The Turin Shroud – It’s Not Jesus! It’s Jacques De Molay!First Published: November 29, 2018 Last updated: January 18th, 2019 Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes 2 comments
The Shroud of Turin is perhaps one of the most famous and well-known supposed religious relics in the world. Said to be the cloth that wrapped the body of the deceased Jesus Christ, which ultimately contain the imprint of his face and body following his crucifixion, this material has fascinated millions of people since its first recorded public airing in 1356. We will look at the possible origins of this mysterious shroud shortly. However, perhaps of more interest is as much as it has fascinated the general populace, it has seemingly been a cause of much anxiety for the church and Christianity in general. As well it might, for if the research of two authors, is accurate, it wouldn’t so much as put a chink in the claims of Christianity, it will potentially rip a gaping hole in it.
Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, themselves both Freemasons who have made convincing cases of an almost definite link between Freemasonry and the Knights Templar and, in turn, connections right the way back to the mystery schools of ancient Egypt, would make an equally convincing argument in their book ‘The Second Messiah’ that the famous shroud doesn’t show the face of Jesus. It shows the face and body of the last (official) Grand Master of the Knights Templar, Jacques de Molay, who ironically enough, died due to his own declaration that Jesus was but a man and not divine. We have examined before this very notion, as well as the fact that Jesus was likely from an ancient Egyptian bloodline, a royal one with a legitimate Pharaonic claim. The same that would connect to the Templar Knights and Freemasonry. And perhaps connecting them all is this mysterious linen cloth.
Ancient Masonic Origins Of The Turin Shroud?
The first official record of the Shroud of Turin appears to date back to 1356 when the wife of the recently killed at the Battle of Poitiers, Geoffrey de Charney, Jeanne de Vergy, would display this apparently ancient and divine relic in the small French town of Lirey. Needless to say, many would flock to see it, and Vergy was an intelligent woman with many connections. She would waste little time in “marketing” the cloth – for a small fee.
With King John II now a captive in England, the subject of a huge ransom, and her husband dead, Vergy was in financial difficulty. She would, as was standard practice, search through and record her husband’s belongings. It was then she would discover and unfold what she thought was a stained cloth. Whether she was aware that the face looking back at her was that of Jacques de Molay (who was dead just short of fifty years) or whether her genuine belief was that it was that of Jesus is unclear. However, given her intelligence, and her family’s connections to the Templar Knights, which we will examine in shortly, it is highly likely that she did recognize Molay. It is also highly likely that those of high-rank in the church, including the serving pope, would also have realized who the face in the cloth was.
Although records are sketchy, many researchers, including Knight and Lomas, believe that Vergy’s husband was the grandson of Jean de Charney, who was the brother of Geoffrey de Charney, the Templar Knight who was burned alive along with Jacques de Molay in 1314 at the orders of King Philip IV and, technically as part of the Inquisition for heresy. Knight and Lomas argue that Jean de Charney would recover the shroud.
The Arrest Of The Last Templar Grand Master
So why wrap Molay in such a way in the first place? We have examined before the events of Friday 13th October 1307 when the Templar Knights were rounded up and arrested under charges of heresy. In reality, this was a combination of King Philip IV’s jealousy of their status. But more specifically, his ever-increasing debts and his desire for the literal riches of the Knights Templar. Incidentally, although he would increase his wealth marginally when the Pope signed over any lands owned by the knights to him, the vast majority of the treasure (whatever it might have been although there were undoubtedly genuine riches amongst it) had gone. It is thought most of it, along with a healthy portion of high-ranking Templar Knights, had been discreetly transferred to the Templar fleet at La Rochelle. From there, however, claims differ as to where it went.
For Jacques de Molay, however, this wasn’t the case. Whether through honor, or whether he was genuinely caught off-guard he remained. There must have been a leak of some kind because of the predetermined decision to move their riches only days, maybe hours before the arrests. And, according to records of the arrests, Philip himself would attend the main Temple in Paris where Molay was almost as soon as it was secure. With him, he had perhaps one of the most brutal and feared men of the times, William Imbert.
Private Templar Ceremonies In “A Secret Place!”
William Imbert – sometimes referred to as William of Paris – was the “Chief Inquisitor” of the French Inquisition. He was skillful, for want of a better word, and ruthless with it. In reality, and in modern times, we would consider him a psychopath and likely a serial killer. In the Dark Ages and behind the mask of the Inquisition and in the name of “God”, he could torture, maim, and murder at will. He would accompany Philip into the Paris Temple that Friday morning in 1307. And while Philip’s motivation was, privately, money, Imbert, considering the charges of “spitting on the cross” and “denying the divinity of Christ”, combined with his own bloodthirst, would likely have been particularly brutal with Molay. He couldn’t, however, allow him to die. Philip wanted a very public “confession” from him. We will come back to the importance of this later.
Perhaps because of the brutal reputation of Imbert, with relative quickness, one of the Templar Knights (Knight and Lomas name him as John of Foligny) would tell of “a secret place” where private ceremonies, attended by only certain Templar Knights took place. It is likely, this “secret place” was extremely similar, if not the same, as the Masonic temples of today, and the mystery schools of ancient Egypt and before even that.
Writing in ‘The Second Messiah’, Knight and Lomas would say of this secret place, “…we believe it to be a windowless room virtually identical to a modern Masonic temple”. They would continue that although there is no official record of the room that it likely had a “black-and-white chequered floor, walls adorned with non-Christian symbols. And a star-studded ceiling with the letter “G” at its center”.
They would also likely find in that room, four other items.
The Intentional Near-Death Crucifixion Of Jacques De Molay?
Likely in a wooden chest, the members of the Inquisition of the Paris Temple would have found a skull and two thigh bones. They also would have found a white linen shroud. This item goes back to the mystery schools of ancient Egypt and has connections to several “religious sects”. Most notably the Essenes of which Jesus was most likely a high-ranking (even royal) member. They are also used today in Masonic ceremonies of “ritual death” and “rebirth” for the initiations of degrees. They were, it would seem, also used by high-ranking Templar Knights. Although much different today, the roots of the ceremonies from all three of those eras share the same ancient source (ancient to even the ancient Egyptians).
The French inquisitors allegedly had a particular liking for nailing “heretics” to whatever they could find close by to begin torture immediately. It also required only the carrying of the nails and a hammer. As opposed to the plethora of chilling devices such as The Rack in the dungeons and torture chambers beneath the city. With this in mind, then, the likely boiling-point outrage at the accusations combined with his own (misunderstood) discoveries, would have led Imbert to be particularly excessive. And inventive, especially with reference to denying Jesus and spitting on the cross.
Knight and Lomas argue that Molay was nailed to the doorframe of this secret room. One hand directly upwards over his head, and the other outstretched to his side. An object representing a Crown of Thornes was then thrust on his head. He would then be left for hours until just before the point of death. And likely (given his later actions that would follow) his false confession to his torturers. Then, came the final humiliation.
A Final Humiliation – Recorded For Eternity!
They would take Molay down from the door and wrap him in the organization’s ceremonial shroud. Another act of humiliation emulating the wrapping of Jesus following his crucifixion. It is here, though, where the vital clue resides. If we accept the Knight and Lomas argument, that whoever was in the shroud was alive “and expected to recover” that is.
The two authors would run experiments with a similar “covered body” wrapped in the same way. Only laid on a flat slab as a dead body would be. The results were simply nowhere near the same. However, they would repeat them and place the body into a soft bed. Also, with the head raised on a pillow (which would aid recovery from crucifixion). This time, the results would match almost identically. And the reason the person was in a soft bed? So they could recover fully and then confess of their heretic guilt. Because the person in the linen cloth was the tortured Jacques de Molay.
In ‘The Second Messiah’ Knight and Lomas go into detail of how the blood would have set. This, depending on the position of the body. Even how the raised temperature (another consequence of crucifixion) assisted in the image forming when insulated within the linen. It really is worth purchasing a copy to read such detail in full.
Once Molay was close to recovery, knowing the significance of the shroud to the Templar Knights, Jean de Charney took it. He would keep it discreetly among his possessions. It would eventually find its way to Geoffrey. And in turn to his widow who would declare it to the world.
Molay, incidentally, would retract his confession and would meet his end at the stake.
The Second Messiah – The Blowback Effect Of The Church’s Own Indoctrination?
As the slow-burning coals (they were literally slow-roasted) began to overtake the two Templar Knights, Molay would unleash a curse. Shortly after, the sudden deaths of the king and the pope responsible for his death occurred. Rumors began to circulate of “special powers” from Molay. That he had risen from the grave. Of course, this wasn’t the case but easily believed in the self-imposed society of general ignorance among the masses. A society fostered by the church to root out any form of free-thinking or quest for knowledge. From this, many would believe Molay had risen from the grave. The church, who had turned Jesus into a Martyr for their own ends in exactly the same way, now risked persecution from their own subjects. These rumors of a “second Messiah” must not take hold.
This, more than anything else was likely behind their desire in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to destroy the shroud. Then, they would realize this was not possible, and would no longer achieve their desired purpose. They would then move to embrace this potential thorn in their side. They would claim it was indeed the face of Jesus. And that the shroud was genuine and from the year 33 AD.
However, carbon testing in 1988 would put the age of the linen cloth between 1260 and 1390. With an error margin of sixty years or so. That would fit perfectly around the date of Molay’s torture in 1307. Not to mention the uncanny likeness to the images we have of Molay. No plans exist for further study of the Shroud of Turin. However, it would seem, at least to some, it is perfectly obvious of its true origin. And whose image, through an unintentional set of circumstances, it really represents.
Check out the video below.