Printable View
Tom Clancy is such a funny guy.
The Hero a forty something hercules or some mucular hunk scientist trained in the art of Super Saiyan BS. His plot lines are just... well I mean deos he have only like three or something?
It just seem s silly, its like having Rincewind from Discworld save t5he world from ex-KGB fascist or soming and actually taking it seriuosly.
In one word:
Formulaic.
A.
Most fiction writers now adays are very formulatic with their books. Once they find a basic plot and a genra that they can sell, they normally stick with it.
There are some expections - but they are not the norm.
A Ron’s rod. When is this crap going to end? So much to read and this is what you can show? Of all the good literature out there, the mould infested piece of, where is toilet paper when you need some, brownish refuse with clear reference to someone’s last name. To drag the beautiful Magdalen’s reputation as a devoted disciple down and insinuate marriage and sexual behaviour with the GOD of all mankind, shows gross disrespect for Christianity and its devoted members. To break healed wounds, to reopen the tomb of Him that lies not there just to say there are old bones there, the God was merely a man who died; is scorn in a believer’s ears. This just shows how the angel of sin rules this world and gives wicked men power and riches. Soon there will be a reckoning, the righteous is the ones that will inherit this world not the wicked.
As a well spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
A poorly written work of fiction upsetting some people's belief in another even more poorly written work of fiction. I don't see what the big deal is.
“A poorly written work of fiction upsetting some people's belief in another even more poorly written work of fiction. I don't see what the big deal is.” And? Because this poorly written book, a completely stupid plot, a non sense with no end, I started to read about the Gnostic. And THAT is interesting… Most of what the author is saying in the Gnosis. As an atheist, it is good to see how the Church built its power, what Irene cut and paste, what they rejected, etc. So, at least, this book raised my interest, as collateral interest.:2thumbsup:
“To drag the beautiful Magdalen’s reputation as a devoted disciple down and insinuate marriage and sexual behaviour with the GOD of all mankind, shows gross disrespect for Christianity and its devoted members” Read the Gnosis, and you will see that (some) devout early Christians believed it. And for them it was the proof that God really made an alliance with Man.:laugh4:
Because, at the end of the day, as the English say, what importance if Christ had a daughter? None. Will it change the doctrine? No.
The gnosis is often hidden in provocative texts; as in mine.
A famous sequence of numbers will reveal the message.
Where is Joseph’s… ? Who wrote the Gospels? How is it possible that some are so similar and some show huge discrepancies? Did John, Matthew and others ever existed?:dizzy2:
In light of this thread I suspect you encoded a message using the fibonacci numbers (1,1,2,3,5,8,13 etc...) and I suspect you put the words in Italic to further help us on our way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
Let’s see…
Aaron’s rod is going to show where Magdalene’s tomb isQuote:
A Ron’s rod. When is this crap going to end? So much to read and this is what you can show? Of all the good literature out there, the mould infested piece of, where is toilet paper when you need some, brownish refuse with clear reference to someone’s last name. To drag the beautiful Magdalen’s reputation as a devoted disciple down and insinuate marriage and sexual behaviour with the GOD of all mankind, shows gross disrespect for Christianity and its devoted members. To break healed wounds, to reopen the tomb of Him that lies not there just to say there are old bones there, the God was merely a man who died; is scorn in a believer’s ears. This just shows how the angel of sin rules this world and gives wicked men power and riches. Soon there will be a reckoning, the righteous is the ones that will inherit this world not the wicked.
Am I correct?
From 14 to 29 Christs life is unrecorded, he could have done anything in that time such as marry and have children. Surely common sense would say so.
I've read The Templar Revelation, a small part of the start of The Davinci code before getting bored & am currently struggling through The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail.
This kinda leaves me with a wierd outlook on it I think.
So far The Templar Revelation has been the most interesting.
It gets lost for a long time in the middle struggling to try to link the Templars with all the later phonies trying to claim direct descent from them & thus prove that the Priory of Scion actually exists & is legit.
But it has some very interesting stuff about early christianity that makes a lot of sense to me of things that had previously been entirely perplexing.
Particularly the strange tendency of catholics to effectively worship Mary which always seemed to be idolatry to me.
There seem to be a few main claims (though they do not actually state them as a clear theory):
The Priory of Sion is really old & has legitimate direct lineage to at least the Templars. (bollocks)
John the Baptist was a missionary for the cult of Isis & Jesus was his junior/apprentice.
Jesus went rogue in Jerusalem, played out the egyptian godhood marriage, death & resurrection thang with his priestess Magdalene & most of his teachings were actually out of the Isis cult rather than 'jewish done right like god wanted'.
Magdalene went to Southern France afterwards, bringing some treasure/relic with her.
The locals took to the teachings of Magdalene & Templars, Rosicrucians, Cathars & various other eastern nominally Christian groups continued the tradition but hid it behind somewhat odd but externally christian practice. This seems to include worship of the goddess rather than god/jesus & a reverence for John the Baptist as legit over Jesus the fake/rogue usurper.
“Particularly the strange tendency of catholics to effectively worship Mary which always seemed to be idolatry to me”. Funny you say that because in France, the Cult of Marie was launch massively in the 19th Century, but not by the Church but by Napoleon the Third. Reason: Women were hardliners during the past revolutions in France (1789, 1830 and 1848). So Napoleon wanted to emphasised the Mother in Mary, and to convinced women to stay indoor and stopping to built barricades and throwing stones to the soldiers… So, we don’t speak of Religion but politic, even it is often mixed.:laugh4:
I agree with some people here. I still don’t understand what the author wanted to say or to demonstrate:inquisitive:
Remember when reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail that the modern Priory of Sion was an elaborate hoax concocted by Pierre Plantard with the help of Gerard de Sede and Philippe de Cherisey. All of them, at one time or another admitted that the Dossiers Secrets which make up most of the source for the modern Priory were planted by them in the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris in the late 1960's as part of the hoax. One of the authors of the book, Henry Lincoln (real name Henry Soskin, an actor) has also admitted to knowing all of this prior to writing the book.
That said, much of the rest of the book is very interesting, as long as you eliminate anything having to do with Plantard, the dossiers secrets and the modern Prioy of Sion. There is certainly enough mystery to go around.
How did a handful of knights supposedly dedicated to protecting pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem become powerful enough to have their headquarters on the grounds of the destroyed Temple of Solomon when other, larger and older, knightly military organizations existed? How did that same handful of knights transform themselves into the most powerful organization in all of Europe - the Templars? If you can cut through all of the BS, that alone is an incredible story.
Why is Rosslyn Chapel so chock full of obvious esoteric symbolism? What is the connection between the Freemasons and the Templars, if any? After all, it is certainly true that the papal decree dissolving and outlawing the Templars was never promulgated in Scotland. The Templars were only persecuted in France, for the most part. At the time, the Templars were powerful throughout Europe. The arrest and persecution of those Templars in France certainly couldn't have included all or even most of the Templars. Where did they go?
The cult of the Magdalene has a lot of interesting history. So does the Languedoc region of France. The people there certainly believe that the Magdalene came ashore there. It ties in interestingly with the Nag Hammadi manuscripts of the Gnostics. The so-called Gospel of Mary presents some interesting considerations regarding Mary. How does that change interpretations of her possible coming to France? What is the relation between the Gnostics and Mary, between Mary and the later advent of the Cathars in the Languedoc? Remember, at the time of the Cathars, the Gnostic manuscripts of Nag Hammadi were utterly unknown.
As far as Jesus and Mary being married. It certainly seems credible. Even those who take the Gospels as literal truth could see that if they applied their literal truth to ALL of the Gospels, and not just bits and pieces. If Jesus was, in fact, subject to Jewish law as claimed in the Gospels, then he was required, as a rabbi, to marry. Some early Christians, before Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr, certainly believed that Jesus was married. Hippolytus and Origen both write about the Song of Solomon being a prophecy of Jesus' marriage to Mary.
Lots of interesting stuff to investigate. Just be sure to toss out the modern Priory of Sion crap invented by Plantard, de Sede and de Cherisey. Sadly, it is that stuff which provides fuel for the "true believers" to toss out all of the good facts with the bad.
Rosslyn Chapel is indeed a strange place and was extrememly interesting but it saddened and annoyed me to see all of these sad american tourists there ruining the atmosphere and buying books in the scores. Still the symbolism there is very unique and certainly worth seeing
Yah thats definitely the impression that I got from The Templar Revelation & what I've read so far in Holy Blood on that aspect has had the distinct flavour of complicity in a hoax.Quote:
Remember when reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail that the modern Priory of Sion was an elaborate hoax concocted by Pierre Plantard with the help of Gerard de Sede and Philippe de Cherisey.
Having just finished writing a monography about the Templars, I think I'll try and answer those questions Aenlic asked... I've read 11 (!) books on the subject, ranging from really serious and thorough scientific work to sensationalist crap, so I am familiar with most stuff
The Templars were the first military order. The hospitalers have formed around 1100-2 but they did not become a military order until the mid 30s (their militarization was profoundly influenced by the Templars - those started off as a military order)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
That "handful of knights" included a nephew (Andre de Mondbard) and a very good friend and patron (Hughes Count of Champaigne) of Saint Bernard, the most influental and powerful figure of the catholic church in the 1100s. Also, they got full support by the kingdom of Jerusalm for extremely obvious reasons. The rise of the Templars bears no mystery at all. They were a force of history, in a much needed time. The Cistercians started even more humbly and became even more rich, powerful and influental. Why does nobody connect them with grails and other similar crap?Quote:
How did that same handful of knights transform themselves into the most powerful organization in all of Europe - the Templars? If you can cut through all of the BS, that alone is an incredible story.
the RC was build two centuries after the dissolvment of the Templars, by the forefather of all Masons. He did want to establish a connection with the Templars, and so he proceeded to do so.Quote:
Why is Rosslyn Chapel so chock full of obvious esoteric symbolism?
None at all. The masons have always tried to establish a long tradition for themselves, just to show that "they were always there". So they invented (see also above) the whole connection with the Templars, based on rather shaky ground. Connecting with the templars allowed them to connect with the supposed tradition of the (rather imaginary, at least in the context of the masons) masons of the temple of Solomon and the Egyptian masons of the pyramids before them. A huge joke, I might say, only too many people find it to hold water...Quote:
What is the connection between the Freemasons and the Templars, if any?
The templars were persecuted throughout Europe, not only France. We have archives and documents from Cyprus to Portugal and from Sicily to England. They (a few of them) were burnt only in France, that is true, but all European templars save a handful here and there were arrested or came later willingly to throw themselves at the mercy of the church. Like 95% didn't even serve a day in prison. And they even got some really fat pensions afterwards, when De Molay was ashes, Philip, Clement and the prelates had their greedy hands on the Templar possesions and the whole fuss was history. There are plentiful accounts on former templars and their whereabouts after the dissolution of the order. Most faired typical lives, nothing extravagant, some returned to their houses, some got a fat enough pension to make a new fortune, some got hired by Muslims (!!!) some joined the Hospitalers, some entered monasteries throughout Europe. Nothing supporting the wild, imaginative Templar resettlement to Scotland and - even more imaginative - the "new world".Quote:
After all, it is certainly true that the papal decree dissolving and outlawing the Templars was never promulgated in Scotland. The Templars were only persecuted in France, for the most part. At the time, the Templars were powerful throughout Europe. The arrest and persecution of those Templars in France certainly couldn't have included all or even most of the Templars. Where did they go?
I am not going to comment on the M. Magdalene story. There are certain aspects of the story that are true, but most of it is just the vivid imagination of some people who absolutely have to invent some sort of matriarchy where it never existed. Oh, whatever. Laguedoc is an interesting story as well, but those throwing in the Cathars should really read the history of the Cathars and their connection with the Balkan (mostly Bulgarian) Bogomils.
Also there are dozens of "secret gospels" and less than a handful mention aspects of the story of magdalene.
I didn't ask them as questions, my friend. I asked them rhetorically, to make a point about many other interesting aspects to the story without needing to give credence to the hoax perpetrated by Plantard et. al. which muddied the waters. I didn't mean to imply mystery, just interest.
As to your specific points. The number of Templars who came forward for clemency, were arrested, or were known to have fled does not come anywhere close to matching the known numbers of Templars in the very precise and, for the time, amazingly accurate financial records kept by the Templars themselves. The whole thing was mostly due to Philip's greed. And yet, after he "got his hands on" the Templar possessions, his debts didn't decrease in the least. There is no record that he ever acquired the Templar treasury. A treasury known to have been larger than that of any royal house in Europe. The Templars kept meticulous financial records. They began what amounted to the first international banking system. And the vast majority of that wealth is gone. No one acquired it. Philip certainly didn't. Where did it go? The pensions of some doesn't even make a dent in the monies we're talking about here.
The Templars didn't just quietly disappear and cease to exist as an organization. The idea that they did is ludicrous. The Nazi party didn't cease to exist after WWII, either - except in official name. Read up on the Odessa organization and what happened in South America after WWII. At one point, Uruguay was controlled by ex-Nazi Germans in all but name. Large, incredibly powerful organizations don't just cease to exist because someone outlaws them, a trial is held and a few of them are tried while the rest go free. It doesn't work that way.
Yes, the Masons tried to link themselves to the Templars. So did the Rosicrucians, the fin de siecle occultists, and many more. That doesn't detract from the fact that only 200 years after the official end of the Templars, an organization appeared with remarkable symbolic similarities in the one place in Europe in which the papal decree outlawing the Templars wasn't promulgated. And, by the way, Freemasons and Masons aren't the same thing. :smile: And in Portugal, where the Templars were found innocent by an ecclesiastical court, they merely changed their name under the auspices of King Dinis and continued on as the Order of Christ.
As for Mary and Jesus, you ignored my point about early Christian writers accepting the Jesus being married as fact. If you want to argue about it, argue it with Hippolytus and Origen and more. It wasn't until Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr in the 2nd Century took great exception to the concept that it became unacceptable to write about Jesus as married. It wasn't just the Nag Hammadi Gnostic manuscripts which talk about Jesus being married. It was early leaders of the Roman church like Hippolytus and Origen also. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts are contemporary with those two, which brings the later anti-female writings of Justin and Clement into question more than the writings of Hippolytus and Origen.
There are theological ties between the Cathars and Bogomils, certainly. It was Christian writers who tried to tie them together completely because of similarities of belief. Both had certain Gnostic similarities. So did the Manichaeans and Paulicians before them. Your point? Does the fact that Cathars were influenced by the earlier Bogomils who were influenced by the earlier Paulicians who were influenced by Manichaeists who were influenced by the even earlier Mandaeanists who were almost certainly Gnostics have anything to do with arguing my point? The connection seems rather to support my point, doesn't it? The connection between Cathars and Gnosticism? :grin:
I find those who dismiss things too easily just as credulous as those who believe things too easily. It's nice that you've read 11 books on the subject. I suspect we've both read them. When you read books dismissing questions, take close heed to the agenda of the writer; just as you would to the agenda of someone asking the questions.
Controversy = money. Dan Brown is a career genre writer, this is his job; even I cannot deny that the Da Vinci Code is his masterpiece, not literary but commercially. His appeals to controversy and religion is simply...impressive. The outrage provoked (from the dumbasses of society), the interests that followed the outrage, the flow of sales that followed the interests, the expanding "merchandise" including "refuting" books and the movie--though of course the "refutations" aren't his books. The book itself, like I said, is just an ordinary thriller. Nothing particularly special--not bad, in fact, I enjoyed it a little before all the hype gets a little to saturated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
In other words, I honestly doubt Mr. Brown buy the crap about Jesus and Da Vinci and Newton and all that, and that he tries to say something to Christians in particular. Or maybe he does, but his message got a lil' skewed; who knows? Though it is nice to know that his work sparks interest in actual fact-finding in many people to verify his ludicrously out-of-the-world plot tool.
By the way, what's with all the fascination about the Templars? What's so spectacular about a bunch of knights gathered together when they were in desperate need (after the First Crusade) and got really rich by clever experimentation until the King of France got greedy about them, anyway, that so many are captured in imagination with them? You'd think they're the King Arthurs considering all the interests and the conspiracy theories about them... :inquisitive:
I'd guess the original locale of their headquarters to be one. Another would be that I seem to recall reading them actually traipsing around the Middle East a whole lot (when the diplomatic situation allowed anyway) looking after assorted biblical esoterica. One could be their diplomatic relations to the Assasins (who are apparently a household name in assorted "ancient conspiracy" effigies; not that all the Crusader Kingdoms didn't have some sort of working relationship with the sect, mind you...).
But personally I'm half willing to guess it's just that they have a particularly cool-sounding name, and met such a dramatic end. The other major Orders petered out in such banal fashions as to be a real let-down for anyone looking for drama.
I agree with Watchman. It has a lot to do with the Templars just ending suddenly (for the most part), at the height of their power and wealth, when other military orders just sort of faded into oblivion. Add in the mystique caused by their controversial confessions and the coincidental death of both the Pope and Philip the Fair within a year after De Molay supposedly cursed them to die as he was burning on heretic's pyre and you have the stuff of legend. Such a legend that the date of their initial arrests in France, Friday 13th, has become a traditional superstition of being an unlucky day. Their story has it all - wealth, power, fame, a strange beginning, a tragic end, warfare, mystery and excitement. An accomplished storyteller would have difficulty just inventing a better tale; and yet, most of it is true with lots of peripheral mystery and supposition that serves to further inspire the imagination.
I did enjoy though reading about some of the Templars replies while under torture about Jesus and about the cross. Although it could be seen as blasphemous and could easily been changed to a more erratic answer, it was the way they spoke under intense pain with a cool head that is definetly interesting in their baphomet beliefs and how christ apparently stole alot of John the Baptists teachings
A few examples of Templar replies when asked about christ:
"Set not much faith in this for it is too young" [spoken when showed a cross] The same man then said believe in a higher god as christ was nothing but a false prophet
Another stated that when induced into the order he was told "You believe wrongly because (Christ) is indeed a false prophet. Believe in god in heaven and not in him"
Another said: "Do not believe that the man Jesus whom the Jews crucified in Outremer is God and that he can save you"
These could have easily been tampered with but if the papal authorities did they would have made it more incriminating and damning to the accused. If this is truth it must show that a number of Templars did not concur with Catholic orthodoxy of the period
I've seen some interesting interpretations of the meaning of Baphomet, which several Templars admitted to "worshipping" under torture. Baphomet was believed by the church to be a demon or idol of some kind. However, some scholars now believe that Baphomet was a mispronunciation or mistranslation of Mohammed, or perhaps a mistranslation of the Arabic for "father of wisdom" which is abufihamat. Either might be reasonable, considering the many years of contact and influence the Templars had in the Holy Land with Islam.
An even more interesting theory applies an ancient Jewish cypher system called Atbash. Using the Atbash cypher, Baphomet becomes "sophia" which means wisdom in Greek. What makes this interesting is that Sophia was worshipped by some Gnostics as a personification of knowledge and wisdom, and her earthly incarnation was... Mary Magdalene. Sophia also plays a very important part in some Kabbalistic sects of Judaism. This again could have ties to the Templars stay in the Holy Land, which was also the center of the followers of the Jewish Kabbalah. It all just heightens the aura of mystery around the Templars.
For my part, I find the idea of the Templars as having incorporated much of the teachings of Judaism and Islam into their inner rites as credible. So of the many interpretations, I find the mistranslation of abufihamat into Baphomet to be the most credible.
I've heard that for their part the Assasins took their doctrine in some very unorthodox directions. Christians have been pretty good at doing the same even without the amount of weird crap the Templars must've picked up over the years (and pulled out of their arses through sheer egomania, for that matter - I can well imagine what being HQ'd at the Temple alone would've done to the heads of some...).
Minor thread derailment is about to occur...
A Flying Spaghetti Monster sig! Love it. I have a T-shirt with the pic of the FSM and the trees and the mountain and the midget. I also have one around here somewhere of the iconic pipe-smoking J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, "founder" of the Church of the Subgenius.
I decided to read the book to see what all the fuss was about, I thought it was quite good if you read it as the fiction that it is.
I also watched the film, utter cack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
The film was not helped by the actors, the female lead and tom hanks were awful but Bettany and McKellan were great. The flashbacks especially the siege of Jerusalem were top notch
The historical flashbacks were the only bits I did like of it.
O and is the templar extermination why the number 13 is unlucky or is it just Friday 13th
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
Apparently according to some texts, and that isn't just Dan Brown. The number 13 has been seen as unlucky through other cultures. I read somewhere such as in Norse mythology. Others believe it could stem from 13 people being at the last supper. Yet it was only in the 19th century that a feeling of ill luck surrounded friday the 13th
It a fictional book. It has some historical facts, but more distortions and not true things. But it is an excellent book. Angels and Demons is good too.
In fact, A&D is better.
I read (NOT in Browns books) that the whole aversion to friday the 13th came specificly from the Templar persecutions. Can anybody confirm/dismiss this?