The Knights Templar

[whiteknite]

Nope. That does not make it a myth. I cannot prove how Stonehenge or the Pyramids were built, yet they were. I cannot prove how Jack the Ripper escaped while doing what he did, but he did.

Hence we cannot prove how Constantine and his pagan friends of nicea decided on what parts of the scriptures went into the NT and what was to be destroyed but it happened.

 

[ralphinal]

Hence we cannot prove how Constantine and his pagan friends of nicea decided on what parts of the scriptures went into the NT and what was to be destroyed but it happened.

Oh wow. What a post. Nicea, was it?

Funny, History records the Canon being fixed at the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). You also had soem work being done before that, at the Council of Laodicea, c. 360, by Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon, by Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon and at The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

No Nicea, no Constantine, no pagans. Now, what else would you like to know?

 

[whiteknite]

In tracing the origin of the Bible, I am led to AD 325,
when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders.
Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.
The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs,
in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry.
At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions.
Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences.
Apparently, he didn’t particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief.
By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

 

[Lilyflower]

wernt they the original free masons or something

Absolutely not.

There is a modern equivalent which comes under the auspices of freemasonry. This modern group has nothing to do with the original Knights Templar. Nor are they Catholic. Nor do they in any way teach or support Catholic Doctrine.

They do appear to support some sort of quasi-Christian theology but that does not even make them Christian. Their membership is by invitation only which is against the very teachings of Christ: Come to me all you who labour and are over-burdened!’

 

[flameburns623]

Impossible…the freemasons didn’t exist until the late 16th century.

There is strong evidence for something like the Masonic Order long previous to the 16th century. Depending on who is doing the work, the Masons were either a development out of a medieval stonemason’s guild, OR was established as a ‘cover story’ for renegade Scottish and British Knights Templar on the lam after the dissolution of their Order. Both theories might share some historical basis.

 

[RevDrNorth]

wernt they the original free masons or something

According to the historian who wrote Born in Blood, there is some evidence that the Masonic order may have descended from the Templars. He is careful to say not proof just some interesting evidence. You would have to read the book to understand why.

He himself became so impressed at studying the Masonic Order that he became one. He was attracted to the history and noble values.

 

[flameburns623]

Secret societies aren’t adolescent clubs but rather they’re serious, dire, organizations that are out to uproot all governments and particularly America as we know it, wiping out our very roots of religious freedom and sovereign rights.
Said President Woodrow Wilson, “. . . there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” For those who do not believe that secret societies exist to undermine our sovereignty and our lives, watch the History and Discovery channels, order some videos, find former members of these groups who will talk to you, read the ever growing field of books, articles, pamphlets. Research them; follow them in the media, though the media are the least reliable resource since they are owned by the very Elite who created the secret societies.
This fraternal organization was originally located in England but has since been, established in America as well.
Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Freemasonry and a Satanist, stated in his book, Morals and Dogma, that "Freemasonry is a search for Light. [Light= is Lucifer.] That search leads us directly back . . . to the Kabbalah.
Besides Pike, other noted Freemasons who were also Satanists were Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Annie Besant, Manly P. Hall, and now many others who are alive and well and worshipping Satan, knowingly or unknowingly.
Secrecy is so much encouraged that Freemasonry’s own lower-level members don’t know what’s really going on.
Though the Masons claim they are a Christian organization, they are in reality the opposite of that.

This is tripe. Working backwards: Blavatsky and Bailey could never have been Freemasons in any regularly constituted Lodge because the Lodge does not admit women. Manly P. Hall was never formally affiliated with any Lodge, although he was honored as a 33rd-Degree Scottish Rite Mason. (The 33rd Degree is an honorary degree–all degrees of any appendant Masonic body are honorary, there being only three official degrees in any regularly constituted Masonic Lodge. The 33rd Degree is issued by the Scottish Rite only any can be conferred on persons who are neither Freemasons nor members of the Scottish Rite).

Albert Pike was a Christian who believed that Freemasonry could be a vehicle for the unification of all religions. His “Morals And Dogma” is a long and ponderous tome on how this might be accomplished. He engaged in a bit of word-play in one portion of his work, and people unfamiliar with the pun he was making take ominous meaning from it.

The pun is based on the fact that the Latin name of Venus, the ‘Morning Star’ or the ‘Day Star’ is ‘Lucifer’, and that name for the Morning Star actually appears in the King James Version of the Bible, in a passage famously understood as a typological reference to the Fall of Satan. (See Isaiah 14: 12) Of course, Jesus is also referred to as the “Morning Star” or the ‘Day Star’, but if one understands that the Latin name of the “Morning Star” is “Lucifer”, one could aptly refer to Jesus as “Lucifer”. This Peter does so in II Peter 1:19:
II Peter 1:19:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Or in English:
II Peter 1:19:

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.

In any case: Pike referred to Jesus in just this way, and has ever after been accused of advocating Luciferianism.

The remainder of the quote is simple anti-Masonic rhetoric. I could drudge up similar stuff from old copies of The Menace, an anti-Catholic periodical.

 

[Lilyflower]

OK. Now that part I have read. My issue is simple: freemasonry does not date to before the Middle Ages. The Knights Templar, according to you, is a renamed version of a group that existed before. If you buy into the Masonic/Templar mythos, they can trace themselves back to Solomon. .

The claim they owe their origin back to Solomon and before, is in part true and in part myth.

They owe their origin in the original Stone-mason guilds which being one of the oldest trades in existence go back probably to the time of Solomon. But this does not imply some sort of continuity like how Mother Church goes back in a continous line 2000-years.

Stone-masons guilds go back a long way, no doubt they go back a lot further than contempory records show. Their original purpose was to ensure integrity of training of new masons and a career progression from tradesman through to master builder. Master Stone-masons were issued with a registration number by their guilds. They carved this into all of their work. Go into any English ‘stone’ Church, go up into the eves and you will find the numbers and signatures of the various Master Stone-masons who built the Church!

Similarly, the trade of Plumbing. The trade is so old the very name is latin for leadworker. The Romans had plumbers.Today a tradesman [in UK at least] goes through a recognised period of training, passes the recognised qualifications to become: ‘trained-plumber’, ‘advanced-plumber’ and ‘master-plumber’. But no way would any modern plumber assume a continous membership of the guilds of plumbing to go back in a continuous succession to ancient times. It may have done but there is no records to prove it.

So too with the masons. No doubt master-masons would have been ultimately in-charge of the construction of Solomon’s temple but there is no record of continuity of guilds back to their time.

Peace

 

[whiteknite]

This is tripe. Working backwards: Blavatsky and Bailey could never have been Freemasons in any regularly constituted Lodge because the Lodge does not admit women. Manly P. Hall was never formally affiliated with any Lodge, although he was honored as a 33rd-Degree Scottish Rite Mason. (The 33rd Degree is an honorary degree–all degrees of any appendant Masonic body are honorary, there being only three official degrees in any regularly constituted Masonic Lodge. The 33rd Degree is issued by the Scottish Rite only any can be conferred on persons who are neither Freemasons nor members of the Scottish Rite).

Albert Pike was a Christian who believed that Freemasonry could be a vehicle for the unification of all religions. His “Morals And Dogma” is a long and ponderous tome on how this might be accomplished. He engaged in a bit of word-play in one portion of his work, and people unfamiliar with the pun he was making take ominous meaning from it.

The pun is based on the fact that the Latin name of Venus, the ‘Morning Star’ or the ‘Day Star’ is ‘Lucifer’, and that name for the Morning Star actually appears in the King James Version of the Bible, in a passage famously understood as a typological reference to the Fall of Satan. (See Isaiah 14: 12) Of course, Jesus is also referred to as the “Morning Star” or the ‘Day Star’, but if one understands that the Latin name of the “Morning Star” is “Lucifer”, one could aptly refer to Jesus as “Lucifer”. This Peter does so in II Peter 1:19:

Or in English:

In any case: Pike referred to Jesus in just this way, and has ever after been accused of advocating Luciferianism.

The remainder of the quote is simple anti-Masonic rhetoric. I could drudge up similar stuff from old copies of The Menace, an anti-Catholic periodical.

So because YOU call it tripe then it must be???
Typical Catholic:thumbsup:

 

[whiteknite]

Many folk think that women cannot be Masons because there is something that they cannot understand, or some other such. That is patently not the case. There is a certain value to Masonic teachings that a man cannot hope to understand if he is unwilling to access his intuitive and empathetic faculties, which are distinctly feminine (it’s only my belief). Not female, feminine. Some people don’t realize that there is a difference between female and feminine, or male and masculine. Their misfortune.

The women’s Lodges that I know of, and the women Masons of my acquaintance, have no desire to have men work in their Lodges with them. They also have no desire to work in men’s Lodges. This is why they have formed their own.

 

[flameburns623]

Many folk think that women cannot be Masons because there is something that they cannot understand, or some other such. That is patently not the case. There is a certain value to Masonic teachings that a man cannot hope to understand if he is unwilling to access his intuitive and empathetic faculties, which are distinctly feminine (it’s only my belief). Not female, feminine. Some people don’t realize that there is a difference between female and feminine, or male and masculine. Their misfortune.

The women’s Lodges that I know of, and the women Masons of my acquaintance, have no desire to have men work in their Lodges with them. They also have no desire to work in men’s Lodges. This is why they have formed their own.

Your earlier post was tripe for the reasons I cited.

I am not a Catholic.

Women cannot become Freemasons because the Ritual and Oaths forbid it:
Duncan's Masonic Ritual:

I, Peter Gabe (Master gives three raps with his gavel, when all present assemble round the altar), of my own free-will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God, and this worshipful Lodge, erected to him and dedicated to the holy Sts. John, do hereby and hereon most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the secrets, arts, parts, point or points, of the Master Masons’ Degree, to any person or persons whomsoever, except it be to a true and lawful brother of this Degree, or in a regularly constituted Lodge of Master Masons, nor unto him, or them, until by strict trial, due examination, or lawful information, I shall have found him, or them, as lawfully entitled to the same as I am myself . . . . .

. . . . Further, that I will not aid, nor be present at, the initiation, passing, or raising of a woman, an old man in his dotage, a young man in his nonage, an atheist, a madman, or fool, knowing them to be such . . . .

Source:

sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/dun04.htm

There may be modern Lodges now admitting women since the late 1980’s or so. However this is a very late change in the Historic Landmarks of Freemasonry. Helen Blavatsky and Annie Besant would never have had such an opportunity to join a regularly-constituted Lodge. From the description you are giving, the women of your acquaintance do not belong to regularly-constituted Lodges anyhow. They appear to be Masonic counterparts to women who pretend within the Anglican, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic faiths to be ‘ordained’ to the priesthood. They are pretenders.

 

[whiteknite]

flameburns623:-
TRIPE!!
Read what you wrote and stop contradicting yourself…

 

[Lilyflower]

Flameburn 623 posted:

Women cannot become Freemasons because the Ritual and Oaths forbid it:

Actually White Knight is correct, there are female lodges to which men cannot join. There are also internet lodges. These are very popular and increasing in popularity.

Please forgive those who you feel are irritating you by their dogmatic attitudes.

White Knight I must take issue with you too. You say ‘all Catholics think the same’ and ‘typical Catholic!’ I am Catholic! Please refrain from putting us all in the same pot.

You need understand that the Catholic Church is pretty big so that every view is expressed and there are probably as many views as there are people [though we all subscribe to the same doctrines].

Blessings

 

[flameburns623]

flameburns623:-
TRIPE!!
Read what you wrote and stop contradicting yourself…

When I called your post tripe I elaborated on my statement with reasons. The claims you are making are wrong for evident reasons. You are spreading anti-Masonic bigotry for which there is no basis in fact.

I have made it clear that there are valid a good reasons that a Christian might deem it inadvisable to be a Freemason. I have affirmed that Roman Catholics in particular ought not to be Freemasons because the authorities of their Church have proscribed such membership. Nonetheless, the fact that Freemasonry may be objectionable does not imply that one can make up falsehoods about them to make them seem even more objectionable.

I strongly advise you to read up on Leo Taxil, a a famous anti-Mason of the 19th century, who ultimately admitted that his allegations against the fraternity were fabrications. He actually mocked those who had supported him for never bothering to check his facts. Nonetheless, much of the material first created by Leo Taxil continues to get recycled and embellished, albeit unattributed, among a certain set of anti-Masons. Check your facts.

 

[Lilyflower]

Wrestling tonite

1 knockout or 3 submissions

Whiteknight v Flameburn 623

Can’t you both private email each other and do us all a favour.

Actually tripe is very nice with strong malt vinegar

 

[flameburns623]

Actually White Knight is correct, there are female lodges to which men cannot join. There are also Internet lodges. These are very popular and increasing in popularity.

‘Female lodges which men cannot join’ would not be regularly-constituted Masonic Lodges. Historically women have been excluded from the fraternity–the very word ‘fraternity’ means ‘brotherhood’, in case anyone has overlooked that fact.

There are adoptive orders affiliated with Freemasonry which admit women–Eastern Star is most notable. Men CAN belong to the Eastern Star however, so I assume this is not what you are referring to. Moreover, an adoptive order of Freemasonry is not Freemasonry proper. By the same token the appendant orders of Freemasonry–the Scottish Rite, York Rite, and Shrine, for instance–are not Freemasonry proper. These are all auxiliaries of the Masonic Fraternity, not the Fraternity itself.

 

[flameburns623]

Wrestling tonite

1 knockout or 3 submissions

Whiteknight v Flameburn 623

Can’t you both private email each other and do us all a favour.

Actually tripe is very nice with strong malt vinegar

Whiteknight is posting publicly so I feel constrained to respond publicly. I think the information is useful to others beyondt he two of us. A lot of the information he is passing about gets repeated ad infinitum and silence is too often taken to imply that the allegations are credible.

I will concede that Whiteknight may not know he is passing on bad information. Nonetheless the information needs to be corrected.

Never had tripe. Thought it was something indigestible and unappetizing.

 

[whiteknite]

Like i always stated guys, I am not a mason, Just stuff i read are for and against but if my knowledge isnt upto what i am reading then fair play,
I guess i must start again…I dont mind admiting if i’m wrong

 

[ralphinal]

The claim they owe their origin back to Solomon and before, is in part true and in part myth.

They owe their origin in the original Stone-mason guilds which being one of the oldest trades in existence go back probably to the time of Solomon. But this does not imply some sort of continuity like how Mother Church goes back in a continous line 2000-years.

Stone-masons guilds go back a long way, no doubt they go back a lot further than contempory records show. Their original purpose was to ensure integrity of training of new masons and a career progression from tradesman through to master builder. Master Stone-masons were issued with a registration number by their guilds. They carved this into all of their work. Go into any English ‘stone’ Church, go up into the eves and you will find the numbers and signatures of the various Master Stone-masons who built the Church!

Similarly, the trade of Plumbing. The trade is so old the very name is latin for leadworker. The Romans had plumbers.Today a tradesman [in UK at least] goes through a recognised period of training, passes the recognised qualifications to become: ‘trained-plumber’, ‘advanced-plumber’ and ‘master-plumber’. But no way would any modern plumber assume a continous membership of the guilds of plumbing to go back in a continuous succession to ancient times. It may have done but there is no records to prove it.

So too with the masons. No doubt master-masons would have been ultimately in-charge of the construction of Solomon’s temple but there is no record of continuity of guilds back to their time.

Peace

Ah, no one is disputing that stone masons go all the way back. IN fact, there is a chance that the Carpenter job that Joseph had wa as a stone mason. Anyway, what there is no proof of is a goup of them doing anything other than stone mason work. There was no guild, no group organized to do anything. It was a made up mythos to add romance and intrigue to a group of men.

 

[ralphinal]

In tracing the origin of the Bible, I am led to AD 325,
when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders.
Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.
The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs,
in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry.
At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions.
Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences.
Apparently, he didn’t particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief.
By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

So tell me, why is your story so different than mine? Mine if the official historical lineage of the Bible, accepted by Catholic, Orhtodox, and Protestants alike. Please show me a referance to prove this claim.

The reality is that you have probably pulled this from a non-scholarly souce. Please, by all means, show where history is wrong.