Templar banner in 'The Last Supper'

Originally posted by wiggy
I belive you mean Merovingian.

Who are you talking to? Merovingian was the supposed bloodline of Christ wasn't it? Or am I getting very confused.

Utterly, and largely in a single day, when sealed and secret papal orders were opened all across europe at once.

wrong. the first "secret" orders came from King Phillipe le Bel of France and
were executed only in france. The arrests did not begin until several months later in other countries and had mixed effects.

In Germany a group of knights challenged the tribunal to " trial by combat"
and were summarily exonerated.

In Portugal and I think Spain the Knights were tried and declared innocent.
reforming as the Knights of Christ as I recall under who's flag Columbus sailed.

As I recall the order for arrest was never read or published in Scotland and
would have been moot in any case as both Robert Bruce and the country
were under excommunication at the time if memory serves me.

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
Templarum is right about the Heraldry.

The centre one is that of the Duke (Sforza) plus his wife Beatrice d'Este, to the left of that is Massimiliano (the first born son) and the one on the right is that of Francesco (the second son). Nothing Templar-tastic about the black and white one I'm afraid.

There's been some debate that the one on the left (from our perspective) is actually a Medici cartouche. As I noted earlier, if you look below this banner, you have the enigmatic scene of the three disciples being held at knife-point by a disembodied arm. Da Vinci often put political commentary into his works, and many scholars wonder if indeed he was making a point about the ruling family.

Originally posted by Atomix
And whats all this about the Priory proven fake? How come no-one tells me these things?

People tend to make pages about awesome sounding stuff, not boring facts. So there are lots of pages about the davinci code and the priory, but only a few that talk about how its actually a fraud.

this site notes:
Their battle flag was called Beauseant. Some versions have it as four quarters, black and white, with a red cross patee in the center. Others say that the red cross had straight arms, like the St. George cross of England.

Another page gives this representation

A symbol of an ancient order in a famous painting

But, ultimately, its just a black and white thing. Pretty standard, and infact not actually the templar flag, since its vertical.

This family the St. Clair's weren't they the family who are supposed to be one of the 2 last remaining families of Christ?

This is according to things like the davinci code, not reality.

Templarum
The symbol on the center lunette is the Sforza

Ah, so the idea is that perhaps davinci was noting some treachery on the part of the medicis agains the sforzas.

seraphim serpente
OK by now I think we all Realize that the Vatican’s Claim to Power (i.e. St. Peter the Rock/the Key) is Fraudulent & that the Magdalene was the true #1 Apostle/Disciple!

I don't see any reason to actually accept this. The bible states that peter's the rock of the church, sure, we can disagree whether thats enough to build the RCC upon it. But Mary Magedelene as an apostle?? I know people like to think that, but its not something that there's anything of a reasonable consensus about.

Also, as far as Templars being the founders of freemasonry, I don't know much about it, but I do think that its a bit much to suggest that the templars, a group of warrior monks, dispersed throughout europe, and then formed the Operative Masonry work-Guilds, which then, in the 1700's-ish, became speculative freemasonry. Supposedly part of the knight-architect connection is that the Templars, being in teh east, picked up on eastern building methods, theory, and architecture, and that this resulted in them creating, I beleive its suggested, the Gothic architectural school. But, agian, seems far fetched to suggest that these templars, under attack from saracens and the like, bothered to learn about something like that. True enough, masonry can form a mythos upon which moral lessons can be hung, but I find it extremely doubtful that they did that while in the east, they had more than enough stuff to work with already to make moral lessons out of. That would mean that they'd've had to learn masonry as masonry, and then went underground after the big Friday the 13th purge, transfering their Templar lessons onto the masonry methods. Which, again, went 'unspeculative', and then re-speculated in the 'revival', in england.

Also, I think its another stretch to say that they fled to scotland, and that the 'scottish' aspects of freemasonry (ie the scottish rite) indicate this. Espeically since the Scottish Rite, which isn't about templars, was made by a Scotsman. That better explains it than any templar-crusader connection.

Also, how much evidence do we really have that the Templars were a secret (and lets say) esoteric, society??? I know that some suggest that the Templars got their 'esoteric' character from the Assasins, who's lands the templar forts were supposedly built upon, but still, what really makes them a symbolical secret society?? And, agian, how do we explain the 'collapse' of the speculative aspects into 'operative' freemasonry???

Stalkingwolf, thankyou for the corrections.

Quote: "I don't see any reason to actually accept this."

Try Re-Reading the Gospels & the New Testament as well as the Gnostic Gospels (Which the Vatican tried to Destroy). The Magdalene was an Evangelist of TRUE Christianity straight from Jesus Himself - perhaps only St. Paul (who actually never met Jesus BTW) was a more Successful Evangelist than her!

Have any explanation for the Murderous Inquisition launched against Gnostic CHRISTIANS - on European Soil - by the Vatican?

The Catholic Church was never just about "Religion" - it was also about WEALTH, POWER & CONTROL! Whether Jew or Pagan or even other Christian Dominations other than Catholic - when ever the Roman Catholic Church got involved it was either Convert to Catholicism or DIE - sounds real Holy & Spiritual to me! Why do you think DaVinci incorporated his Ideas in such a Stealthy Manner in his Works - to Openly go against the Church in his time was SUICIDE!

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
the Gnostic Gospels

Why should I read them?? Why beleive that they are authentic??

The Magdalene was an Evangelist of TRUE Christianity straight from Jesus Himself - perhaps only St. Paul (who actually never met Jesus BTW) was a more Successful Evangelist than her!

The problem I have with this 'christianity is radically different from what the bible says' stuff is that, well, first off, why would hte apostles change it?? Also, why would the church change it? I mean, seriously, there is this christer movement, and someone says 'I want to take it over and completely change it and then spread it around'???? And how is it that the churches are able to do all these without anyone, from those times, the people who were preached to by the apostles themselves, from realizing it??? It doesn't make sense. If christiantiy was some other religion, then it wouldn't fly to change it so drastically, and the 'church' wouldn't get control of it in the first place anyway.

Have any explanation for the Murderous Inquisition launched against Gnostic CHRISTIANS - on European Soil - by the Vatican?

They were heretics. Preaching what the church thought was a false faith. Why assume that the church knew it was the 'true' faith and then wanted to stop them??? Why would the church even bother, if they knew it was the 'true' faith???

The Catholic Church was never just about "Religion"

THe things you suggest, elimination of the goddess aspect, radical alteration of christianity and the whorification of mary, the RCC didn't exist at the early time it would've had to have happened.

Why do you think DaVinci incorporated his Ideas in such a Stealthy Manner in his Works

He did no such thing.


[edit on 5-6-2005 by Nygdan]

Th Last Supper was painted by Leonardo DaVinci THOUSANDS of years after the "REAL" last supper took place... hmmmm... the painting is NOT a paparazzi photot... its just what Leonardo DaVinci had in his mind...so if he put the Templars banner in his painting, its only his ideology, because Jesus and the Apostles didnt ryde with the Templars...

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

Th Last Supper was painted by Leonardo DaVinci THOUSANDS of years after the "REAL" last supper took place.

Only 1500 years not thousands. "Templars and Jesus dont ride together"?
Do you know that for a fact?

[edit on 2/6/05 by Atomix]

Quote: "why would the apostles change it?? Also, why would the church change it? I mean, seriously, there is this christer movement, and someone says 'I want to take it over and completely change it and then spread it around'????"

Wow you must be some kind of Political N**B! Maybe because the Apostles & Judaism in General wasn't as Respective of Woman as Jesus was! Well lets see the ROMANS themselves Crucified Jesus & then Killed
St. Peter & St. Paul when they went to go Preach at Rome (They Died as Martyrs).

It was Emperor Constantine that Started the Roman Catholic Church. Constantine was the first Pope! Constantine had a Vision of a Cross & as soon as they used it as an emblem during their War Battles they started Winning!

When they saw their chance to take over this Fledgling Religion & Turn it inside out - they took it! Now why would the Romans have done such a 180 Degree Turn around you ask - Good Question! Simple - they used it as a Tool to Expand & Solidify the Empire! They used it as a Tool for "Power & Control" over the People. They used it to Live as Wealthy "King Priests" - all in the name of "God" of-course! Once they had established themselves they had to "Take Out" any group that might know the Truth & be a Threat to their Established Order! This means ESPECIALLY Jews, Gnostics & even Arab Moslems!

The Vulgate (the RCC Bible) is Written in Latin - it is more or less a Translation & Rip Off the Hebraic & Greek Scriptures!


[edit on 2-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 2-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 2-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Wow you must be some kind of Political N**B!

Ok, lets go with that.

Maybe because the Apostles & Judaism in General wasn't as Respective of Woman as Jesus was!

So the claim is that the Apostles followed jesus even if it resulted in their own martyrdom, but couldn't get their heads around the idea that women weren't all whores and dirt???

It was Emperor Constantine that Started the Roman Catholic Church. Constantine was the first Pope!

Incorrect.

Constantine had a Vision of a Cross & as soon as they used it as an emblem during their War Battles they started Winning!

And then, what? He figures, 'hey, this religion works, I'll 'take it over' and get ride of this magdalene stuff tho. Infact I'll change the religion entirely, even tho by respecting it it worked for me'???

When they saw their chance to take over this Fledgling Religion & Turn it inside out - they took it!

Why? Why take it over? If christianity was prevailing and expanding, it was because of its message. Why take it and completely change the message around?? Why not just cynically take it over and leave it as is? Changing it entirely would be like starting a whole new religion anyway.

they used it as a Tool to Expand & Solidify the Empire!

There were certainly other religions that were more popular, such as mithraism, which was wildly popular with teh legionaires. And the Isis mysteries were also extremely popular, how come the romans, as pagans, never suppressed the isis mysteries, if they hated chicks??

it is more or less a Translation & Rip Off the Hebraic & Greek Scriptures!

Which also do not make mary magdalene out to be super important.

Think about it. The claim is that the Jesus movement had a real 'goddess' flavour to it, in the person of mary magdalene, or that at least mary was first amoung apostles. Then the claim is that the apostles themselves 'couldn't handle it' and eliminated her from the equation, except, of course, for the apostles whose 'gospels' did talk about her. And yet we hear nothing about this inter-apostolic power struggle. The other claim is that it didn't happen then, but later, when there was already a jesus-with-magdalen movement throughout the empire. That the 'powerful' saw this jesus-n-mary movement and figured, 'we can use that, lets make a pope as its head' and then changed it, fundamentally, so that it was just jesus? And also re-wrote most of the gospels? And the only ones that talk about mary as being important, (IOW the ones the romans didn't get to), just happen to be the least credible ones, like the Gospel of St Thomas (aka the 'gospel of the living christ' etc)?? And the entire early christian community just, accepted this? No one at any of the synods, none of the bishops and metropolitans, were against this? Only the 'gnostics' that pop up much later had 'held on to it'??? I mean, the bishops and metropolitans were the heads of the house churches in the cities and towns. Its not beleivable that a group of people infiltrated that entire organization, without substantial notice or complaint from the laity, and then also utterly changed the basic message.

I heard Constantine was losing a battle, he prayed to the Christian god, a cross appeared in the sky and Constantine won the battle so he changed the religion of Rome from Paganism to Christianity.

i heard that the XP cross that constatine used also half came from some other God. (this was on the history channel. they claimed he was hedgeing his bets).

*n/m was thinking out loud.

that verse RCC likes to use so much about paul, was really talking about the church of philadelphia (which is a type of church, not a org)

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

this verse affixiates that the rock jesus builds the church on is HIMSELF, the church he is speaking of is the type philadelphia. if the RCC fits the quals of a philadelphia church, so be it.




[edit on 2005-6-6 by NuTroll]

Quote: "

Quote: "It was Emperor Constantine that Started the Roman Catholic Church. Constantine was the first Pope!"

Incorrect."

Would you mind Correcting me in DETAIL in that case?

Quote: "

Quote: "Constantine had a Vision of a Cross & as soon as they used it as an emblem during their War Battles they started Winning!"

And then, what? He figures, 'hey, this religion works, I'll 'take it over' and get ride of this Magdalene stuff tho. Infact I'll change the religion entirely, even tho by respecting it - it worked for me'???"

First of all Constantine never Respected the Teachings of Jesus - just the Symbol of two Sticks Slapped together into a Cross. They tried to turn their Pagan Sun God of "Sol Inviticus" into "Christ" after the fact because they realized that in all probability they already Crucified the actual Jewish "Messiah of Israel" some time ago! That is the point that I am trying to make - they simply USED this then New Religion to CONTROL the People & make themselves more Powerful (I think the new Romans in Washington D.C. are still doing this today)!

Secondly - yep you got it!

Quote: "

Quote: "it is more or less a Translation & Rip Off the Hebraic & Greek Scriptures!"

Which also do not make Mary Magdalene out to be super important."

Oh for God's Sake will you please read the CANONIZED Gospels again - She is all over the Place! After Jesus' Death\Crucifixion when all of the guys were Running Away & Denying Jesus - she never gave up - she was CONSTANTLY Evangelizing "This Guy WAS the Messiah - This Guy WAS the Christ! Believe it! Hmm... Who was the first person that the Resurrected Christ appeared to again - oh yeah thats right - MARY MAGDALENE!

Now if you look with in the Gnostic Gospels it states that Jesus TAUGHT HER things that he did not teach the other Apostles!"



Quote: "Then the claim is that the apostles themselves 'couldn't handle it' and eliminated her from the equation, except, of course, for the apostles whose 'gospels' did talk about her."

No not the other Apostles - the Church Fathers MUCH LATER! The Vatican! It was a Power Grab! The laity was not even allowed to READ the Bible for themselves! It was only in LATIN & not in the common Tongue of the European Peoples!

Quote: "And yet we hear nothing about this inter-apostolic power struggle... without substantial notice or complaint from the laity and then also utterly changed the basic message."

No we have heard about it! We have heard about the Inquisitional Burning & Killing of Gnostics & Jews & Loyal Knights - Labeled as "Witches & Heretics & Traitors".

We have also seen the Vatican FREAK OUT over things like the "Da Vinci Code". Why would they Freak Out over a "Fictional Novel"?


[edit on 6-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Would you mind Correcting me in DETAIL in that case?

List of Popes

Many catholics would say that the first pope is the Apostle Peter, but I think that that sort of thinking is as unreasonable as saying that Emperor Constantine was a Pope at all. The Roman emperor's were not popes, and, speaking most strictly, the Empire had been dead for 300 years before the 'full' papacy was around. The pope was originally just the patriarch of Rome, one of many BTOs within the Early Christian Community. The office of the Patriarch of Rome eventually laid a claim to precedence over the patriarchs in other cities, like Antioch, by stating that because of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, that the See of Rome itself was the 'rock' upon which the church should be built. But this was not something that occured overnight and the 'greek orthodox' metropolitan of Rome or Ravenna slowly became the Pope in Rome. Constantine was never part of any of that process. When Constantine was Emperor, and made his conversion to christianity, he did not become a Catholic; there was no such thing as a Catholic at that time. The 'poppa' in Rome wasn't even catholic.
Here's an artifact with the 'chi ro' symbol that Constantine's Legions emblazoned on their sheilds.

First of all Constantine never Respected the Teachings of Jesus - just the Symbol of two Sticks Slapped together into a Cross.

People at the time, apparently, bemoaned that his court was tediosuly christian and seemed to find the whole thing tiresome. Its questionable as to just how sincere his conversion was.
Regardless, by the time constantine was around, there was no 'mary magdalene as apostle-ette' cult or a radically different christianity from what we know today.

They tried to turn their Pagan Sun God of "Sol Inviticus" into "Christ" after the fact because they realized that in all probability they already Crucified the actual Jewish "Messiah of Israel" some time ago!

Er? I am unable to parse how that fits into what we are talking about. I get the bit about how the jesus movement gets 'mixed' with the Sol Invictus cult, but I don't follow what you are saying about them being concered about the messiah. The jesus movement already has the messiah as crucified and resurrected.

That is the point that I am trying to make - they simply USED this then New Religion to CONTROL the People & make themselves more Powerful

The empire fell apart utterly after christianity became very big. I don't buy into the idea that christianity destroyed it tho, but it didn't seem to help them in anyway. There were other cults that were just as big, and argueably the Legions favoured the Mithras Cult, and if it was anything like a Magdalene movement that the people wanted then the Isis mysteries were more suited to that.

Now if you look with in the Gnostic Gospels it states that Jesus TAUGHT HER things that he did not teach the other Apostles!"

[
Its seems, and I'm certainly not well studied on this issue, but it seems from my understanding that the Gnostic Gospels were not generally accepted and were largely considered to be fraud. I don't think we need to say that, becaue those Gospels were rejected, that it means that the people rejecting them were part of same anti-magdalene conspiracy. Indeed, the 'gospels' weren't made into cannon at a the Council of Nicea, there had already been much discussion about the gospels and I don't think that the beleiving christian public would've not realized that they had removed one of their, and their master's, favourite apostles.

No not the other Apostles - the Church Fathers MUCH LATER!

At first you seemed to be saying that the apostles wouldnt' accept it, and thats why they don't all give her prominence in their gospels, and why things like the gnostic gospels are so distinct from the canonical gospels.

The Vatican! It was a Power Grab!

The vatican didn't exist until far too late a period to do this. At least say it was the metropolitans and patriarchs, that it was the leaders of the early christian movement, not the roman catholic church. If it was the Roman Catholic Church that did it then the Greek Orthodox Church would be a gnostic, magdelenic church, whereas today the Catholic and Orthodox are practically indistinguishable, compared to baptists or unitarians and the like.

The laity was not even allowed to READ the Bible for themselves!

Later, that all comes later. In the begining, the gospels and such were letters written to communities of the faithful who had been evangelized by the apostles themselves. Sure, the public didnt' read these epistles and gospels on their own, they were iliterate dumbasses! The profane, etc. But when they met in their houses for a communal meal they'd read a letter from the apostles or selections from their books.
They didn't read the gospels only if they couldn't read it. The 'church', the beleiver community, didn't prevent them from reading it. True enough. later, well after the RCC and such had solidified, the preists didn't want the laity to be holding and reading the sacred book, they were too uneducated to understand it, they'd claim. They'd read it and not understand. Hell, they might've been right. Look at how the christian community has completely fragmented since the reformation, since the beleivers started reading the book, without the historical involvment that the church has, or how much disagreement there is. The leaders of the RCC knew that, thats why fighting 'heresies' was so important to them, becuase they, who beleived themselves right and faithful, understood that the public could easily misunderstand lots of things in teh bible, its undeniable, all the different christian denominations can't be correct. So they had to crush heresies when they popped up and they felt justified in not having bible reading classes for the general public. I'm not trying to justify it, keep in mind, but lets not pretend that they were unreasoning unthinking monsters who wildly destroyed this entire religion without anyone noticing and replaced it with a Sun cult, or that the christians didn't have any idea what books belonged in the bible until the catholics came along.

It was only in LATIN & not in the common Tongue of the European Peoples!

The majority of chrisitans problably spoke latin and greek, at least in the early days, with various barbaric languages later on. Why [should the church translate the bible from latin to some vulgar bastardized language?? Look at all the problems that popped in by changing it from greek and hewbrew. Latin was the official language of most of what was left of the western empire. Even hundreds of years later, a civilized person spoke and wrote latin, just like king richard of england spoke french as his native language.

No we have heard about it! We have heard about the Inquisitional Burning & Killing of Gnostics & Jews & Loyal Knights - Labeled as "Witches & Heretics & Traitors".

What jewish christers were destroyed? I am unfamiliar with such actions. As far as knights, I presume you are talking about Templars. There is nothing (that I know of anyway and if there is I'd like to hear it) that suggests that the templars had some ancient secret magdelenic christianity, that they had somehow recovered from the depths of ancient history. The Templars were powerful, therefore, they were destroyed. Just like the actual jesuits. And, gnostics. In the gnostics there is a posibility for what you suggest. The problem is, that, as far as I understand it, the later gnostics like the Cathars, weren't using the gnostic gospels like the gospel of St Thomas, and had this other interpretation of the religion, one that treated it like a mystery religion more than a revealed religion. But this is contradictory to say that the 'church' turned christianity into a mystery cult of sol invictus, and then say that the Cathars and the like were the real chrstianity, when they were, if anything, more of a mystery cult.
But, again, it is difficult to beleive that this movement was in existence from the first to the twelth, never really got destroyed by the church, which in the meantime went on crusades to the holy land, and then finally drew enough attention to warrant the Albigensian crusade. Not impossible of course, but very difficult.

We have also seen the Vatican FREAK OUT over things like the "Da Vinci Code". Why would they Freak Out over a "Fictional Novel"?

Because they perceived it as a lying bit of anti-catholic slander that made them out to be horrible evil muderous monsters, exactly as you are portraying them to be. Infact, the book makes the pre-catholic church fathers themselves to be horrible evil men. Its well warranted to react strongly against that kind of thing, especially when we can see just the effect its had. Peopel beleive[ the Davinci Code, they think its an historical study. They have to react strongly against it.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Nygdan]

Quote: "Many Catholics would say that the first Pope is the Apostle Peter."

You are just proving my point! St. Peter was NOT the first Pope! I already told you that the Romans KILLED him when he started talking about Jesus in Rome! There is DEF something fishy going on here!

I am talking about Constantine the Great BTW:
en.wikipedia.org...

NOT POPE Constantine of 708 A.D. - 715 A.D.

Quote: "Er? I am unable to parse how that fits into what we are talking about."

What do you think we are talking about here - Roman Catholicism is FALSE! It is not TRUE ORIGINAL Christianity based on the Teachings of Jesus! It is just a Control Mechanism for the Empire - which if you ask me never Ended - it still exists today! "Western Society" is built on top of Greco-Roman ideas (Democracy - the Republic & all that) - the USA & UK are PART of it!

Quote: "Gnostic Gospels were not generally accepted and were largely considered to be fraud."

The Gnostic Gospels are Authentically Ancient! Who has stated that they are a Fraud? Are you an Archeologist? How can you say that it is a Fraud? Are you saying this just because you are Biased against the contents?

Quote: "Gnostic = Magdelenic Church."

You are confusing two different topics! Your Ignorance is showing! *Gnosticism Existed as a Believe/Faith even BEFORE JESUS*! BEFORE the Catholic & Orthodox Churches! Some even say that Jesus himself was a Gnostic! Mary Magdalene is mentioned in BOTH the Canonized Gospels & the Gnostic Gospels BTW! Is it so hard to believe that Jesus' Original Teachings were Drastically Altered by the Church over Time as a matter of Politics?

Quote: "that’s why fighting 'Heresies' was so important to them."

Or like I suggest they Took over the Religion - turned it inside out & used it as a Vehicle! This Requires them to crush their Enemies - the Opposition to their claim on Power (i.e. St. Peter -> Jesus -> the Connection to the Royal House of David)! Presto Chango - just call them Heretics & Witches - that will give you a good excuse to Snuff them out!

Catholicism has a History of Conversion by the SWORD - I am sorry but I don't believe that any True Faith should have to Rely on the Threat of Violence for Adherents!

I am sorry if I am Offending you - but this is the way that I see it - I am being Honest & Truthful! Are you a Catholic?


[edit on 6-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
I am talking about Constantine the Great BTW:

Yes, and constantine was not the head of the RCC and was never the Pope.

The Gnostic Gospels are Authentically Ancient! Who has stated that they are a Fraud? Are you an Archeologist? How can you say that it is a Fraud? Are you saying this just because you are Biased against the contents?

Demonstrate that the Gospel of St. Thomas was written by St. Thomas, at least to the same degree that the other accepted gospels are accepted as being 'apostolic' (those that are anyway).

I understand that the gnostic gospels are "ancient". That in itself is meaningless. To this very day there are fraudulent gospels written, I've even heard of a 'Gospel' of Pontius Pilate. The gnostic gosepls are, as far as I am aware, understood to be documents written by gnostic/esoteric christian groups, and present a different, gnostic, christianity.

Gnosticism Existed as a Believe/Faith even BEFORE JESUS

Yes, I am aware of this, and it is also part of the reason to beleive that the gnostic gospels were written along the lines of the pre-christian gnostic faiths.

Some even say that Jesus himself was a Gnostic!

Yes, but that hardly makes it true.

Is it so hard to believe that Jesus' Original Teachings were Drastically Altered by the Church over Time as a matter of Politics?

Yes, it is hard to beleive, because there was a large population of christians, who, as far as we can tell, weren't gnostics, and didn't beleive anything that was so radically different than what the later religions stated. Its hard to beleive, not because it'd be impposible or unthinkable but becaues there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it happened.

Are you a Catholic?

I'm baptised and confirmed in the RCC, but then again I'm not an active participant in it, so take it for what its worth.

Quote: "I understand that the Gnostic Gospels are "Ancient". That in itself is meaningless... Demonstrate that the Gospel of St. Thomas was written by St. Thomas"

Well then we might as well throw away the entire Bible in that case! Can you prove that the Canonized Gospels were actually written by
St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke & St. "John" ( ) themselves? Of-course you can't because it did not come into being until at least 100 Years after Christ's Death - when the People who actually experienced the Event were starting to Die off of Old Age & needed a Record of it! Just because an Apostles Name was the Title of a Document didn't mean that it was that Particular Apostle that wrote it Themselves!

Quote: "The Gnostic Gospels are, as far as I am aware, understood to be documents written by Gnostic/Esoteric Christian groups and present a different, Gnostic Christianity. Yes, I am aware of this and it is also part of the reason to believe that the Gnostic Gospels were written along the lines of the Pre-Christian Gnostic Faiths."

Yes I agree! What I am trying to say is that this "Esoteric Christianity" is actually closer to
"Original Christianity" than the current more MainStream form of Christianity - which I feel has become Corrupted!

The word "Gnostic" simply means "To Know"! A Gnostic is not necessarily a "Heretic" - I guess that it all comes down to the way that "Judaism" is Interpreted! Have you looked into the "Dead Sea Scrolls"?

"In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD - and the WORD WAS GOD." - John 1:1

No hard feelings BTW - thanks for the Intellectual Debate!


[edit on 7-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Well then we might as well throw away the entire Bible in that case!

I think we can hold on to the books in teh bible because they were accepted by the earliest (pre-catholic, pre-orthodox) church fathers.

did not come into being until at least 100 Years after Christ's Death

So why start adding books that were widely rejected, like the gospel of st thomas?

Just because an Apostles Name was the Title of a Document didn't mean that it was that Particular Apostle that wrote it Themselves!

I agree completely and I seriously doubt that all the books in the bible were infact written (or dictated by) apostles, and I also think that the ones that were undoubtedly had additions and alterations made to them too. But the idea that the original jesus movement in israel was a gnostic movement, and that the early christian cult in the east was gnostic, but then it suddenly was 'seized' by non-gnostics, doesn't make sense. I think it makes more sense that, after there was something of a christian cult, that there were some numbers of people who were gnostic about it (actually I think everyone pretty much agrees on that). But I don't seewhy things like the Gospel of St. Thomas, rejected by the early christians, should be now accepted as 'more authentic' than the 'cannonized' gospels.

Yes I agree! What I am trying to say is that this "Esoteric Christianity" is actually closer to "Original Christianity" than the current more MainStream form of Christianity - which I feel has become Corrupted!

Its an interesting and attractive idea, but I have a hard time seeing it as being a well supported idea.

Have you looked into the "Dead Sea Scrolls"?

My understanding is that they are apocalyptic texts written by essenes (or essene like) monks. I think that one of the big things in the DSSs are that there is a "Teacher Of Righteousness" and 'armies of darkness' and the like. But, really, if modern 'non-gnostic' 'church heirachy' christianity is so bad, then why should gnostic-individualistic christianity really be any better or more true? I mean, I don't sit around reading the bible all that much, is there really all that much to the Gospel of St. Thomas or the Gospel of Mary that makes it well worth it? Especially when you think of things like the 'Gospel' of Pontius Pilate, an obvious fraud. Whatif the Gospels of St. Thomas and Mary were 'obvious frauds' (tho theologically brilliant) to the early christian community? (outside of egpyt and the like).

No hard feelings BTW

Never. Over a discussion, never.

First off "Israel" as a land did not Exist back then. The land was called "Judea" & later called "Palestine". "Judah" was one Tribe of the Twelve Tribes of "ISRAEL". This differs from the *MODERN STATE* of Israel - many American Christians get this idea confused. Judaism, Christianity & Islam (as Religions) are all Connected to each other & share the same Root - i.e. "Abrahamic" (as do Semites as a Race) - that is why it is such a Shame that they can not see past their petty differences down there in the Middle East. It is a Shame that they can't stop Killing Each Other & are unable to act more Civilized!

Concerning the last part of your post - like I said before – I guess that it all comes down to how an Individual or Group wants to Interpret & Apply the Scriptures. The thing that can be seen & learned from the
“Dead Sea Scrolls” – the Theme that Judaism, Christianity & Islam (i.e. Western Religion) all share – is the Concept of “DUALISM”!

This is Radically different than the Eastern Religious Concept of Karma. The Hindu concept of the UNITY or One-ness of ALL things. The Buddhist concept of the Emptiness & Impermanence of ALL things!


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

*cough cough* the real templar homepage: www.ordotempli.org...

masonry has nothing to do with the real ordo supremus militaris templi hierosolymitani...

[edited to fix link -nygdan]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Nygdan]