Laurence Gardner

[Sandy]

Old Shepherd wrote:

she posted some quotes from an English earl who is a Druid Priest

Please provide proof that Laurence Gardner is an English earl and/or a Druid Priest.

The information that I have describes him as follows:

• Laurence Gardner, Prior of the Celtic Church's Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, is an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist. Distinguished as the Chevalier Labhràn de Saint Germain, he is Presidential Attaché to the European Council of Princes - a constitutional advisory body established in 1946. He is formally attached to the Noble Household Guard of the Royal House of Stewart, founded at St Germain-en-Laye in 1692, and is the Jacobite Historiographer Royal.

Even if Sir Laurence Gardner is attached to the the druidic court of King Bruide of the Caledonian Picts, would that automatically make him a liar?

[OldShepherd]

"Please provide proof that Laurence Gardner is an English earl and/or a Druid Priest.

Even if Sir Laurence Gardner is attached to the the druidic court of King Bruide of the Caledonian Picts, would that automatically make him a liar?

Here is Gardner's Title, "Sir Laurence Gardner, Kt St Gm., KCD, KT St A." Now while he may not be specifically an Earl, he is knighted, therefore British royalty.

According to the dictionary a prior is "the superior ranking next to the abbot of a monastery, the superior of a house or group of houses of any of various religious communities." And I guess technically that is not a priest.

Your bio of Gardner left out the sentence describing him as a prior. And notice that the church he is a prior of is proud of being Druidic.

"About the Speaker:
Sir Laurence Gardner, Kt St Gm., KCD, KT St A., is an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist. He holds the position of Prior of the Celtic Church of the Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, and is distinguished as Le Chevalier Labhràn de Saint Germain and Preceptor of the Knights Templars of Saint Anthony. Sir Laurence is also Presidential Attaché to the European Council of Princes (a constitutional advisory body established in 1946), and Chancellor of the Imperial and Royal Court of the Dragon Sovereignty. He is formally attached to the Noble Household Guard of the Royal House of Stewart, founded at St Germain-en-Laye in 1692, and is the Jacobite Historiographer Royal by Appointment."

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/starfire3.html

"Although Christian in concept, the original Celtic Church had no links with the Pauline movement which eventually became known as Roman Catholicism. The Celtic Church's roots were really twofold: Judaic-Essene coupled with the Druidic tradition. Indeed, St Columba's own motto proclaimed 'Christ is my Druid'. The early Church was, moreover (in accordance with Judaic and British custom), an hereditary institution. Just as in Jerusalem, where the High Priesthood remained within a dynastic family and passed from father to son in many instances, the same applied to the Celtic bishops in Britain.

The Celtic Church first appeared in Britain in AD 37, within a few years of the Crucifixion and about three centuries before Roman Christianity was established. Then in AD 62 Jesus's brother James, the exiled Nazarene Bishop of Jerusalem, settled in Britain and the Church was reformed under his guidance"

http://www.mediaquest.co.uk/RHSsite/CAChurch.html

Here are some more wonderful books by Gardner.

Realm of the Ring Lords

http://mediaquestusa.com/Resources/books/shope.htm

STAR FIRE - The Gold of the Gods

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/starfire2.html

Being a Druid does not necessarily make anyone a liar but are you really so naïve to think that anyone can obtain accurate information about any group or entity from that group's opponents or enemies?

Here is part of my response to you when you posted Gardner's garbage the first time. You persisted in defending his dog puke then and you continue now although I posted lengthy rebuttals of much of his article. Links to my previous posts, below. I'm not going to waste my time reposting it, you didn't read it the first time. I think I proved Gardner a liar many times over.

"Not only was the author a pagan, he went on to say that Mary was not a virgin, Jesus never lived in Nazareth, that neither Jesus nor Lazarus were really dead, they were only excommunicated and reinstated, that when Jesus called out to the Father from the cross he was talking to Simon the Zealot and that the Bible is written in jargon or "code" that you can only understand if you know the 'code'."

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/20001208-7-000089.html

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/001465-2.html

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/001465-3.html

[Sandy]

Hi Old Shepherd
Anything that doesn't go along with your doctrine is dog puke to you. You have proved nothing. You certainly have not proved Laurence Gardner to be a liar.

Thank you for posting some of the really good links to a number of his articles. I have always found the Star Fire one interesting.

[OldShepherd]

Sandy,

Anything that doesn't go along with your doctrine is dog puke to you. You have proved nothing. You certainly have not proved Laurence Gardner to be a liar
Thank you for posting some of the really good links to a number of his articles. I have always found the Star Fire one interesting.

No, what is dog puke to me is anything that I can show/demonstrate/prove is blatantly false using the same quality/caliber of evidence that I would use to prove a legal matter before a court of law. I have Federal court room experience so I speak from experience. As I said you didn't read my posts last year and you didn't read them now. How in the h*ll would you know what I proved or didn't prove, since you didn't read it. "You have proved nothing.," is the exact same statement you made about the dozen or more sites I linked which resolve all the so-called errors and contradictions you are so fond of finding in the scriptures.

As to me proving something you are partially correct I didn't, the links I posted did the proving. Gardner claimed that the only animal the Papua New Guineans knew was the pig so when the Bible was translated into their language every animal was supposedly changed to "pig," For example the lamb of God supposedly became the "pig of God." I linked to at least two sites and quoted Encarta all which prove that several animals are indigenous to PNG and the pig is not one of them. What is that if not a lie?

Garden claimed that Jesus could not have lived in Nazareth because it didn't exist at that time. I linked to at least four sites which prove that Nazareth existed hundreds of years prior to the Christian era.

Here are some of Gardner's garbage and my responses from that other forum;

So although eminently poetic, (1)the language of the Authorized English Bible is quite unlike any language ever spoken by anyone in England or anywhere else. (2)It bears no relation to the Greek or Latin from which it was translated. It was certainly not the language spoken by God, as some priests once told me. (3)But from this approved canonical interpretation, all other English language Bibles have emerged in their various forms.

I addressed this point previously. (1)KJV English is exactly like all writings of the era. Any 12 year old can read Bacon and Shakespeare and see that. (3) Only a few versions, i.e. NKJV and Living Bible, are based on the KJV, the majority are translations from the original languages. (2) Then this genius contradicts himself by saying.

Despite that, for all of its faults, despite its beautiful verse patterns and the new words, it still remains the closest of all English language translations from the original Greek manuscripts.

Now either the KJV "bears no relation to the Greek. . .from which it was translated" or it is "the closest of all English language translations from the original Greek manuscripts." It cannot be both! I guess all the scarecrows who listened to this drivel (or copied it later) were chanting, "If I only had a brain."

Here is the piece de resistance our friend Gardner says that the virgin Mary was not a virgin!

"Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. Our English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus' mother Mary was a virgin; they keep telling us that she was a virgin. Well, let's consider the word "virgin". We understand the word; it tells us that this was a woman with no experience of sexual union. But this was translated not from the Greek initially but from the Latin. That was easy because the Latin called her virgo; Mary was a virgo. It didn't mean the same thing at all! Virgo in Latin meant nothing more than "a young woman". To have meant the same thing as "virgin" does to us today, the Latin would have been virgo intacta, that is to say, "a young woman intact".

Let's look back beyond the Latin text; let's see why they called her virgo, a young woman. Maybe they actually got something right which we've got wrong later on. We discover that the word translated to mean virgo, a young woman, was the old Hebrew word almah which meant "a young woman". It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Hebrew word used would have been bethula, not almah."

Through all his convoluted scripture twisting and pseudo-scholarship, Gardner never once mentions Luke 1:34, which refutes all his hypotheses. Mary herself said she was a virgin, nothing else counts.

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?