KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 28, 2010 2:29:24 GMT
In our Royal Arch ritual, the word might be 'Lum-Bay-Goh'.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 28, 2010 6:06:25 GMT
it does appear in UGLE RA.
the reference is to, the Sanhedrin, The highest judicial and ecclesiastical council of the ancient Jewish nation, composed of from 70 to 72 members.
Moshe , on instruction from God created an election of 70 elders, this was a bit odd as he could not get an equal number from 12 tribes, so it is more commonly accepted that he ended up with 6 from each tribe making 72 in total.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 28, 2010 13:53:50 GMT
In reference to the Tzaddik Nistar, I've also looked into the connection with the Bodhisattva of Buddhism and similar concepts spread diversely about the world. It's strange that people still think, religious and non-religious alike, that religion is developed in a vacuum. While many religions that seemingly could have no connection due to geographical separation, places like (modern day) Israel, Egypt, India, Ethiopia, &c. had the possibility of connections relatively easily. Thanks for bringing this up, Zita.
Also, it is often brought forward that the Hebrews 'stole' or 'plagiarized' from cultures around them, yet I do not think this is accurate. While they Hebrews, in my opinion, borrowed from cultures to which they were connected, there was no concept that anyone 'owned' these ideas. The Hebrew writers synthesized and brought together many ideas, and were in fact, a bit more open and liberal than many of the cultures around them.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 30, 2010 4:59:44 GMT
Puh-leazze; Moses was a PRIEST in the Egyptian temples; you think he didn't load up on info and abscond with it when he decamped from Egypt? Along with one of those 'arks"? I can tell you that "arks" were nothing like as uncommon as you might think; I know someone PERSONALLY who was part of a team of Knights Templar who helped remove a few of these 'arks' from their hiding places; one of them is now tucked away in a cave in North America!
And if "Hebrew writers were "open and liberal" I'm not seeing it. Please, tender me some examples of these "open and liberal" writings so I can check them out for myself.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 30, 2010 5:21:51 GMT
Have you seen these 'arks'? Do you have a photograph, or is this is all based on hearsay? Don't take insult; I genuinely wish to know. I've heard the claim Moses was a priest, yet he's very difficult to tack down as a figure, That's assuming he even existed, or that the stories were even entirely factual and not Midrashic. Check Leviticus 25 and Leviticus 19 for starters on the Hebraic 'liberal' laws. Debts forgiven, land shared, care taken for the poor, human sacrifice abolished, slaves set free, &c. Sounds pretty liberal to me. Of course, that's just an interpretation. Recall that this was for the time and not the 21st century, and that each book is from a different writer and a different time and thus sometimes represents more conservative forms of the Hebrew Theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 31, 2010 3:15:49 GMT
No, I haven't seen them but I wish I could have! But the account was very credible; the person who told me this was someone whose word I would be willing to trust. He told me that the two he saw were fairly innocuous; they were stone boxes, one of which had a sort of 'crescent' device on top of the lid, nothing fancy or gold-plated! They were hidden in underground chambers, and apparently if they retained their "powers" (one of them did; the one with the crescent) if you approached them, they would "derange" your thought processes. It was necessary for the handlers of these "arks" to be trained in keeping their minds 'steady" so as not to succumb to panic fear or simple madness induced by proximity to it. I expect they contained some sort of powerful egregore or elemental; I have heard of similar sorts of things in India. The fact of the 'madness' effect was possibly why they were carried into battle; if the possessors of such a device brought such a thing to bear against the enemy, they would all break ranks and be unable to fight as the madness took them over, and thus would be easily slaughtered or conquered.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 31, 2010 17:36:22 GMT
I'm always surprised that people who see amazing things never have a camera with them, or if they do, they can only take blurry pictures. There are lots of 'credible accounts' that have turned out to be abject falsehoods. I'm not doubting your belief, yet it is an unsubstantiated, second-hand account. There is also the possibility of deception played on the eyewitness, and he could be giving an honest and accurate account of a staged scene that was not what it seemed to be. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 31, 2010 21:33:19 GMT
Well, they were there to remove the arks as quickly and discreetly as they could and not to stand around and take pictures, I expect. There may BE pictures, but he didn't have any of them. The account was believable enough, and when I asked him about it again sometime later, the details of the story did not change; in my experience, liars tend to embellish excessively and one can generally catch them out by getting them to repeat the story at a later date, when it will be found to have morphed into another tale entirely...
As for pictures, don't forget; nowadays with Photoshop and all, it's easy-peasy to fake pictures, or to make one thing look like another, or to add stuff in that wasn't there originally, so a picture is proof of NOTHING WHATSOEVER. I also expect that the "blurry" thing is due to people in a rattled state of mind (shaky hands) snapping off pics without taking time to focus; cameras need to be FOCUSED, remember, and even auto-focus takes time and doesn't always do a good job; if the sensor fixates on something OTHER than what it is you want to capture, then there will be BLURRINESS. Also, it may not be POSSIBLE for a camera to capture certain phenomena, like, say, elemental beings. I have seen these myself, and they certainly APPEAR substantial enough to the eye, but they can disappear in an instant, so I would be unable to say whether a camera would be able to capture their presence!
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 1, 2010 2:19:41 GMT
Have you seen these 'arks'? Do you have a photograph, or is this is all based on hearsay? Don't take insult; I genuinely wish to know. I've heard the claim Moses was a priest, yet he's very difficult to tack down as a figure, That's assuming he even existed, or that the stories were even entirely factual and not Midrashic. Check Leviticus 25 and Leviticus 19 for starters on the Hebraic 'liberal' laws. Debts forgiven, land shared, care taken for the poor, human sacrifice abolished, slaves set free, &c. Sounds pretty liberal to me. Of course, that's just an interpretation. Recall that this was for the time and not the 21st century, and that each book is from a different writer and a different time and thus sometimes represents more conservative forms of the Hebrew Theocracy. Well, "Moses" is definitely part of an Egyptian name. There is other data extant on the Habiru who were supposedly "slaves in Egypt" and Moses their "champion": This was at the time of Ramses II. records from that time state that the Habiru invaders, now reduced to a degraded state, were DRIVEN OUT of Egypt because it was believed they were the cause of a PLAGUE. which was apparently LEPROSY. There was no "let my people go" business ; more like "Get the H out and don't come back!" or "parting of the Red Sea with great loss of life to the Egyptians" or any other such event. There is also a story extant that Moses himself had leprosy and this was the real reason he was eventually forced to wear a veil during his appearances in public. The fact of leprosy being reported as the cause of the explusion of the Habiru makes this story very plausible.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Nov 1, 2010 2:41:37 GMT
Well, "Moses" is definitely part of an Egyptian name. There is other data extant on the Habiru who were supposedly "slaves in Egypt" and Moses their "champion": This was at the time of Ramses II. records from that time state that the Habiru invaders, now reduced to a degraded state, were DRIVEN OUT of Egypt because it was believed they were the cause of a PLAGUE. which was apparently LEPROSY. There was no "let my people go" business ; more like "Get the H out and don't come back!" or "parting of the Red Sea with great loss of life to the Egyptians" or any other such event. There is also a story extant that Moses himself had leprosy and this was the real reason he was eventually forced to wear a veil during his appearances in public. The fact of leprosy being reported as the cause of the explusion of the Habiru makes this story very plausible. Moses is Egyptian (or rather Kemetian) for 'Birth', 'To come forth' or 'To carry' and is the same, interestingly enough as the root of Ra-mses (or Ra-Moses) which means 'Brought forth by' or 'Born from' or 'Carried by' Ra. This makes sense after all as Moses was an Egyptian. Know as well, that this was likely not their real names as mothers would give their children their True Names which were only used amongst close family and friends (if even that) and another name was taken to be used amongst strangers. So consider both 'Moses' and 'Ramses' to be names taken by both of these figures as a chosen aliases, likely for the symbolism, and not their real names at all.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 1, 2010 3:07:42 GMT
Oh, i know all that; the point is, is that the name"Moses' is of EGYPTIAN origin and nothing to dp with the Habiru at all. There is some implication that Moses was of "Habiru descent" having been allegedly "found as a baby in the rushes" But the fact is, that story exactly resembles the story connected with King Sargon, and is likely as "tacked on" as the tale of the "parting of the Red Sea". So, "Moses' may well have been an Egyptian priest who was exiled along with the Habiru tribe, due to his having contracted leprosy.
|
|
|
Post by Zita on Nov 1, 2010 3:59:50 GMT
... and the red sea could be the blood stream ...
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 1, 2010 15:32:17 GMT
Have you seen these 'arks'? Do you have a photograph, or is this is all based on hearsay? Don't take insult; I genuinely wish to know. I've heard the claim Moses was a priest, yet he's very difficult to tack down as a figure, That's assuming he even existed, or that the stories were even entirely factual and not Midrashic. Check Leviticus 25 and Leviticus 19 for starters on the Hebraic 'liberal' laws. Debts forgiven, land shared, care taken for the poor, human sacrifice abolished, slaves set free, &c. Sounds pretty liberal to me. Of course, that's just an interpretation. Recall that this was for the time and not the 21st century, and that each book is from a different writer and a different time and thus sometimes represents more conservative forms of the Hebrew Theocracy. Well, "Moses" is definitely part of an Egyptian name. There is other data extant on the Habiru who were supposedly "slaves in Egypt" and Moses their "champion": This was at the time of Ramses II. records from that time state that the Habiru invaders, now reduced to a degraded state, were DRIVEN OUT of Egypt because it was believed they were the cause of a PLAGUE. which was apparently LEPROSY. There was no "let my people go" business ; more like "Get the H out and don't come back!" or "parting of the Red Sea with great loss of life to the Egyptians" or any other such event. There is also a story extant that Moses himself had leprosy and this was the real reason he was eventually forced to wear a veil during his appearances in public. The fact of leprosy being reported as the cause of the explusion of the Habiru makes this story very plausible. I have an interesting book purporting Moses was either Pharaoh Akhenaten or his advisor. Well-written, yet another difficult approach to establish validity. Akhenaten's my favorite Pharaoh. Still, it takes a bit of pressing at the puzzle pieces, as it were, to get the time period to fit. The Hibaru certainly are great candidates for the Hebrews. If so, it would not mean the repulsion necessarily did not leave a significant number of slaves behind. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 3, 2010 1:03:41 GMT
Another weird fact about the "Moses" story is that the distance between the place where the "slaves" departed Egypt and the "Promised Land" was a grand total of TWENTY FIVE MILES. It took them FORTY YEARS to end up TWENTY FIVE MILES from where they started out! (I have heard it said that the reason was that Moses, being a typical man, REFUSED to stop anywhere to ask directions!) Also, it was calculated that in order to take as long as it did, they would have had to pick up and move camp a total distance of 100 yards per night. (or was it FEET?)
In any case, I found the theory presented by Knight and Lomas about the murdered Pharaoh Sekenen-Re Tao as the prototype of "Hiram Abiff" VERY compelling; I recalled reading years ago about the curious case of the mummy of the traitorous priest who had been castrated and buried alive after having been wrapped in bandages.
The most compelling truth of that theory was not just that the mummy of the Pharaoh bore the stigmata of violent death cognate with the violent death of Hiram Abiff, but that the body of the Pharaoh had evidently undergone decomposition before being mummified!!
The Egyptians regarded their "kings" as sacred, and thus they would NEVER have let such a thing happen (no other Pharaonic mummy shows any sign of decomposition prior to mummification nor any indications of injury due to violence) much less have raised a hand against one of them; a further indication that the assassins were NOT Egyptian ...but if in fact the body had been taken away and hidden for a time by the assassins, just as happened in the Hiram Abiff legend, then naturally, a certain amount of decomposition would have set in prior to the location of the body and its subsequent mummification.
I have rarely found any archaeological reconstructive account as riveting as this one by Chris Knight and Robert Lomas; it was as good or better than Sherlock Holmes, of whom I am a BIG FAN!
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 3, 2010 4:19:02 GMT
I liked the Hiram Key, yet I found the evidence unsupportive of the conclusion at which the arrived. It could well be true. It could be complete bunk. It's impossible to tell.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 3, 2010 14:14:16 GMT
I don't think it's at all "impossible"; in fact I found it a LOT more plausible than a LOT of theories I've seen out there that are commonly accepted as "true". The indisputable facts are there to be seen: a Pharaonic mummy showing signs of actual pre-mummification decomposition (something NO OTHER Pharaonic mummy has ever shown!) and bearing head injuries that eerily parallel the "Hiram Abiff" legend in every respect!Then, along with it, a mummy from the same period, of a priest who had been brutally castrated and then wrapped, still living, in mummy bandages and buried alive in an unmarked tomb...
One other odd fact was that the priest had been soaked in milk, most likely to make him STINK like a demonic being (spoiled milk stinks FEROCIOUSLY), and thus symbolically render him unacceptable to enter the presence of the Gods (Egyptians were known for their love of fragrance; in the tomb of Tut-ankh-amen, the grave robbers had stolen not the gold items, but the PERFUMES, which were MUCH more esteemed than gold!). What crime could an Egyptian priest have committed that would result in such a dreadful punishment? I have NEVER heard of ANY other mummy being found like this one; along with the decomposed mummy of a Pharaoh, it too is apparently UNIQUE in the annals of mummydom!
What is also amazing is that BOTH mummies happened also to survive the centuries, and thus the 'crime' could be unraveled centuries later by two Freemasons seeking the "roots' of their tradition!
Another odd and disparate fact is that in Idries Shah's book 'The Sufis" Shah discusses Freemasonry and its EGYPTIAN roots, saying that in the eighth century, a mysterious Sufi known as 'Dhul-Nun" revived an ancient Egyptian "Order"; he does not name it, but it could very well have been one that included a re-enactment of an ancient infamy, such as the murder of an Egyptian God-King in the temple of Amen-Ra, by the "Juwes", i.e Habiru invaders looking to steal Egyptian occult secrets!.
The odd thing is that he also says the business about "King Solomon" came about because another Sufi involved in its founding was a disciple of a master named "David", thus he was referred to as the 'Son of David", i.e "King Solomon". "The Sufis" is a book well worth reading by Freemasons seriously interested in the roots of their Craft, although discovering the fact that Freemasonry has distinctly 'Saracen' roots may not be acceptable to many! It would certainly explain the Church's long-standing antipathy towards Freemasonry, however!
|
|
|
Post by logos on Nov 3, 2010 19:35:11 GMT
Vajranjini, I enjoy your posts. You've inspired me to go from lurk to post. H.G.W.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Nov 3, 2010 19:37:07 GMT
It remains impossible to 'prove' given the evidence. I already said it was 'possible'. A dead body by itself stinks ferociously, and requires no need to be bathed in anything. If you've ever smelt a carcass pit at a ranch, it is putrid. In dry conditions such as the desert, a body may take longer to decay. Possibly, well into the active or advanced decay. Certainly, the milk is a curiosity, yet it prove 0% of the highly speculative theory. Like any other culture of their time, the Egyptians could be senselessly brutal. There is 0% evidence of *why* the mummy was buried in this manner, let alone a verification of the book's intriguing yet unproven theories. Many, many mummies have survived worse ravages than this, such as the Peruvian mummies. Nothing about these two mummies does not require a high amount of speculation to cause them to 'fit' into the theory. The fact that these mummies survived is not any more or less amazing than any other mummy.
I doubt the Church needs a good reason for a long-standing antipathy. They've retained it for far longer against the Gnostics and the Cathars. I know a Brother who is highly trained in the Sufi arts, so I'll run the theory by him, although I assume he has likely read the book already as have I. The roots of Masonry go farther back than the 8th century, so this remains an unremarkable tale as do the others. What manuscript does this story come from? THAT would be intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 4, 2010 0:11:06 GMT
Uh huh. And this is the same guy who was taken in by a faked-up movie clip, hoping for "proof of a "time traveller". The fact is , we are talking about mummies of an assassinated PHARAOH and a TEMPLE PRIEST who was castrated, made to stink terribly, and buried ALIVE in an unmarked grave, obviously for some unspeakable crime. I'd say betraying one's God-king into the hands of his enemies would certainly qualify for such a penalty!
"Senseless brutality" would hardly apply here; these two things are COMPLETE ANOMALIES, plus BOTH mummies date from the SAME TIME.. Plus, the Egyptians were PEACEABLE people; prior to the gradual invasion of the Hittites/habiru after the "Great Flood" that engulfed the Euphates/Tigris delta back in Abraham's time; the Upper and Lower kingdoms of Egypt did not know war for literally MILLENNIA, because Egypt itself was relatively INACCESSIBLE, being separated from outside influence by a wide swath of DESERT. They had to LEARN about war from the warlike Hittites.
Oh and you are right about the roots of Freemasonry going back further than the 8th century; they likely date back to the rites of Osiris, the original "Just man" which go back 5000 years. The rites of Osiris were, like Freemasonry, open to the "common man", while the worship of Ra belonged to the priesthood and was closed to commoners. There are also the Dionysian Builders, who also has secret rites. Lotsa possibilities, although Shah specifically states "Dhul-Nun" (who was Egyptian). if you have contact with a Sufi who knows about Idries Shah, I am desperately seeking info about the word "Qarael", which allegedly means "recital" or something of the sort. i am looking for further clarification of its definition; what' for instance, do they mean by 'recital"? Like a a poem or story or legend? or perhaps a "mystery-play"? BTW, while meditating on the Square and compass one night long ago, I received a STRONG impression that the letter in the middle was not supposed to be a "G" but a "Q"; imagine my SHOCK when years later, I read "The Sufis " and found that this was indeed the case!>shakes head in wonderment<
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Nov 4, 2010 1:47:25 GMT
Aside from a small handful of anthropologists and sociologists that were later proved to have misrepresented or not properly documented certain cultures, there is not one on the planet that has been recorded as not engaging in severe brutality. Complate anamolies they are not.
The mummies do intrigue me and I look forward to further studies. I am more interested in the "ice man" from the alps.
Regarding the roots of Freemasonry. Idries Shah made his famous statement without support. One should ask J.G. Bennett about how strongly Shah should be trusted. Idries Shah did claim to be a life long Sufi, well after he saw the financial gains of Gurdjieff though earlier writings have Shah involved only in Wicca. Then we have the fast one that was played on Bennett and a land deal that placed a lot of money in Shah's pocket.
Incidentally I am not unfamiliar with Sufism, from a personal and direct knowledge. Idries Shah made some radical claims like being the Qutb of all sufism (aka and more appropriating "tassawuf"). Unfortunately the rest of the shaykhs in the world just laughed at him. He did publish and sell a lot of books though.
There are lots of groups that have secret rites. College fraternities don't seem to have a lot to offer. Yes, KNO is in touch with someone who knows what they are talking about. Not conjecture mind you but direct knowledge.
For those that would speak of Sufism/tassawuf I would ask them about the nature of biat. What of zikr? Who was/is your shaykh? Luckily these lineages are well documented and can be traced.
|
|