Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 7, 2013 22:08:32 GMT
Well that is because you believe that John Robinson's Book, Born in Blood is garbage. I have read Bro. Robinson's books. I suggest you read Bro. Cooper's, "The Rosslyn Hoax." You may get some idea of the issues from this link, Notes on the Knights Templar. The Templar Myth originated with Chevalier Ramsey's 1736 oration. It was his imaginative opinion (he referred to "Crusaders") which, despite many efforts, elaborations and wishful thinking, has not been supported by evidence.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 7, 2013 22:10:14 GMT
Had you read it you would know that that "Lost Word" would have been used by the Templars while they were on the run to obtain, "refuge". Speculation and flawed speculation at that.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 7, 2013 22:13:09 GMT
No kidding - well, gee, that would include you, huh... Indeed. The truth of what I or anyone writes does not depend on our having written it.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 7, 2013 22:19:58 GMT
Albert Pike well used disclaimer ............ "Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound." But Pike was a 33* Mason, correct? So? There are and have been many 33° Masons with differing opinions. So, either he was lying, or he was telling the truth. Or he was sincerely mistaken. No matter how you look at it you lose... Only if you rely on a false dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 7, 2013 23:39:58 GMT
Now let us get it really clear. You may have your opinions and theories and you may put them here, however if the rudeness continues, you will not be allowed to continue. Debate and interaction is fine, the massaging of anyones EGO is not. I was not being rude, I was stating the facts from the point of view of a Lewis who is considering initiation into York Rite Masonry. If Mr. Pike lied about deceiving the Blue Lodge Initiates then why would I want anything to do with 'Scottish' Rite Masonry? And, if he was telling the Truth aboutt deceiving Initiates then, why would I want anything to do with 'Scottish' Rite Masonry? No matter how you look at it you lose...
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 7, 2013 23:42:44 GMT
So, either he was lying, or he was telling the truth. Or he was sincerely mistaken. I sincerely doubt a 33* Mason would be mistaken about that...
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 7, 2013 23:45:59 GMT
So, the Bible is garbage, genius? As Bro. Gershwin wrote, "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible, it aint necessarily so." Even if we take the Bible to be "gospel" (pun intended), the preponderance of garbage on which you rely makes your conclusions to be at best a curate's egg. Well, that doesn't surprise me coming from you or him which is proof of what Mr. Pike and other former 33* Masons have said and that same Bible that you bowed down and kissed in the 1 * will condemn you on judgment day.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 8, 2013 0:33:26 GMT
I was stating the facts from the point of view of a Lewis who is considering initiation into York Rite Masonry. It seems you have long since decided.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 8, 2013 1:11:20 GMT
Now let us get it really clear. You may have your opinions and theories and you may put them here, however if the rudeness continues, you will not be allowed to continue. Debate and interaction is fine, the massaging of anyones EGO is not. I was not being rude, I was stating the facts from the point of view of a Lewis who is considering initiation into York Rite Masonry. If Mr. Pike lied about deceiving the Blue Lodge Initiates then why would I want anything to do with 'Scottish' Rite Masonry? And, if he was telling the Truth aboutt deceiving Initiates then, why would I want anything to do with 'Scottish' Rite Masonry? No matter how you look at it you lose... There is nothing in what you write here to indicate you are open to discussion, you have a closed mind and your opinion [to which you are entitled] is already set. In fact you are preaching. My Grandson is sometimes a little naughty, I tell him I will smack him if he does not behave [ I have no intention of hitting him at all] am I telling the truth ? NO, or am I teaching him a lesson. The proof of any pudding is in the eating of it. To show a system is evil or faulty you must show that those which it produces are evil or are corrupt. Now you may be able to find some who are I am not blind to the fact that we are not all Saints but no more so than in society in General. You are most certainly being rude if you use language like " No kidding - well, gee, that would include you, huh..." you will speak to other posters with respect or you will not continue to post at all.
|
|
|
Post by beejay on Nov 8, 2013 4:46:40 GMT
So, either he was lying, or he was telling the truth. Like most of Reality, Masonry has many levels and many threads. A statement that is true to one thread may not be true to another and yet both threads may be valid. For example, it is true to say that a candidate is first prepared to a be Mason in his heart. It is equally true to say that some Masons were not so prepared. The first statement is a true statement of principle, the second is a true statement of fact. Both are valid. Like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder. He who sees little, will find little that is true. I hope your quest for truth turns out well, but I am not sure that logical processes will get you there.
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 8, 2013 22:22:31 GMT
I was not being rude, I was stating the facts from the point of view of a Lewis who is considering initiation into York Rite Masonry. If Mr. Pike lied about deceiving the Blue Lodge Initiates then why would I want anything to do with 'Scottish' Rite Masonry? And, if he was telling the Truth aboutt deceiving Initiates then, why would I want anything to do with 'Scottish' Rite Masonry? No matter how you look at it you lose... There is nothing in what you write here to indicate you are open to discussion, you have a closed mind and your opinion [to which you are entitled] is already set. In fact you are preaching. My Grandson is sometimes a little naughty, I tell him I will smack him if he does not behave [ I have no intention of hitting him at all] am I telling the truth ? NO, or am I teaching him a lesson. The proof of any pudding is in the eating of it. To show a system is evil or faulty you must show that those which it produces are evil or are corrupt. Now you may be able to find some who are I am not blind to the fact that we are not all Saints but no more so than in society in General. You are most certainly being rude if you use language like " No kidding - well, gee, that would include you, huh..." you will speak to other posters with respect or you will not continue to post at all. But its ok to say, "Garbage in garbage out" about someone's source list including the Scriptures? That's not being 'rude'? "The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - i.e. the "closed mind" thing. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways...
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 8, 2013 23:26:12 GMT
But its ok to say, "Garbage in garbage out" about someone's source list including the Scriptures? That's not being 'rude'? When someone publicly expresses an opinion, it is fine to object to that opinion and to its sources. Criticising sources, especially when contaminated by many "bad apples," is not ad hominum. Granted, a strong sense of personal attachment to an opinion may make such criticisms unwelcome, even painful, but that is the risk one takes when going public. There is no need to resort to personal attack.
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 9, 2013 1:33:23 GMT
But its ok to say, "Garbage in garbage out" about someone's source list including the Scriptures? That's not being 'rude'? When someone publicly expresses an opinion, it is fine to object to that opinion and to its sources. Criticising sources, especially when contaminated by many "bad apples," is not ad hominum. Granted, a strong sense of personal attachment to an opinion may make such criticisms unwelcome, even painful, but that is the risk one takes when going public. There is no need to resort to personal attack. You are living proof of that - just look at your signature : "Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" "the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom." And, by the way, it won't be your 'brothers' that decide whether or not you are a Mason. It will be the God of York Rite Masonry who will decide. Y'BA'AL AMIN...
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on Nov 9, 2013 2:28:24 GMT
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways... I am not quite sure that you have understood the image. Here is a related image that may help The common interpretations are logical analyses but perhaps Leonardo was more subtle.
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 9, 2013 22:40:02 GMT
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways... I am not quite sure that you have understood the image. The common interpretations are logical analyses but perhaps Leonardo was more subtle. I understand that this is how you and other Masons understand the image of the double headed eagle but we know that the "additional teachings" of Masonry are unique to each lodge and, perhaps, even each generation and since its inception the explanations of the Symbols involved have been, to say the least, watered down, unintentionally, via this process and some of them have been corrupted intentionally via the allegorical woman of Freemasonry (i.e. Whore of Babylon). The Symbols themselves have remained virtually unchained since its inception (with possibly only one or two exceptions) as far as York Rite Masonry goes but the symbol above is not, specifically, a 'Masonic' Symbol. The oldest double headed Eagle originated in the geographical location of the ancient Hittites however, it was not the Hittites who created it but Edom whose descendants interbred with the descendants of Ishmael and took over the Hittites territory (i.e. Petra, etc.). Being born a twin he thus took a symbol that reflected that. These are the ancient Hyksos (Desert Princes) who followed their cousins the Israelites into Egypt where, between the two of them, they basically took over Egypt. When they were kicked out they returned to their home in Lebanon. The Edomites and Ishmaelites were sons of Abraham so they were Hebrews, they spoke Hebrew and they were circumcised (hence some of their descendants who remained in Egypt still practice that rite today). This same process, precisely, occured when Israel was exiled to Babylon. His cousin Edom followed them and, between the two of em, ended up taking over Babylon (after Cyrus). During that time they composed the Hebrew Kabbalah being corrupted, as most others had before them, by the Whore of Babylon. In this capacity (and forshadowed by Jacob bowing down to Edom seven times) Edom exerted a dominating influence in Masonry which is when the Two Headed Eagle began to be used. I will have more on this below, if I have time, but what most Masons don't realize is that 33* Masonry comes from Edom and the story of Hiram Abif and Solomon in Masonry is not referring to King Solomon but to a Muslim named Solomon who built the Dome of the Rock. This is where the discreptancies in the death of Hiram Abiff comes from.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 9, 2013 23:19:51 GMT
"The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - i.e. the "closed mind" thing. You are completely barking up the wrong tree, if i were closed minded you would not have got past your first post here. you have an agenda, it is not the first time I have seen this agenda. I am sure it is not the last. Again I challenge you show the readers here - if there is fault in Freemasonry show where it is. not just a diatrbe of speculation but cold hard facts. Modern Freemasonry took its rise in 1717 London. anything before that may have been stepping stomes but not organised Modern Freemasonry. Happy to enter into a debate but a debate is not promotion of a few vid clips.
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 9, 2013 23:25:46 GMT
Masonic Councils
Even though the symbols of Masonry have remained virtually unchanged, some of the "additional teachings" have gone through numerous changes through the years (as Masons themselves admit) and this leads one to ask exactly who changed the stories and why (the descreptancies in the death of Hiram Abif alone are all the proof I need present to show this change). This is an important question as we are trying to restore an original (York) Rite to Masonry and the original teaching would have been to impart Light to the Initiate on his journey and was designed to bring him to Maturity in his Relationship with the God of Masonry. Thus, any watering down would, in essense, be a unwanted detour, potentially. If we can ascertain who changed it and why, this will help us in our attempt to restore an original Rite.
The first major change was when Noah went public with the Secret Teachings of Masonry which, originally, was the First Creation Account in the Scriptures which is the Angel's Eyewitness account of Creation which he then used to apply a similar creation process to the initiate. He was the only one, originally, that was privy to this information which made it perfect for use in Initiation Ceremonies. Noah included this Divine Wisdom in the Sacred Canon which then took the 'secrecy' out of Masonry and made it common knowledge (which implies that Noah, Ham, Shem and Japeth were all initiates.
Moses, after the Exodus, also had a hand in abridging the teaching by removing most references to the gods of the Egyptians as he did to the Scriptures themselves. Amin was the exception because it means the same thing, exactly, in virtually every language and religion on the Planet.
By the time of Solomon, there was really no 'secret' in Masonry so he abridged the "additional teachings" by using the building of the Temple and augmented this abridgement with newer Scriptures from the Prophets which the Templars also did. The most significant change he made was taking the word play over the Pillar of Boaz and moved it from the 4* to the 1* (the pillars of the earth were established on day four of creation - I have alot more on this I could mention but that would be an unnecessary detour at this time) which, then, made the original Password of the 1* redundant which is when it became 'lost'.
The next major change came when the Muslims took over the Holy Land. Wanting to extend the Right Hand of Fellowship to the Jewish Masons, they held a Grandmaster Council together to come up with a single Rite that they both could use. This is when they realized there was a missing word so they came up with MaChaBo as a Substitute Word for the Lost Word (Arabic being very close to Hebrew) and thus spawned the Quest for the Lost Word of Masonry. The Word they chose - meaning shelter and or saftey and, by implication, a Lodge - would allow a Jewish Mason to immediately find Shelter anywhere in the entire Islamic World that he journied and, vice versa, when an Islamic Mason journied through Israel he also could find shelter if needed.
The final change (for the most part) came when the Christians took over the Holy Land and they went through a similar process. They decided to Latinize the two Ruffian's Names Jabal and Jubal which tells you exactly how old the Fraternity is - it dates back to the Garden - and at once justifies most, if not all, of the material I have presented in the video and in this thread. They also wanted to add the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (to describe Y'BA'AL AMIN) which the Jewish Masons did not have an objection to because it didn't mention who that Lion was and the Muslim Masons also did not have a problem with this because they also believe that Y'shua will be the judge in the end days. Their pronounciation of the Hebrew/Arabic Substitute Word ended with the 'C' becoming silent and the 'H' pronounced and the 'N' being added at the end resulting in Mahabon as it is today. But, until then, and at the time of their persecution, this substitute word would have procured them shelter in the Islamic World as well as in France and Spain when their persecution began as pointed out by Robinson (Born in Blood).
Now, after I had arrived at the conclusions above, it was subsequently verified by Robert Heironimus (Founding Fathers - Secret Societies, pg 33) who said that the Druze used a Rite that is virtually identical to the (Templar) York Rite and which was a synthesis between Judaism, Christianity and Islam which, then, goes a long way in establishing the authenticity of the information I have presented. The fact that I, a non-Mason, was able to determine this myself should, at the least, lead the serious York Rite Mason to consider carefully everything I have said in the video and this thread if they are trully seeking the Truth and, "more light".
For instance, the Masonic Journey of going "West to East" can be better understood when we realize that in Ancient (preflood) Egypt, to journey East to West was the equivelent of Dying. The Pyramids (where the dead were buried after journeying there by boat as depicted on Narmer's Palette) were all on the west side of the Nile (the river of death) and when the Apis Bulls died in Memphis, they were transported due west over the Nile and buried in Djoser's Sakkara Complex. When the Ruffians traveled East to West they encountered Death (as depicted on Narmer's Palette and the Gilgamesh Epic). The Coptics have a version of this in their services where, when they denounce Satan they face West (Death) and when they affirm their relationship to God they face East (Life) at all their Baptisims (personal experience). Thus, in Christianity when one was Apostolically Baptised (and in Masonry when Initiated) they had, "passed from death unto life."
So, there is much room for another look at the Symbols of Masonry and it is only when we take into account the Origins of the Fraternity in Egypt and the process that it has gone through up to this point that we will be able to restore a pure form of the original Rite.
And, regardless of what others might say or think, I doubt that I am the only one who would like to restore the original Rite for, at the least, it would have the potential of revitalizing Masonry which, apparently, is in somewhat of a slump now adays compared to their Hey Day in the time of the Templars.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 9, 2013 23:28:29 GMT
I am not quite sure that you have understood the image. Lets see what Wiki has on this: The double-headed eagle is a common symbol in heraldry and vexillology. It is most commonly associated with the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire and their successor states. In Byzantine heraldry, the heads represent the Emperor having authority over both secular and religious matters, Byzantine emperors were regarded as Christ's viceregent on Earth. It also signified the dominance of the Byzantine Emperors over both East and West. In the Holy Roman Empire's heraldry, it represented the church and the state. Several Eastern European nations adopted it from the Byzantines and continue to use it as their national symbol to this day. Masonic Enc: When our ancient brethren, the holy Crusaders, passed through Byzantium on their way to the tomb of the Saviour, the double-headed eagle which they saw embroidered in gold on heavy banners of silk, borne aloft by the Seljuk Turks, had been four thousand years on its way. To these same Crusaders this emblem was an honoured one, and though the enemy displayed it, yet they would fight to death for its possession and in triumph bear it, dripping with blood, to their encampments on the Levantine shore. It was from this Eastern Empire that the knights took this banner to adorn the courts of Charlemagne, and as a sacred relic hung it in the great cathedrals, whose architects and masons had so often been honoured by this Emperor of the West. From whence came this two-headed eagle, and how came it to be associated with Scottish Rite Masonry? The last part of this question is easier to answer than the first, for there is direct testimony that Frederick of Prussia supplied this crest during the formative stages of the Rite, but neither Frederick nor indeed Prussia could claim the exclusive right the use or to bestow it. It is the imperial emblem of Russia, Austria, Serbia and other portions of the disrupted Holy Roman Empire, and Prussia adopted the emblem long after it had flown over Byzantium as the royal arms of the "Emperors of the East and West." The emblem soon spread throughout all Europe, an inheritance from the knight Crusaders. In England we find it used upon knightly arms. Robert George Gentleman displayed it upon his shield, with the motto, "Truth, Honour and Courtesy." In France we find it used by Count de Montamajeur, and associated with the motto, "I shall hold myself erect and not blink." We find it upon the arms of the Duke of Modena, (1628) with the legend, "No age can destroy it." It appears upon the shield of Swabia in 1551, in Russia in 1505, and as the crest of the city of Vienna in 1461.
|
|
|
Post by Theoferrum on Nov 9, 2013 23:58:04 GMT
"From whence came this two-headed eagle, and how came it to be associated with Scottish Rite Masonry? The last part of this question is easier to answer than the first..."
Hittite Double-Headed Eagle
The figure of a double-headed bird is represented in many cultures around the globe, and invarious time periods. “The double-headed eagle has been a royal symbol throughout its historyuntil the present day” (Deeds 1935:106). The history of the use of the double-headed eagle invarious contexts since the Crusades has been well documented. It has been used as an heraldicemblem of many royal houses, and is still a state symbol in some countries. However, ancientNear Eastern cultures had used the double-headed bird motif millennia before the Crusades. Onestriking example is that of the Hittites, for whom it was a “royal insignia” (Collins 2010:60). Thispaper explores the Mesopotamian origins of the double-headed eagle motif as used by the Hittites.
www.academia.edu/651985/The_Mesopotamian_Origins_of_the_Hittite_Double-Headed_Eagle
The info concerning the Islamic Builder of the Dome on the Rock being named Solomon comes from the People of the Secret by Octogon Press.
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on Nov 10, 2013 0:41:34 GMT
The double-headed eagle represents one of the core entities of the ancient mysteries. Leonardo provided a significant unveiling for those wishing to have personal experience.
One of the clues Leonardo provided refers to the incidence of the double-headed eagle increasing with proximity to the North Pole.
|
|