It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I left Freemasonry in 2016, and I am happy to discuss the subject.

page: 20
36
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
either Solomon or secretary in a white beard and red robes?


I'm going with Solomon or Hiram of Tyre since they are the only ones that make sense to me.




posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




1:17:30


So, that's why Freemasonry makes such a big deal of Solomon's Temple.

I get it.

Solomon's Temple represents the origins of the Knights Templar, where they supposedly learned their esoteric secrets. And since the Knights Templar became the Freemasons, that part of the tradition, "where it all began," is a critical motif in Freemasonry Symbolism. I always wondered why Freemasons didn't go back further to the Ancient Egyptians, but I guess they lost a lot of knowledge when the library of Alexandria was destroyed, and the underground movement was only able to pick up some of the pieces of the hidden knowledge from Solomon's Temple.



edit on 31-7-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH
Uh huh...

Most anti-Masons hold a misguided belief at what constitutes authority in Freemasonry. Since the 18th century, many Masons have published works concerning Freemasonry, writing on various theories and subjects within Freemasonry. Anti-Masons would have others believe that everything a Mason writes is inherently accepted by all of Freemasonry. The problem here is that not everything written by a Mason has been factual, but as Freemasonry is a society dedicated to knowledge and free thought, Grand Lodges have not interfered with what an individual Mason writes. A Grand Lodge is the only entity within Freemasonry that has authority to speak on the symbols, rituals, history, and so on. Without receiving an endorsement from a Grand Lodge, a Masonic author is merely giving his opinion, he does not speak for all Freemasonry. Freemasonry is much more than just the writings of a single Masonic author.

a reply to: dashen
It looks like they are exemplifying the ritual using costumes. That one isn't Santa, just wearing red robes with a white beard.

a reply to: AMPTAH
We use the story of ancient crafstmen building that Temple as an allegory for us building ourselves.

The use of the Hiramic legend does not involve the Knights Templar nor is there definitive proof that the Knights Templar became speculative Freemasonry.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: AMPTAH

We use the story of ancient crafstmen building that Temple as an allegory for us building ourselves.

The use of the Hiramic legend does not involve the Knights Templar nor is there definitive proof that the Knights Templar became speculative Freemasonry.


Yes, but Freemasons could have chosen any building for that.

Why not choose building the Great Pyramid, or perhaps the Temple at Luxor, or The Parthenon in Athens Greece, etc...

Lots of options to choose from, in selecting a building that merely characterized the operative craft of stone masonry.

But, the one chosen, just so happens to be the very one that marked the founding of that special order of the Knights Templar. How odd, that coincidence, together with all the references that suggest the Templars were connected to Freemasonry in some way, even higher degrees in Freemasonry use the name "Templars" again. And yet, constant denials that the Knights Templars had anything to do with Freemasonry.

It's a strange situation, for an outsider looking in.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH


"Yes, but Freemasons could have chosen any building for that."
...
...
"It's a strange situation, for an outsider looking in."



It makes perfect sense, as Christianity was the Religion of the Crown, and there existed little-to-no religious freedom or liberty for the common people.

Did you know that Operative Stone Guilds used Biblical myth, folklore, and allegory long before Speculative Freemasonry emerged?

• The demise of the Knights Templars occurred between the years 1307-1314.

• The first recorded instance of a non stone worker being admitted into an Operative Mason Lodge was in the early 1600's.


Your hypothesis doesn't work, because Operative Stone Masons used Biblical references before the Knights Templars fell from grace, and Speculative Freemasonry didn't enter the written records until some 300 years later.


edit on 8/1/17 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AMPTAH


"Yes, but Freemasons could have chosen any building for that."
...
...
"It's a strange situation, for an outsider looking in."



It makes perfect sense, as Christianity was the Religion of the Crown...Did you know that Operative Stone Guilds used Biblical myth, folklore, and allegory long before Speculative Freemasonry emerged?...Operative Stone Masons used Biblical references before the Knights Templars fell from grace, and Speculative Freemasonry didn't enter the written records until some 300 years later.


Well, ok. I understand that Christians, Jews, and Muslims, could relate to the Biblical historical events recorded as Solomon's Temple, as this is common to all 3 religions, and these three religions might find that reference in the rituals meaningful and appealing when they join Freemasonry.

But, Hindus can also be Freemasons. Do they switch out Solomon's Temple ritual with their own Hindu Temple equivalent?

Why would a Hindu follow the Freemason's choice of Solomon's Temple in their rituals?

A Hindu even swaps out the Bible for his own "Book of the Law", which doesn't contain any reference to Solomon in it.

That video shows clearly that it was only after the Knights Templar entered Solomon's Temple that they "magically" gained their power and influence to become the worlds biggest bankers and accumulate great wealth. So, Solomon's Temple may have been around for a long time before the Templars, but the "secrets" in the Temple were unknown until the Templars went there and started "digging" around.


edit on 1-8-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH
It seems quite obvious why. They stayed along a mythos that they knew, the Bible. Concerning the term “mythos” (or rather myth), it is a popular notion that myth equates fiction. In reality, myths can be both fiction and non-fiction, but the origin of the use of myth is in oral traditions, which is the telling of stories and legends were passed down through the generations via storytellers. Written myths often came about centuries after an oral myth originated. The validity aside, oral myths did not stay consistent, but were used to help explain an event or philosophy to a largely illiterate people.


How odd, that coincidence, together with all the references that suggest the Templars were connected to Freemasonry in some way, even higher degrees in Freemasonry use the name "Templars" again.

Here's a quote from the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the USA:


THERE IS NO PROOF OF DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ANCIENT ORDER AND THE MODERN ORDER KNOWN TO DAY AS THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR.

There are only theories that Freemasonry and the medieval Knights Templar are connected, but most of those theories have been debunked.

Masonic Knights Templar Legends: www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...


originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, Hindus can also be Freemasons. Do they switch out Solomon's Temple ritual with their own Hindu Temple equivalent?

No.


Why would a Hindu follow the Freemason's choice of Solomon's Temple in their rituals?

Because that's the central legend of Freemasonry. If they want to create their own version, they could do that, but it wouldn't be Freemasonry.

However, there is a group known as the August Order of Light. The Order and ritual was originally organized by Maurice Vidal Portman, a politician and occultist who had traveled to India around 1876 and became learned in the ritual, arts, and lore of the Far East, particularly of the Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, and other faiths. It is thought that Portman may have been influenced by the rituals of Sat B'Hai, but this is only a speculation. It was also thought that John Yarker also assisted in the writing of the rituals, but the Order states that he was never a member and had no connection with it. Originally the Order did not take foot in England. It would be by the assistance of others that helped establish this order. The rituals were revised around the turn of the Century by two followers of Portman, T.H. Pattinson and Dr. Bogdan E.J. Edwards. These two through studying and communication with those in India reformed the rituals.

The August Order of Light seeks to explain the symbolism of Craft Masonry by reference to the old world religions, particularly the mythologies of India, ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. This order is not adding to or replacing the ritual of Craft Masonry, but providing keys to explain it. It is there ardent wish "that all members will receive some degree of illumination from participating in the mysteries of the Order, thus rending the veil of darkness between the physical and spiritual planes."

The order is comprised of 2-degrees and a "connecting path": The First Degree, the Passing Degree, and the Second Degree. The regalia of Order is a robe and belt, with variations in each degree. With the First Degree, the Brothers wear a breast jewel. In the Second Degree, they wear a neck-jewel and the belt changes.


That video shows clearly that it was only after the Knights Templar entered Solomon's Temple that they "magically" gained their power and influence to become the worlds biggest bankers and accumulate great wealth. So, Solomon's Temple may have been around for a long time before the Templars, but the "secrets" in the Temple were unknown until the Templars went there and started "digging" around.

Read either "Nobly Born" or "Compasses & the Cross."



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Freemasonry doesn't ask one to give up or change their personal beliefs. Nor are discrepant interpretations of Freemasonry by fellow Freemasons an indication of lies and/or deception.


You know how people feel differently about everything? All have different views, opinions, and understandings of food, music, movies, art, politics, religion, et cetera. If we all read the very same Bible or Qur'an, all of us will have varying interpretations and opinions, regardless of the fact that we all read the same thing. As we are dealing with the human element of subjectivity, all come to Freemasonry and understand it in each's own very personal way.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AMPTAH

Freemasonry doesn't ask one to give up or change their personal beliefs. Nor are discrepant interpretations of Freemasonry by fellow Freemasons an indication of lies and/or deception.


So, ok. Let me ask you this. Say my religion is Christianity, and Jesus is my teacher. He says "swear no oaths", so I arrive at Freemasonry, and am about to be initiated into the Entered Apprentice degree. Can I just tell the brothers that I'm following my religious beliefs, which Freemasonry claims not to interfere with, and ask to be exempted from swearing any "oaths" ?

Would the brothers still initiate me without my swearing an "oath" ?

If so, Freemasonry would truly be great, since it would "allow" me to keep my religious beliefs while "learning" all about the craft from inside.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH
You can ask, but you will not be exempted. You still must adhere to the usages and customs of the fraternity.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

The oaths must be obliged, and it is assured that they will never cause one to break legal or religious laws, nor infringe upon one's moral duty.

What is your opinion about:
• The United States Pledge of Allegiance?,....
• The United States Oath of Allegiance?,...
• The Presidential Oath of Office?,...
• Swearing an oath before a court testimony?,....
• Hippocratic / Osteopathic / Maimonides Oaths or Declaration of Geneva?,...
• Loan, payment, or service contracts?,...
• Wedding vows?,...


Do these vows, oaths, and promises interfere with one's Christian beliefs? Are the people who have sworn the above mentioned oaths doing so in sin? Is marriage, the economy, the medical industry, and the U.S. Government practicing subversive wickedness by having people swear these particular promises and oaths?



MASONIC OATH

One of the points urged by all anti-Masons is that the members of the Craft are required to take an "oath". Sometimes it is urged by certain Christian denominations that it is improper for a Christian to take any kind of oath.

...
...
...

The matter is summarized in 'The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia' (1949), Vol.4, p.2173, as follows:

"That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of Our Lord (Mat. 26:63) and of Paul; (11 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20) and even God Himself (Heb. 6:13-18). Consequently when Christ said "Swear not at all" (Mat. 5:34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where the principles hold sway, oaths become unnecessary."



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: AMPTAH
You can ask, but you will not be exempted. You still must adhere to the usages and customs of the fraternity.


But, those things like usages and customs change.

Swearing an oath isn't even listed as a "Landmark" of Freemasonry.

So, obviously, the brothers can change that if they wanted to.

They even say that the "oaths" are just "symbolic", and nobody seriously considers slitting the throat, ripping out the heart, or pulling out the guts of a mason who violates the oath. So, why swear to something that is considered a joke, and not even taken seriously?

The bible says all oaths are to be taken seriously.



If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. -- KJV, Numbers 30:2


This is the very reason Jesus says not to swear. If you're a practicing "good man", then swearing is not necessary to do good, you just do the right thing whenever you are able.

However, if you've "sworn an oath" in the past to something, and now find that to keep that oath you must do something bad, or avoid doing what you know to be right and good, then the "oath" has constrained your actions from performing the good that you would otherwise have been freely able to do without that constraint.

So, don't tie your hands, before you know what those hands will be required to do. That's the point Jesus was making.



edit on 2-8-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AMPTAH

The oaths must be obliged, and it is assured that they will never cause one to break legal or religious laws, nor infringe upon one's moral duty.

What is your opinion about:


The United States has removed the requirement to swear oaths in the Courts today, you are allowed to "affirm" to tell the truth.



The matter is summarized in 'The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia' (1949), Vol.4, p.2173, as follows:

"That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of Our Lord (Mat. 26:63) and of Paul; (11 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20) and even God Himself (Heb. 6:13-18). Consequently when Christ said "Swear not at all" (Mat. 5:34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where the principles hold sway, oaths become unnecessary."



They must be referring to a different bible from mine. This is what those verses say in my KJV;



But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. -- KJV, Matthew 26:63


No swearing any oaths there in Mat.26.62.



Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. -- KJV, 2 Corinthians 1:23


Again, no swearing any oath by Paul, in 2 Cor.1.23.



Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. -- KJV, Galatians 1:20


Yet Again, no swearing any oath in Gal.1:20..simply an "affirmation" that "I lie not."



For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, -- KJV, Hebrews 6:13


Perfectly fine for "God to Swear", because, since he is God, he can always fulfill his oath.

But, no man has the power to guarantee that he can fulfill any oath.

And this is the reason why Jesus says "Swear not at all".



But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: -- KJV, Matthew 5:34

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. -- KJV, Matthew 5:35

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. -- KJV, Matthew 5:36

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. -- KJV, Matthew 5:37



So, the first thing to understand about Christianity, is that Christians believe that "God" has all the power, and men can only do the things he enables them to do. Jesus attributed all his miraculous works to "God acting through him", and not his own power. So, since no man can "make one hair white or black", i.e. no man can use his own power to control any events, then when a man "swears" he is essentially "mocking god", because he cannot guarantee the fulfillment of that oath he just swore.

So, for the True Christian, entering Freemasonry, the Freemason's first test is to ask the Christian to mock his god.

If the Christian does this, and swears the oath, he has stepped "over the threshold" and onto the "other side."



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Swearing an oath isn't even listed as a "Landmark" of Freemasonry.

So?


So, obviously, the brothers can change that if they wanted to.

SECOND LANDMARK - THE DIVISION OF SYMBOLIC MASONRY INTO THREE DEGREES

Without having taken the Obligation one cannot be initiated or advanced through the three degrees of Freemasonry. Without having taken the Obligation one would not be bound to the Fraternity. The obligation is the turning point of every degree.


The bible says all oaths are to be taken seriously.

And the Masonic obligations should be taken serious.


This is the very reason Jesus says not to swear. If you're a practicing "good man", then swearing is not necessary to do good, you just do the right thing whenever you are able.

I refer you to Sahabi's post: www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1179507/pg20#pid22519045


However, if you've "sworn an oath" in the past to something, and now find that to keep that oath you must do something bad, or avoid doing what you know to be right and good, then the "oath" has constrained your actions from performing the good that you would otherwise have been freely able to do without that constraint.

So, don't tie your hands, before you know what those hands will be required to do. That's the point Jesus was making.

Every initiate is given assurances before he takes an Obligation.


originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, no man has the power to guarantee that he can fulfill any oath.

Sure he does.


So, the first thing to understand about Christianity, is that Christians believe that "God" has all the power, and men can only do the things he enables them to do.

So God wouldn't enable men to remain true to their word?


So, for the True Christian, entering Freemasonry, the Freemason's first test is to ask the Christian to mock his god.

That's a false assumption.
edit on 2-8-2017 by KSigMason because: Formatting



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: KSigMason

originally posted by: [post=22519792]AMPTAH
But, no man has the power to guarantee that he can fulfill any oath.

Sure he does.


And yet, Jesus knew what every man was "destined" to do.

He knew that he would be betrayed by one of his disciples.

He knew that he would be nailed to the cross.

If all these men had their own power to do their own will, how is it that their actions could be foreseen?

And how on earth, did the "magi" know that Jesus was born, before they even met the kid?

Who has the power to change their own destiny?

Can swearing an oath make any difference to the actions that will come to pass?




edit on 3-8-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
1. Were you expected to have intimate relations with another species, namely a female goat?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Privy_Princess
1. Were you expected to have intimate relations with another species, namely a female goat?


Don't be stupid, of course we were.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Does every Lodge have their own goat?
Can someone ascend to Master Mason without owning a tuxedo?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
Does every Lodge have their own goat?


It's really all the same goat, Shub-Niggurath manifests when you need her.


Can someone ascend to Master Mason without owning a tuxedo?


Yes, you only need a tuxedo if you want to be an officer and push the low ranking clowns around.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Good points of discussion



"The United States has removed the requirement to swear oaths in the Courts today, you are allowed to "affirm" to tell the truth"


One point out of the list dodged by a legal revision, enabling the withholding of opinion. Were you formerly against Court Testimonial oaths before the requirement was removed?

What is your opinion about the rest of the oaths/promises that I mentioned?

• The United States Pledge of Allegiance?,....
• The United States Oath of Allegiance?,...
• The Presidential Oath of Office?,...
• Hippocratic / Osteopathic / Maimonides Oaths or Declaration of Geneva?,...
• Loan, payment, or service contracts?,...
• Wedding vows?,...

 



"No swearing any oaths there in Mat.26.62"


When we reference a scriptural verse, it helps us to explore the context of the verse, as well as the lexicon and etymologies.

Jesus only remained silent during the false witness testimony, and after the initial questioning of the High Priest. However, after the High Priest invoked Jesus to speak by an oath of God, Jesus broke his silence and obliged the question.
 

Matthew 26:62-64 (KJV)

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?"

But Jesus held his peace.

And the high priest answered and said unto him, "I adjure thee (ἐξορκίζω (exorkizō)) by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."

Jesus saith unto him, "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

 



Adjure

late 14c., "to bind by oath; to question under oath;" c. 1400 as "to charge with an oath or under penalty of a curse," from Latin adiurare "confirm by oath, add an oath, to swear to in addition; call to witness," in Late Latin "to put (someone) to an oath," from ad "to" (see ad-) + iurare "swear," from ius(genitive iuris) "law" (see jurist). Related: Adjured; adjuring.




ἐξορκίζω (Exorkizó) Concordance # 1844

• Strong's
exorkizó: to administer an oath, to adjure
Original Word: ἐξορκίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exorkizó
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-or-kid'-zo)
Short Definition: I adjure, put to oath
Definition: I adjure, put to oath; I exorcise.

• NAS Exhaustive
Word Origin: from ek and horkizó
Definition: to administer an oath, to adjure
NASB Translation: adjure

• Thayer's Greek Lexicon
1. to exact an oath, to force to an oath(Demosthenes, Polybius, Apollod., Diodorus, Plutarch, others), for which the earlier Greeks used ἐξορκόω (cf. Winer's Grammar, 102 (97)).
2. to adjure: τινα κατά τίνος, one by a person (cf. κατά, I. 2 a.), followed by ἵνα (Buttmann, 237 (205)), Matthew 26:63; (Genesis 24:3).


 

 

 



"the Freemason's first test is to ask the Christian to mock his god."


In no way does Freemasonry mock God, nor one's personal beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join