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.

 

Templar knights and Freemasons

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweftl337
The Martinists are in fact the illuminati of today


The Martinists?






posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by sweftl337
The Martinists are in fact the illuminati of today


The Martinists?




Now there's a secret cabal I can support!




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Just curious, as to how you can state this with such certainty. I was once told by an ex Order of The Eastern Star, who converted to atheism and quit, that there had been but one non-mason who was elected president of the USA, JFK. I am not saying you are wrong, just wondering if it is at all likely some masons do not wish to divulge their membership?


In the US, Lodge membership isn't considered "secret", and Masons do not hide their affiliation, and Lodge records are extensive. We know all the Presidents who were Masons, the lodges they were members of, etc.

The only one that nobody's really sure about is Thomas Jefferson; he was probably not a Mason, but walked in a Masonic parade to honor George Washington. It is possible that he was a Mason, but no records exist. He did, however, often hold meetings of the Democratic Party at Masonic Lodges.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Just curious, as to how you can state this with such certainty. I was once told by an ex Order of The Eastern Star, who converted to atheism and quit, that there had been but one non-mason who was elected president of the USA, JFK. I am not saying you are wrong, just wondering if it is at all likely some masons do not wish to divulge their membership?


In the US, Lodge membership isn't considered "secret", and Masons do not hide their affiliation, and Lodge records are extensive. We know all the Presidents who were Masons, the lodges they were members of, etc.

The only one that nobody's really sure about is Thomas Jefferson; he was probably not a Mason, but walked in a Masonic parade to honor George Washington. It is possible that he was a Mason, but no records exist. He did, however, often hold meetings of the Democratic Party at Masonic Lodges.


True and true, to Blackguard, many people say many things, and just because one person says something off the wall and out of the ordinary does not imply that they hold secret knowledge, from the Eastern Star none the less. That individual was either misinformed, did not know what they where talking about or where intentionally pulling your leg. Or was never actually a Mason which I believe most likely the case.

All people who hold public office are revealed by other Masons, if a state Governor pledges to a Lodge you can bet that can't stay "secret" nor should it, every one finds out. The media does not report it because its pretty much a none-event and its not like they can go in and take pictures. However, it is pretty easy to find out if your local governor or congressman is a Mason, the easiest would be to ask the Masons themselves, we have no reason to hide such information.

As far as presidents are concerned .. the thing I see that seems to follow a trend in this topic.. is that all great men have to have some kind of backing to get where they are, that no one man can rise against the odds and be President, and that once in power they are some how a puppet. That is a immature line of thought, completely disregarding truth and logic. Men who rise to power do so through ambition and intelligence, and connections, but rarely secret societies, most likely pharmaceutical reps and such, big business. That has sadly always been the case, the more people you can rub elbows with, the better your odds of support, mostly financial. People like Kerry who ran for president rubbed elbows with the elite, but remember he is a billionaire, and billionaires are rare, and do not often ask for financial assistance.

Is it likely that there are incredibly ambitious people within Masonry, and that they can use Masonry as a means of forming connections, sure.. but you can do that with the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church.. almost any wide srpead organization if you can play the game right.

Sometimes people in power get there, then petition a lodge to become a Mason, for their own reasons, it is a private choice. But your governor going to a one day class (see the thread on one dayers :flame
does not make him a better Mason then the Mason who works 3rd shift in a factory, if anything the factory worker is most likely more active and knowledgeable in the craft.

I would say that.. to assume an elite center literally control the worlds leaders like string puppets is an easy way to draw a conclusion to a subject (international political relations, international governments and law) that one would have a hard time comprehending. I blame the education system for that honestly, there is no emphases to understanding foreign governments, to understanding how the political world operates.. to understand it is a game and only the ruthless win. It can be an incredibly boring subject, but the jist of it is this: Those who can persuade those with money to give money in expectation of certain privileges will win, or those with the most money already will win. And money does not persuade people, so you have to be good at that as well.... the idea of "puppets" however is obscene, its just the political game. Theres a fine line between "puppet" and being able to gather support.. with out support in politics you will go no where.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
On the topic, I believe I recall hearing of a Templar named Roger Jolie(the french pronuciation) who escaped the death sentence and carried about nine thousand other Templars with him in several galleys intended for the shores of Ireland but disapeared entirely, but not long after that their was much piracy along the coast, and it is legend that the skull and bones aka the "Jolly Roger" was named after this man, the crossbones replacing the spades on the Templar symbol.
The evidence does suggest that many Templars joyrneyed to Scotland, and were renamed the Knights of Christ, but were accepted into already existing masonic lodges rather that starting them.

to the poster who said the Templars were good guys: whatever gave you that idea? They were intersested in wealth and war: and it was the king of France more than the pope who wished them eradicated



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Count Germails Lovechild


to the poster who said the Templars were good guys: whatever gave you that idea? They were intersested in wealth and war: and it was the king of France more than the pope who wished them eradicated


In war, yes. They were, after all, warriors.

In wealth? Not likely. They were all monks, and all had taken vows of poverty. One of the reasons that they racked up so much money was because they were forbidden to spend it.

You're right about the king of France. He mostly used the pope as a pawn.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Count Germails Lovechild
On the topic, I believe I recall hearing of a Templar named Roger Jolie(the french pronuciation) who escaped the death sentence and carried about nine thousand other Templars with him in several galleys intended for the shores of Ireland but disapeared entirely, but not long after that their was much piracy along the coast, and it is legend that the skull and bones aka the "Jolly Roger" was named after this man, the crossbones replacing the spades on the Templar symbol.
The evidence does suggest that many Templars joyrneyed to Scotland, and were renamed the Knights of Christ, but were accepted into already existing masonic lodges rather that starting them.

to the poster who said the Templars were good guys: whatever gave you that idea? They were intersested in wealth and war: and it was the king of France more than the pope who wished them eradicated


This is actually the theory I personally believe resulted in the beginning of Freemasonry. Every Mason it seems however has their own theories as to where and why Masonry was founded.

The Templar navy, according to the history we have, did in fact get away, they where warned before those who where supposed to take them ships could get there, and set sail for an unknown destination.

Piracy its self is an ancient art of war, and is nothing that was invented by Templar, but as you state they may have begun "revenge" attacks against the crown of France by disrupting trade and commerce.

The navy was believed to have been lost around the coast of Scotland. Not lost as in sunk, more likely lost as in that is where they docked and used as a base, it would be no surprise then that Freemasonry most likely was founded in Scotland. In 1717 when the first Grand Lodge was publicly announced, Freemasonry was already seemingly entrenched within the Britain isles, spreading to Ireland as well. An underground Mason/Templar movement in my opinion is the only way such ideas could have spread so quickly.

Also, looking at Roslyn Chapel I would say that the Scots who became the descendants of the Templar and formed the Masonry we have today, or at least lead up to it, where influenced by Gaelic culture, hence in Roslyn you have the "Green Man" all over the walls.. along with various other themes, this is just one that has been deeply associated with Gaelic culture. My belief, my PERSONAL belief with given evidence is a blend of druidic type mystic, mixed with the Templar and local superstitions along with the lore of the Crusades is what resulted in Freemasonry. That is was not just the Templar landing and forming a new "club" but that they landed, lived in the area, where absorbed in the culture but their own past as well and the product was a hybrid of the two.

If Freemasons where infact the descendants of Templar, I would love to know why they moved from a military religious organization to a much more symbolic and peaceful organization. Some where along the lines it turned into a mystic fraternity and left its military past behind, just something I find interesting.

Also, as to who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy" as you know, the victor typically writes history, and in this case the Church won, and as the winner has had the liberty to make it look as if the Templars where some kind of organized crime of some sort, when in reality they served pilgrims to the Holy Land and helped defend it. Most of their money was made off of banking, an extensive system for pilgrims to keep their money safe while they travled, so as not to be mugged or robbed of their wealth, and once they reach their destination retrieve their money. If you call that evil, I would be shocked.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a link to my previous post, which is quite long, and is much the same as yours. I only found that the idea they were founded for the purpose of protecting pilgrims and their money to be hard to accept. They seemed to become too powerful to have only done that alone. There is more to it, what, I know not.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
im very interested in the Templars and want to learn more . Can some one give a brief background on thier history please ?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join