This is amazing stuff,the truth is stranger than Fiction, Dan Brown eat your heart out,the real treasure is in Scotland at Rosslyn.

Astonishing as rediscovery of the architectural feature is, this article contains witless rubbish.

Alignment of the structure "before the existence of accurate compasses" is hardly remarkable as their alignment is magnetic rather than celestial. Alignment by celestial observation is so established in millenia that its origins may be considered shrouded in common human heritage.

More pertinent than any mastery of astrology for the alignment of the chapel are Hay and Sinclair's technical skills in what is now called entirely separately astronomy, completely sufficient. Both deal with celestial positionings, but are otherwise completely -- one might even say poles -- different. So, any "full significance of the way Rosslyn was aligned on a true east-west axis before the existence of accurate compasses" still having to be explored is spurious, more pertinent to selling paper and ink than imparting knowledge.

Even the existence of "accurate compasses" is spurious and irrelevant; directions were already determinable (unless the site may have been in perpetual fog, as it may be increasingly coming amid growing sensationalist faddism from Dan Brown and his ilk of minions of scholarship). There is, simply, no further "full significance of" alignment "to be explored."

Similarly conjecture on the Ebionite connection ... The name comes from the Hebrew for "poor," reflected in Romans 15:26 and 1 Corinthians 16:3. Among all the attempts in the 1. and 2. Cc. CE or so to come to understand who Jesus was, the Ebionites' may be regarded as those of a continuing yeshivah of talmidim of Jesus and John as rebbes. In this they are typically regarded, as the article indicates in fact denying Jesus' divinity, at contrast with the Docetists, who maintained that Jesus was God and merely appeared to be human.

To say that the Ebionites were "followers of pre-Christian mystery tra

[in continuation Huguenot #3 and conclusion]

Similarly hardly journalism of the standard I expect from the Scotsman is the assertion “Shekinah, the female aspect of God.”

The biblical Hebrew word “shekhinah” in its most urtextual, original, basic, and immediate sense signifies “dwelling,” nothing more nor less than “the presence of God,” not the insinuation of the article as “the female aspect of God.” As an Orthodox Jewish friend once commented in good terms to a Gentile acquaintance, “If you are going to use the language at least get it right” (cf. Wittgenstein’s belauded from related background, “What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent” and reflect on pertinence to effusions in public media). In this basic sense one might without much particular metaphor refer to one’s residence as “shekhinah,” similarly where the Baptist’s two disciples ask Jesus where he is staying (John 1:38). That the word “shekhinah”is grammatically feminine, as reflected in its “-ah” ending, is principally completely unrelated to imputation of gender in meaning, as generally prevailing in grammatical gender in languages generally. Mark Twain’s comment about German as a language in which the word for girl is neuter and for turnip feminine comes to mind.

To assert, as some kabbalists, shekhinah as the feminine principle or the female aspect of God, with whatever merits, is later accretion.

The mob whipped up by John Knox may have gotten the matter about right theologically, but everyone knows of course that they were gluttons and drunkards (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34, Titus 1:12) and so the gem was saved architecturally. But at least the booze, contravening, was good, and some might even hold well worth the sacrifice for all parties, and with a good time being had by all.

For The Myths & Mysteries lead-on tag to opine that Butler & Richie’s <<Rosslyn Revealed>> “contains

Hugeuenot perhaps you should read the book,before passing judgement, instead of basing all your assumptions on the article....after all the authors Butler and Ritchie did not write the article they wrote the book......I am looking forward to reading it before make any decisions....

Bram Seer #5: Perhaps you should read Smith's review article before assessing my posting, and perhaps read the posting again as well, beginning with its acknowledgment that rediscovery of the light box is, in fact (which I neither did nor do challenge), astonishing, followed by the observation that "this article [sic, non liber] contains witless rubbish."

The book as well may contain "witless rubbish" but that is another issue, another day, another race, and none of now or my making.

Whatever the merits of the book in faithfulness to the evidence to which Smith reports it as appealiing, or Smith's faithfulness to the book in reporting its case and representations, the issues which I see from the article -- whether from the book -- are unchanged, and it is upon them, not from my injection of assumptions, I base my comments.

You of course assume that I have not read the book, and you may be correct.

You are presumably correct to observe that Butler and Richie did not write the article. You are not however correct to infer and insinuate that my comments constitute "passing judgement." However, before the Scotsman (which presumably has in some sense read the book, at least through its agency of C. Smith and perhaps that of CS's supervising editor if no other way) verges on sensationalism with such prejudicial ejaculations as “contains claims which will shake both the Christian church and Freemasonry,” perhaps it would do well to have its support better prepared before taking them to press.

I neither have obligation to acquit nor predisposition to condemn the book unread. What I point out are issues evident from the article on which the book as represented, whether read, may be questioned.

If the Smith review is not accurate representation of the book, then perhaps there are some discussions to go on among Smith, the Scotsman's editors and management, Richie, Butler, their publisher, and th