Tag Archives: jesus

The Shroud of Turin and the Templars

Posted on by
Reply

As some readers may be aware, the Shroud of Turin has been an interest of mine for many years. This morning I received a fascinating link from my bishop, Lewis Keizer of the Home Temple regarding new information on the Shroud. Dr. Keizer has been a Shroud scholar for many years and this new information vindicates his previous theories on the Shroud.

There have been several problems facing those who feel that the Shroud is an authentic relic from the time of Jesus. First has been the infamous 1988 radiocarbon dating, which showed an apparent date for the Shroud of between 1260 and 1390 CE, making it a medieval forgery. A number of researchers have cast doubt on the dating procedure. In one of my earlier posts linked below, Raymond Rogers of Los Alamos labs gave convincing evidence that the samples that were submitted to radiocarbon testing were actually part of the medieval patches which were used to repair the cloth after a fire damaged it. Other tests, such as the absence of vanillin in the cloth, show its age to be much greater.

The second problem is a gap in the apparent history of the Shroud between the sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the Shroud’s sudden appearance in Turin in the middle of the 14th century. Before the Crusades, there is legendary record of a cloth containing an image of Jesus which was traced to the city of Edessa, where it was brought to King Apgar by a mysterious disciple of Jesus after Jesus’ death. The cloth was eventually brought to Constantinople by the Emperor, but connecting it with the Shroud and its appearance in Europe was conjectural.

But according to the new article linked below, researchers in the Vatican Secret Archives uncovered such a connection in the testimony compiled at the heresy trials of the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar were present at the sack of Constantinople, where the Edessa cloth disappeared. When the Shroud appeared in Turin, it was in connection with the DeCharney family – Geoffrey DeCharney having been the second in command of the Knights Templar. Some historians speculated that the Kights Templar had made off with the Edessa cloth, and that it became a secret relic in their possession, possibly used in their initiations.

The newly released testimony of a young French recruit of the Templars is that he was brought to a secret room during his initiation into the order in 1287, and shown a long linen cloth with the figure of a man impressed on it. He was instructed to venerate this relic. This gives strong support for the Templar connection and strengthens the historical chain of evidence linking the Shroud back to Constantinople, to Edessa, and finally Palestine.

Links:

News Item:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6040521.ece

My previous posts on the Shroud

http://pathstoknowledge.com/2006/07/27/shroud-of-turin-dating-error/

http://pathstoknowledge.com/2006/07/27/second-image-on-the-shroud/

Bishop Keizer’s presentation on the Shroud

http://www.wisdomseminars.org/Sh/Presentation_Files/index.html

Bishop Keizer’s links:

www.hometemple.org

www.wisdomseminars.org

So What is a Christian

Posted on by
Reply

It gets harder every day to explain my spirituality to others. I am a follower of the Master Jesus, and an independent priest. But am I a Christian? Many would say no, because I have unorthodox beliefs.

C. S. Lewis argued, in Mere Christianity, that “Christian” should mean someone who claims to hold to the “Christian doctrine”. He was arguing against those who prefer to use “Christian” as a word meaning someone who is loving and charitable. Lewis would prefer us to say of a baptized scoundrel, “he’s a bad Christian” rather than “he’s not a Christian”.

But what, exactly, constitutes “Christian doctrine?” At one time, we could identify the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines and insist that a Christian must claim to believe them. But with the emergence of early Christian writings such as the Nag Hammadi texts, our view of what early Christianity looked like is changing. Early Christians were a much more diverse bunch than originally thought. From the very beginning, there existed apostolic groups with radically different notions of what Jesus message was.

I would tend to call myself a “gnostic” Christian, but this is misleading also. No Christian group actually called itself “gnostic”. This was a catch-all phrase for several groups that differed considerably with each other. There are a few common features of “gnosticism”, such as the emphasis on individual enlightenment, that are appealing. Then on the other hand are the strange cosmologies and a very negative attitude toward the material world.

“Mystical Christian”, “Esoteric Christian”, and “Hermetic Christian” are also possibilities, but seem to conjure up strange images in the modern mind.

So, what do you think is the best self-label for an “inner” Christian in the modern world?

About the Church of the Holy Archangels

Reply

The Church of the Holy Archangels is an independent ministry in the process of affiliation with the Home Temple under the jurisdiction of Bishop Lewis Keizer.

In form we are part of the Independent Catholic movement, with lines of authority from most if not all of the surviving branches of apostolic succession. We administer the sacraments to any who wish to receive them, without membership or doctrinal requirements and without charge.

We have no fixed body of dogma, but reverence the Master Jesus. We believe his gift to us consisted primarily in spiritual power and transformation, rather than a set of statements of belief.

Our understanding of the spiritual world is not bound by any one tradition, but is influenced by many traditions, including orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, Vedantism and other Eastern philosophies, and the teaching of various Esoteric Schools.

About the Apostolic Priesthood

Reply

The apostles of Jesus and their successors who left Jerusalem established independent lines of priesthood. It was not only Peter who passed on his authority. Mark established an independent apostolic branch in Egypt. Bartholomew and Thaddeus in Armenia, Thomas in India, etc. These apostolic branches all passed on the same authority and sacraments, but had different rites and even different “takes” on the teachings of Jesus. Eventually, the Roman Rite assumed (using the political power of Rome) jurisdiction over most Western branches of the Church. But elsewhere other branches survived, and as time went on various branches split off from Rome, while still retaining bishops and sacraments.

It’s important to understand that in the western tradition, anytime a validly consecrated bishop lays his hands on someone, with the intent to consecrate another person bishop (or priest or deacon) that person is a “VALIDLY ORDAINED” bishop (or priest or deacon). It doesn’t matter if the bishop had the Pope’s permission. It doesn’t matter if the bishop doing the ordaining is a heretic. As long as a valid bishop lays on hands and intends to ordain, the ordination is valid.

The ordination may NOT, however, be “LICIT” in the eyes of one or another Catholic jurisdictions. An “illicit” ordination means that the bishop did not have permission from his presiding bishop or patriarch, and this may make him – in the eyes of his presiding bishop or patriarch, a “bad boy”. He and the people he ordains may not be welcome in that Catholic jurisdiction. However the ordinations are still valid. The sacraments performed still carry the same spiritual authority.

Over the years, various bishops have ordained other bishops outside of the authority of their jurisdictions. One of the primary lines of succession for independent Catholics is through the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Their story is a bit complicated, but I’ll try to give it in brief (in oversimplified format) [for the complete story, you might start at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church]

Beginning about 1552, The Archbishops of the Netherlands were granted by two Popes and a Council two very important perpetual (irrevocable) privileges:

1. The right to appoint their own successors.
2. The right to never be tried by any Roman Catholic tribunal.

This established the Catholic Church in the Netherlands as an autonomous jurisdiction, out of the direct control of Rome. During the upheavals of the Protestant Reformation, when the Bishop of the Netherlands was thought to be too kind toward Protestants and heretics, the Pope attempted to revoke these irrevocable privileges and remove the Archbishop. He refused. Although the Pope appointed his own new Archbishop, most of the Dutch Catholics remained loyal to the Old Archbishop and the “Old Catholic Church” that formed around him.

During the time of the First Vatican Council, many of the German and other European bishops who opposed the dogma of Papal infallibility but wanting to remain Catholic, decided to move into the jurisdiction of the Old Catholic Church. Since then, it has been a “home” for many diverse groups who want to preserve apostolic authority and the sacraments, but do not accept some or all of the dogmas or practices of Roman Catholicism. Bishop Keizer of the Home Temple, for example, ordains women to the priesthood and episcopate, and his jurisdiction does not enforce any dogmatic formula at all.

A very diverse “Independent Catholic” movement grew out of this – and there has been an effort to collect and preserve all the different apostolic lines of authority in the independent movement.

The Home Temple for example has lines of authority from various bishops of the Antiochian, Roman, Armenian Uniate, Syro-Chaldean, Anglican/Celtic, American Greek Melchite, Orthodox Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox, Non Juring Bishops of Scotland, Syrian-Malabar, Syrian-Gallican, Coptic, Coptic Uniate, Anglican/Non-Celtic,Irish, Welsh, Mariavite, Old Greek Melchite (Byzantine), Old Armenian, Corporate Reunion, Liberal Catholic, Templar and Gnostic lines of apostolic succession. The Independent Catholic movement has been consolidating and unifying the different apostolic lines of succession for many years.

Independent priests (such as myself) are VALIDLY ordained in the catholic apostolic succession. A Roman Catholic for example, could come to me for the sacraments, particularly in an emergency and be assured that they were valid. Whether they would want to regularly receive the sacraments from a priest who disagreed with Roman Catholic dogma would be a matter for their conscience. Unlike Roman Catholicism, which restricts the sacraments to Roman Catholics in good standing, the Home Temple priests offer the sacraments to whoever sincerely wishes them, even non-Christians.

The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP)

Posted on by
Reply

Just as a preemptive warning, my political leanings are confused and variable. If there is a perfect political philosophy out there, I haven’t found it yet. That said, I do have strong predilections for the so-called Zero-Aggression-Principle (ZAP) articulated by some libertarians and anarchists. There are various formulations, but the one by author L. Neil Smith is one of the snappiest…

“No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.”

Sounds like something Jesus might agree with.

Just to be clear, this is a prohibition against INITIATING force. It doesn’t stop you from defending yourself, or apprehending and punishing someone who has already initiated force. Also, to be perfectly honest, the definition of “aggression” can get a little wiggy, and end up including a variety of non-actions, such as withholding from someone something to which they have a right.

But on the whole, I like ZAP. The problem is that, if we really take ZAP seriously, then much of conventional society and conventional government needs to be totally re-thought. Taxes, for example, as typically administered and collected, clearly violate ZAP. That, to my mind, is an argument in it’s favor ;-)

Anti-Intellectualism

Posted on by
Reply

The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. “You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that.” – Frank Zappa

Zappa, of course, wasn’t the first to find God’s behavior in Genesis 2 absurd. Shortly after Jesus, the Christian Gnostics read the Genesis account and saw something entirely different than what the orthodox saw. To them, it was obvious that the God of Genesis 2 was a bully – ignorant if not downright malevolent. To them, it was basically this “God” of Genesis 2 who was the REAL devil, and the serpent was sent from the true God to deliver Adam and Eve from Ignorance. The Gnostic “Testimony of Truth” put it in words Zappa would probably have approved of:

“But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said “Adam, where are you?” God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, “Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever.” Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger!”

But other mystical interpretations of Genesis pick up on additional subtleties. It is not simply wisdom that the fatal tree gives Adam and Eve – it is dualistic knowledge – categorical knowledge. Good vs. Evil. Light vs. Dark. Ultimately – myself vs. everything NOT myself. In other words, the developed Ego. The story in Genesis is basically the story of humanity rising above animal awareness and developing self-consciousness; a story repeated in the psychological development of every subsequent human being. Thorough the ego, humanity not only becomes aware of good and evil, but also life and death. We come to understand, anticipate… and dread our own mortality.

This is our “fall”. But it is a fall UPWARDS. The Ego is our only vehicle upwards toward transcendence, but it also can become our prison.

And so, in one important sense, the intellectual, categorical, dualistic mind IS an obstacle. Not because it allows us to question dogma or doubt doctrine, but because it isolates us from the rest of the universe in a prison of concepts, tortured by the suffering of remembered or anticipated pain and death and annihilation. The ego is our hell, and our only salvation is that the ego is temporary. To live forever in our present state would indeed be a grim fate.

Every mystical tradition recognizes that the intellectual mind is an obstacle to be overcome in the spiritual path. Zen masters give their disciples torturous, insoluble mental puzzles (koans) to trick the mind into exhausting itself. Yogis practice for years to quiet the noise of the mind. In Christianity, “contemplative prayer” involves a long discipline of focusing the mind on divine emptiness.

John Wren-Lewis, an atheist mystic, describes his experience of awakening from the conceptual world into emptiness:
“Now all the judgments of goodness or badness which the human mind necessarily has to make in its activities along the line of time were contextualized in the perspective of that other dimension I can only call eternity, which loves all the productions of time regardless.”

A Paraphrased Parable

Posted on by
Reply

A Paraphrased Parable

A successful businessman lived a few blocks from the Baptist church he attended. One Sunday, on leaving church, decided to cut through an alleyway as a shortcut on his way to a restaurant for breakfast. No sooner had he entered the alleyway when he was jumped by a gang of thugs who beat him badly and took his wallet, his watch, and even stripped him of his expensive suit. They left him half dead.

The pastor of the church walked by a few minutes later and noticed someone lying in the alley. “Drunken bums…” he muttered under his breath. “They never change”. And he hurried off. Not long after, the local Catholic Priest walked by, on his way to breakfast with a wealthy parishioner. He saw the man, but he was worried it might be a trap (and it would almost certainly make him late) and he hurried along.

But a cook from an all-night diner, on his way home from the night shift, walked down the alley and saw the man, and stopped. He was recently released from prison. In prison, he had become a Muslim and had amended his life. Remembering that Allah is merciful, he approached the man and saw that he was in serious trouble. Carrying him to a safe location, he phoned for an ambulance and accompanied the man to the hospital. Since the unconscious man had no identification, he even signed the paperwork promising to be financially responsible for the man’s hospital treatment. Shortly afterward, as he waited at the man’s side, the police arrived and he was taken to the police station to make a statement and answer many suspicious questions arising from his former criminal record.

Nevertheless, he returned to visit the man the next day and check on his progress and recovery.

Now, which of these three, the pastor, the priest or the Muslim, was truly following the teachings of Jesus?

—-
There’s a story (perhaps apocryphal but instructive nevertheless) that a professor at a theological seminary once devised an experiment to force his students to examine their hearts. He asked them to prepare and deliver a sermon on the Parable of the Good Samaritan – then arranged that as each of them in turn was on his way to the auditorium to deliver the sermon, they would pass buy someone who appeared to be homeless and unconscious and had been strategically placed along the route. As you might have guessed, very few stopped to check on the man.
–
He who says he is in the light and hates his brother, is in the darkness even until now. He who loves his brother remains in the light, and there is no occasion for stumbling in him. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness, and walks in the darkness, and doesnt know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

(1 John 2:9-11 WEB)

Was Jesus a Liberal or a Conservative?

Posted on by
Reply

A discussion ensued recently on AT&T regarding whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative. My contention was that he was neither or both, and that Liberal/Conservative is much too simplistic a picture of how an enlightened being would look at the world. Here are a few examples of Jesus fitting into both categories:

 

The Liberal Jesus:

1. Saw his mission as primarily to the poor, the oppressed and the disenfranchised.
2. Taught that it was difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom, and urged the rich to sell their goods and give to the poor.
3. Was a homeless vagabond.
4. Urged non-judgmentalism and ultra-pacifism.

 

The Conservative Jesus

1. Taught a very strict moral code (lust is as bad as adultery, for example)
2. Refused to endorse revolution, even against the Romans
3. Was frequently the dinner guest of the rich and powerful
4. Urged non-judgmentalism and ultra-pacifism

Why is non-judgmentalism and pacifism on both the liberal AND conservative lists? First of all, both liberals and conservatives are judgmental against each other. Imagine a conservative being non-judgmental of Barbara Streisand or a liberal being non-judgmental of Rush Limbaugh.

And while military pacifism may be "liberal", many who would think of themselves as liberal are quite ready to endorse involuntary taxation for wealth redistribution and increased government regulation. All government is basically FORCE. Can one really imagine Jesus not simply urging the wealthy to give to the poor… but enforcing it at the point of a gun?

 

The Latest Questions

Posted on by
Reply

>Thank you again for graciously responding to my questions in your blog. These are my comments:

Thank you for the polite tone of the questions. I fully understand it must be difficult not to make a few more editorial comments right out of the gate ;-)

>1. Much of what you have written in response 1. and 4. sounds like the beliefs of Rudolf Steiner. Are you a student of Steiner?

No. I’ve not read anything of his and have only seen his name in passing.

>2. A concern that I, as a practicing Catholic, have regarding the Shema Israel, and the fact that Jesus does not fit into the concept, revolves around certain Jewish groups who are promoting the Noachide Laws as a system of morality for the world. According to material I've read on the web, idolatry under the Noachide Laws will be punishable by death, and belief in the Trinity is considered to be idolatry. These groups will not tolerate belief that Jesus is God and intend to prosecute anyone who proclaims that belief. I don't know how widely held this idea might be. I do know that the Sanhedrin has recently been formed once again, and that this would be the court of law that would try religious questions. Coupled with that are the predictions in the Book of Revelation.

I see your concern here, but as with most things, potential abuse does not invalidate proper use. Jesus quoted the Shema himself as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29) No one would be more opposed than I to the global adoption of Noachide anti-idolatry laws. Personally I think the number of Jews who actually want to govern the world (much less Israel) according to the Old Testament is blessedly small – a small fraction compared to Muslims who would like to govern the world according to the Koran, for example. If Judaism ever gains that kind of power, it will probably be because the United States, and its Christian fundamentalist constituents, hand it to them.

>3. Condemnations of the Kabbalah from the Catholic Encyclopedia can be read here. The Encyclopedia entry for Pico is here, for Raymond Lully is here, for Reuchlin is here. You can also read a history of Rosicrucianism here.

While the CE article on Kabbalah (and the supporting biographies) were excellent summaries there wasn’t really much direct condemnation, other than to insist that the kabbalah wasn’t as ancient as claimed, and that it was not a good evangelism tool for Jews as some might have hoped. There are, of course, plenty of sources of wisdom that the Home Temple and particularly the Temple of the Holy Grail look to which would earn the condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church (such as Freemasonry or Theosophy). But I had asked the question because I was curious as to whether you were aware of any statements directly against the core teaching of the Kabbalah regarding the world as a series of emanations of En-Soph. This, it seems to me, is its primary contribution.As I said, I'm sure there are plenty of condemnations to go around without having to be so specific, so don't undertake a research project on my account.