Turin Shroud is 'authentic' :wink:

You do an awful lot of winking Bill. Are you drunk a lot, or just kind of unsure how to use the other Smilies...

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1799

Quote:

For what it is worth, my gut instinct is that the Turin Shroud is 'authentic'

my gut instinct tells me to look for the "down to earth" explanation first. Disprove that and then go from there, if you can.
At the moment I see no reason look beyond an earthly explanation as it would seem it can be reproduced without any kind of divine intervention.

wayward · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 4:39 pm

Spartacus Paraclete wrote:

Wayward wrote:

Quote:

I don't think anybody believes that "Leonardo da Vinci" created the cloth, only that he created the image on the cloth. Wouldn't he have used a very old cloth to begin with? Remember he was trying to fool the people around him at the time.
Who else could have done it? Unless of course you do think it authentic. :wink:

For what it is worth, my gut instinct is that the Turin Shroud is 'authentic' :wink:

You do an awful lot of winking Bill. Are you drunk a lot, or just kind of unsure how to use the other Smilies...

No! I'm not sure how you use the other smiles.

c'mon, you're not going to bust my chops for using the winking guy too much are you Spartacus. :wink:

jim · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 5:05 pm

Know one is exactly sure how the pyramids were built yet we are fairly certain they were not an act of divine intervention.

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Quote:

c'mon, you're not going to bust my chops for using the winking guy too much are you Spartacus. :wink:

It's gonna have to be Winky Wayward from here on in...

wayward · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 6:23 pm

Roger wrote:

Quote:

Unless of course you do think it authentic. :wink:

Is it any less likely than the notion of a Templar Fleet sailing for Nova Scotia to build a fortress for The Grail?

YOU may very well think so...

So you actually think that the shroud being an authentic photo of the resurrection is just as likely as the templars setting sail for Nova Scotia. Wow!

wayward · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 6:28 pm

Spartacus Paraclete wrote:

Quote:

c'mon, you're not going to bust my chops for using the winking guy too much are you Spartacus. :wink:

It's gonna have to be Winky Wayward from here on in...

Fine, I guess if thats what lifts your skirt, Sparty. :lol:

TCP · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 8:00 pm

tingra wrote:

Lov, you are missing all the political implications involved in the lead up to the Templar downfall.

She isn't missing anything. It's beyond her comprehension level and doesn't fit her simplistic (and false) narrative, so she denies it.

TCP

wayward · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 8:20 pm

So you actually think that the shroud being an authentic photo of the resurrection is just as likely as the templars setting sail for Nova Scotia. Wow![/quote]

Far more likely, in fact, if you include The Grail and its shrine/castle in the equation, as you originally did, rather than simply having once sailed across the Atlantic, as you now disingenuously amend your theory.[/quote]

No Roger, I didn't amend anything, please let me rephrase. So you actually think that the shroud being an authentic photo of the resurrection is just as likely as the Templars setting sail for Nova Scotia and then building a fortress (castle). Again, I have to say, WOW!

TCP · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 9:15 pm

Eginolf wrote:

TCP wrote:

She's a "Moor" too. Bet you can't guess why though... :mrgreen:

I don't have to guess because I know what you are thinking of - the Mari of the Basques being the origin of those Black Madonnas. :mrgreen:

Zing!

TCP

wayward · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2011 9:37 pm

Roger wrote:

Ah Wayward... you keep trying to sound a little bit more sane than you really are... you did add the medieval castle, this time, but you forgot the Holy Grail....

Allow me to recap for you... A "Templar Fleet" sailed from La Rochelle to Nova Scotia, in order to build a fortress to house the Holy Grail, which - of course - was also included in the voyage...

You REALLY think this is any more believable than a "miraculous shroud"?

This is getting tiresome, but OK, once more. So you think it is more believable that the shroud is an actual photo of the resurrection then it would be for Templars to have sailed to Nova Scotia, all standing on one foot, then built a fortress to house the Graal, which they took with them? One more time Roger, I have to say, WOW!

lovuian · **Posted:** 16 Jun 2011 2:55 am

I have to admit I'm with Roger in the fact
I like this quote

Quote:

I'm sure there's a simple explanation, it just seems no one is smart enough to come up with it, and this, after all, may be the only real requirement for the "miraculous". Something that defies the only accepted XXIst century divinity: "man's brain".

but then the poor dear Roger went on a rant about the Templar fleet...etc.. etc...

davidho

Quote:

my gut instinct tells me to look for the "down to earth" explanation first. Disprove that and then go from there, if you can.
At the moment I see no reason look beyond an earthly explanation as it would seem it can be reproduced without any kind of divine intervention.

can you define "divine intervention"

I think history has been distorted for a purpose
the Ancient man wasn't so primitive as history wants us to think
when you look at the pyramids...above and below ...the massive cities and temples ...the astrological calendars
were they primitive...I wonder

The Holy Face of Jesus maybe has a connection with the Templars
its devotion shows up later with Dupont and Therese of Lisieux
I understand this devotion and its very powerful
so would the Templars die to protect it probably

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1799

Quote:

Allow me to recap for you... A "Templar Fleet" sailed from La Rochelle to Nova Scotia, in order to build a fortress to house the Holy Grail, which - of course - was also included in the voyage...

You REALLY think this is any more believable than a "miraculous shroud"?

clearly it is, the way stated. One is a supernatural event involving a supernatural being. The other is a group of men setting sail with an object they believe to be the Holy Grail.

Quote:

can you define "divine intervention"

a spontaneous photograph of the resurrection of the son of God? how's about that for a definition?

wayward · **Posted:** 16 Jun 2011 10:14 am

Davinho wrote:

Quote:

Allow me to recap for you... A "Templar Fleet" sailed from La Rochelle to Nova Scotia, in order to build a fortress to house the Holy Grail, which - of course - was also included in the voyage...

You REALLY think this is any more believable than a "miraculous shroud"?

clearly it is, the way stated. One is a supernatural event involving a supernatural being. The other is a group of men setting sail with an object they believe to be the Holy Grail.

Quote:

can you define "divine intervention"

a spontaneous photograph of the resurrection of the son of God? how's about that for a definition?

Thank you for that Davinho, that was the only point I was attempting to make, while the other statement was clearly an attempt to belittle.

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Hi,

I'd have to emphatically agree that the claim that the Turin Shroud is a snap shot of the supposed event known as the Resurrection is seemingly absurd. However, as I said earlier, my gut instinct is that the Turin Shroud is indeed the same cloth mentioned in the Gospels :!:

What's even more absurd is that I personally have no time at all for organised Christianity, and while I do believe that Jesus was a real historical individual, I can still understand those who argue that He didn't even exist. WTF...

I've asked this before... but has anyone else watched Fabric of Time?

Regards,

Spartacus

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1799

Quote:

What I'm decrying is their inability to see that the other proposition is just as absurd.

the "photograph" theory is only something I am relaying from a TV prog on Discovery (I think). They did a pretty good job of reproducing something very similar, which of course you could label as absurd if you so wish. Whether I believe it or not is something I don't think I actually stated. I think I said that it seems more likely then the supernatural, super being coming back to life theory....but that of course goes without saying unless you are a full on literal Christian, which I am not.

Quote:

Of course, their inability to see this makes it unlikely that they'll ever really see my point.

Roger your inability to see beyond anything but your own self satisfaction is the thing that is absurd. Perhaps you should not judge others using yourself as a template.

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Baphomet

Who is online