Who is Hiram Abiff?

originally posted by: tikbalang

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: Bedlam

I have a theory

Let 'be' be finale of 'seem'.

Now is where my english is not sufficient

It's from a poem. It's a craftily worded phrase that's probably not that easy to understand if English is your second language, or given the number of web sites that try to explain it, if it's your first.

Basically, it means something like finding out the truth for yourself is more straightforward than speculating endlessly about it.

a reply to: tikbalang

I swear I had Thriller stuck in my head before you posted that!!!

So odd.

originally posted by: tikbalang

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: ApertureEyes

Sooo, a MM...

Any credentials? So how do i get the privileges?

Ask a Mason, join, be sincere in your desire to understand what you're being taught. Discover the 'secret'.

Member Berries, lol.

No×1,000 I concur.

a reply to: Malocchio

thank you, i always thought it was a hundred demons...and i haven't a clue where i read that...i do recall something of a ring with a particular stone...
thanks for sharing your reading materials
i do appreciate Islamic storytelling concerning OT/NT texts...learning is fun...thanks!
it helps me keeping a clear mind...to teachings from Islam and look forward to more studies, hope to see more from you, here.
welcome from peppy as i haven't noticed you here..

a reply to: Malocchio

So what have you find ? Please tell, im curious =)

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Malocchio
A myth with no historical value.

You are missing the point.

No, I am not.

Sure you are. I know because you've said "None of the little play/ritual is in the Bible and neither is Hiram Abiff. " and "A myth with no historical value."

You badly want to hammer this into some sort of literal, historical, Indiana Jonesy truth so you can discover the point of the story, or the secrets of Masonry, or some such. And the point went right past you.

Here is a clue: there really isn't a razor blade, a match, and a .45 round in the ball at the top of the flagpole. There really wasn't a Samaritan who saved a Levite.

originally posted by: peppycat
a reply to: Malocchio

thank you, i always thought it was a hundred demons...and i haven't a clue where i read that...i do recall something of a ring with a particular stone...
thanks for sharing your reading materials
i do appreciate Islamic storytelling concerning OT/NT texts...learning is fun...thanks!
it helps me keeping a clear mind...to teachings from Islam and look forward to more studies, hope to see more from you, here.
welcome from peppy as i haven't noticed you here..

Right on!!!

originally posted by: peppycat
a reply to: chr0naut

Awesome info...maybe you share a link? or book reference..?

thanks if it is secret, that's ok!

Nah, not secret, as far as I can tell. I'm a bit of a history buff, not a mason, though, so I don't know the 'ins and outs' of masonic lore.

While masonry makes claim of ancient Middle Eastern ancestry, as far as I know, masonry came out of the trades guilds of Europe and Britain in the later middle ages and early reformation. The first 'Grand Lodge' was established in 1717, in London, so the modern organization/s may have aquired numerous legends and stories which are not historical. Nonetheless, those stories may have expressed a moral or conceptual lesson and so would still have great validity within the organization, even if they are fictional.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Malocchio
A myth with no historical value.

You are missing the point.

No, I am not.

Sure you are. I know because you've said "None of the little play/ritual is in the Bible and neither is Hiram Abiff. " and "A myth with no historical value."

No, I'm not.

You badly want to hammer this into some sort of literal, historical, Indiana Jonesy truth so you can discover the point of the story, or the secrets of Masonry, or some such. And the point went right past you.

No again.

Here is a clue: there really isn't a razor blade, a match, and a .45 round in the ball at the top of the flagpole. There really wasn't a Samaritan who saved a Levite.

Wasn't looking for clues and certainly not listening to you who claims to know my thoughts. As far as I am concerned you are a non entity now.

I hate people who think they know what I think.

You don't.

a reply to: Malocchio

The borrowing by religions from other religions is nothing new, I'm not sure anything in Christianity is original, Pagan Gods were taken and became Saints, Pagan Places of power were taken and converted into Churches all in the name of expanding the reach and control of Christianity. This shouldn't come as a surprise....

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: Malocchio

So what have you find ? Please tell, im curious =)

A pro Bible anti Mason website was all that link was.

I have found out that people will try using chronological data to ''debunk" what I said as if the Bible held weight as a book of history and is accurate historically.

Ignoring the fact that I had addressed the "issue" already and I think it hilarious that someone would argue from a historical perspective, a work of historical fiction/mythology.

And that's hilarious😂

originally posted by: Malocchio
I hate people who think they know what I think.

You don't.

It's a damn shame it's too late to change your op. Because there, in black and white, are your complaints about it not being historical. Or Biblical.

It's the entire theme of the OP, frankly. That being the case, it seems to really bother you.

The historical accuracy of Hiram Abiff is not the point of the story. You, in fact, found part of the answer, wrote it on a later post, and dismissed it as irritating and useless.

a reply to: djz3ro

Very true and nothing wrong with that.

Some people believe that all the Bible myths are true and none of any other groups myths are.

I am just curious if people besides myself have noticed that Hiram Abiff was based off Hiram Abi who is based off Hammurabi.

And I wondered who would be the first to start quoting real history to dismiss the obvious fact that Hiram Abi is a play on Hammurabi?

It happened already. Like the Bible is above borrowing myths and other Kings and making them a part of Hebrew culture.


Yeah right!!

a reply to: Bedlam

Great!!!

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: chr0naut

I am not concerned about chronological data. The Bible is not history or historically accurate.

Not to mention that I clearl stated that it was a play on Hammurabi and using a famous person of antiquity to enhance Solomon's status.

There never existed a King Solomon anyway so you trying to make it make chronological sense is laughable.

So is king solomon in the bible a fictional story...? i believe the characters were real human beings, personally and have my own theories concerning a king solomon with several wives what not...as Men to this day may or may not be married to more than one woman...king solomon needed lots of looking after..IMHO...not that i like to study him so much as i like the poetry in the OT, sometimes...
i believe he was real, personally...

a reply to: chr0naut

thank you, Ch0naut...this is really a great post from you...!

a reply to: Bedlam

I don't want or need to change anything re: this thread.

Are you just trying to be a %&$#?

Because it won't work on me, I literally care nothing about what you think about my OP.

💩💩💩

a reply to: peppycat

Solomon was not a historical person.

Though if you choose to believe otherwise without evidence it's hardly my business.

I certainly won't hate you over it.

But if you can read the whole story of Solomon in the Bible and still believe he existed... I wonder.

Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"

He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself."

He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."

But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbour?"

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Now. Here we have a nice bit of literature. A lawyer, certainly a learned man, asked Jesus who his neighbor was, trying to confuse the issue through a bit of Socratic reduction, which you see here a lot. Instead of answering him with some sort of canonical exposition of Talmudic law, Jesus told a bit of fiction. There was no Samaritan. There were no priests or Levites, there was no 'certain man'. It never happened.

Now, one way of looking at this is that it is some sort of symbolic, hidden, Gnostic wealth of info if only one could parse out how many leaves are on the walls of Rosslyn or what the Gematria adds up to. Another is that Jesus told a LIE, since none of it was true, and that it, not being factual or historical, was probably stolen from some other culture and randomly regurgitated by Jesus when he couldn't think of something else to reply.

Or, you could see the story as a means of teaching an emotional or metatruth instead of a factual one. Jesus is communicating to the lawyer how to think about it rather than telling him what to think in a nice bullet point list of law. Looking deeper into the story than that is pointless.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: chr0naut

I am not concerned about chronological data. The Bible is not history or historically accurate.

Not to mention that I clearl stated that it was a play on Hammurabi and using a famous person of antiquity to enhance Solomon's status.

There never existed a King Solomon anyway so you trying to make it make chronological sense is laughable.

The Bible is quite accurate historically. Considerably better than some other contemporary texts and stelae.

Also, the fame of king Solomon (born Jedediah, second son by King David & Queen Bathsheba) is not limited to Jewish culture but is reflected in contemporary Ethiopic, Lebanese, Syraic, Phillistine, Tyrian and Samaritan writings (admittedly, many of these are later writings and may be legendary).

The king lists, battles, alliances, political intrigues and state visits in numerous regional cultures all align to form a framework of history into which Solomon and stories about him, fit perfectly.

Solomon also left a legacy of constructions attributed to him (like the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, the Palace of Solomon at Ophel, a number of water resevoirs, aqueducts and pools throughout Jerusalem, the Millo ramparts, the port city of Ezion Gever, the desert city of Tadmor in Syria, and the fortification of the cities of Hazor, Meggido and Gezer) which would be unlikely for a fictional king.

We also have things such as the Seal of Solomon which is attributed to him.

Solomon also allied himself with King Hiram I of Tyre and commercial trade between Jerusalem and the port of Tyre bloomed (shown by the 2003 discovery of significant silver-hoards in Phonecia) during the time of Solomon's reign. This trade to the Levant, extended out to Asia and the Atlantic ocean coasts.

Perhaps the King of Phoenecian Tyre (Hiram I) was the 'Hiram' that masons based their story upon?