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.

 

Freemasons And The Knights Templar

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Greetings all.
I hope you are well and you had a good Christmas.

Ok so the reason why i am posting this is because i received a book off one of my friends who came across it in a liquidation book store and thought "Hey he is a conspiracy nut ill get him this”.

Anyway he got me a book called Cracking The Freemasons Code.
I am still reading it but as any freemason researcher will know there are a lot of theories as to how the Freemasons came about and they are all outlined in the book.

One of these theories I found to be extremely interesting to me and it states that when the nights templar was ended by the king at the time all those years ago (I cant remember the date) some of them fled to Scotland to escape capture, When they got there they became the Freemasons and this theory suggests that it was these people that founded the Freemasons as a way to hide there identities .

There is a whole couple of chapters on these theories. Some going back before the templar and some after but what I do know is that most of the Freemasons today base there Degree rituals and Lodge architecture and layout on that of King Solomon’s Temple .

I just wanted to ask fellow members on what they thought of this and if they think that it could be legitimate because to me it seems to be a interesting theory and a important part of my research into the Masons. As I said before there are a lot of theories about it and ill speak about them later but I must stress that I am not stating a fact I am just asking a question about a theory . There is a Freemasons lodge around the corner from where I am writing this so I am going to go and have a look as there architecture is quite amazing. ( There are theories that The Freemasons originally were stonemasons who helped build Solomon’s temple) it could be legitimate or partly legitimate but im going to go have a look.

Anyway fellow members I am wondering what your thoughts on the Knights Templar and Freemasons link is? I would love to hear from anyone and everyone and perhaps even fellow researcher of the Masons.

I have just started researching this group so any info or thoughts on this subject would be very valuable to me . Thank you and I look forward to Brainstorming with you groovy guys and girls.

As always blessed be

Omega85




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
First of all, despite the propaganda that the church spread about the Knights Templar, here is the truth:


The Knights Templar were the largest and most powerful of the Medieval Christian crusading orders. They were originally known as The Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.

Truth: A little dab will do ya

As to whether the Masons are connected, some scholars seem to think they may be. I don't know that there is any definitive proof of it though.

Here is what the cited site says:


Some historians and authors believe there is a link from the Knights Templar to Freemasonry, with some Masonic organizations claiming a direct descent from them.
Source



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Omega85
 


I personally do believe Masons descended, perhaps not directly, from the Knights Templar.

The Church's official stance is that the Knights Templar where killed off, however they recognize that one or more organizations with direct or indirect relationships descended from the order before or after the purge.

Most likely it would be logical to assume that Templar's stranded in Scotland, England evolved into a new order, more philosophical.

Or, it could be logical to assume that a new order sprang out of the Enlightenment era and simply used the romantic ideas of knights and such as a backdrop for the new order.

However Masonry has a shadowed past, and no one knows exactly when Modern Freemasonry started, nor how they came about.

Being descended from Templar is, imo, the most logical answer.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I know Robert Cooper who wrote the book and he is a pure genius when it comes to Scottish Masonic history, especially the Roslyn Chapel.

Depending upon what I read the evidence can make me sway either way but I tend to lean towards that the Masons did evolve from the Templars in one way or another.

That could mean that they adapted some of the ritual from them, I mean is it impossible to think that ex-templars would join a lodge and show them how it was done when they were successful as well.

It is thought that they traveled throughout France & Scotland when they were running from Phillip the Fair and both of those countries are rich in Masonic history.

Cory



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85

I have just started researching this group so any info or thoughts on this subject would be very valuable to me .


I tend to agree with the other Masonic posters in this regard. Whether there is a direct connection is hard to determine but there seems to be much evidence, albeit circumstantial, to completely disregard a Templar connection. To me it is inconceiveable that all the Templars were eradicated and the order made extinct. I think it is safe to assume that there were Knights who survived and continued to practice their ideals. Perhaps this evolved into what eventually became Speculative Masonry and helped enable the Age of Enlightenment.


Thank you and I look forward to Brainstorming with you groovy guys...


I am glad you recognize our inherent Masonic groviness. We may meet on the square, but we are not squares.








Originally posted by corsig
I know Robert Cooper who wrote the book and he is a pure genius when it comes to Scottish Masonic history, especially the Roslyn Chapel.


Cory, you need to introduce me to him. I really enjoyed this book and the extensive research that was put into its writing. It would be enjoyable to pick his brain on this topic.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
A direct link will probably never be "proven."

However, as several of the brethern have mentioned a link to the KT is probable, but not definate.

Masonry has a tendency to play fast and loose with "actual" historical happenings. Either through intent or simple mis-understanding (or in several cases just trying to sound more interesting) the actual information gets buried under some myth and mystery.

The KT and Masonic connection is a cool idea; as is the direct link to Solomon. But neither have a particularly strong basis in provable fact.

I don't know where I was headed with this except to say any "history" of Masonry pre-dating 1717 would be a zealous effort as the true history is buried under all sorts of ruble.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Omega85
 


The legend that Freemasonry was connected to the Templars was a popular one, especially in the 19th century. However, modern Masonic and non-Masonic historians and scholars have discredited the idea.

All Masonic-Templar legends can trace their origins to a speech given by a French Mason, the Chevalier Andrew Ramsay. Although he didn't mention the Templars by name, he was the first known Mason to attempt to link Freemasonry with Christian knights during the Crusades. It was after Ramsay's oration that Templar degrees began popping up in Masonry. Today, the highest degrees in both the York and Scottish Rites are Templar grades.

Modern scholarship points out the fact that there were no Templars degrees in Masonry until after Ramsay published his speech, and that the Craft's oldest documents infer that Freemasonry is older than the Knights Templar, as proof that Masonry does not have a Templar origin.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Omega85
 


The true origins of Free Masonry are lost in time. Very few actual written records from prior to masonry going public in 1717 exist. No one, including all living masons, knows for a fact the foundations of Free Masonry.

The two prevailing current theories are either “the cover story” descended from the operative stonemason guilds in England and/or Scotland. Or from the Knights Templar who were in what is now Great Briton who went “underground” when the order was suppressed in 1307.

The first has too many holes in it for me personally. Many men have brought up the second over time, my favorite is in “Born in Blood” by Robinson. But I feel the connection is only in the first and third degrees, not anything to do with the appendent bodies. But this is only my opinion. But it does make for a good source for research as well as lively debate.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
www.amazon.com...=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198780850&sr=8-2

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198780922&sr=1-1



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Isn't there some theory that the Knights Templer also protected the Priory of Scion? Does Freemasonry have anything to do with that aspect of it possibly?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The Freemasons clearly and obviously exist. This can not be said about the Priory of Sion.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Researcher
 


Yeah but is there any link between them? This might explain some of the madness behind Freemasonry and the secrecy.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by spirit7
 


His answer appeared rather clear to me. Masonry is real. Priory of Scion is make-believe. The only connections that can be infered are those that someone would want to invent.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Oh ok. Didn't know that.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Plantard hoped that the Priory of Sion would become an influential cryptopolitical irregular masonic lodge (similar to P2) dedicated to the restoration of chivalry and monarchy, which would promote Plantard's own claim to the throne of France.

Between 1961 and 1984 Plantard contrived a mythical pedigree of the Priory of Sion claiming that it was the offshoot of the monastic order housed in the Abbey of Sion, which had been founded in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the First Crusade and later absorbed by the Jesuits in 1617. The mistake is often made that this Abbey of Sion was a "Priory of Sion", but there is a difference between an abbey and a priory. Calling his original 1956 group "Priory of Sion" presumably gave Plantard the later idea to claim that his organization had been historically founded in Jerusalem during the Crusades.

Source



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Modern Templars are not part of freemasonry. They are distant and more powerful organization. But, as far as I know, being modern Templar you are also member of some freemasonic lodge.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
If you are talking about the Knights Templar degree in the York Rite of Freemasonry, then yes, one has to first be a Master Mason at their Blue Lodge to petition to join any appendant bodies of Freemasonry (York Rite,Scottish Rite,Shriners, etc),however attaining this degree does not give you "power" over any other Freemason, or any individual,it just means that you were interested in speculative Freemasonry,and went through degrees.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I talk about Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem. It's lead by Rear Admiral James J. Carey, Grand Master and Brigadier General Patrick E. Rea, Grand Commander.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I don't buy the Templar connection OR the "Craft Guilds" theory at all. Freemasonry is clearly a product of the Enlightenment. I thought that John Robinson's "Born in Blood" made some good circumstantial connections, but it's also full of holes. For example, suggesting that Wat Tyler was actually a Knight and the "tyler" of his lodge is ridiculous. If you see how Tyler acted in the presence of the King before he was murdered, it is obvious that he was a commoner and not knowledgeable in the etiquette that one would expect form a knight.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vojvoda
I talk about Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem. It's lead by Rear Admiral James J. Carey, Grand Master and Brigadier General Patrick E. Rea, Grand Commander.


No, you don't have to be a Mason to join that group.

The high degrees of both the Scottish Rite and York Rite are Templar degrees, but of course you do have to be a Mason in order to receive them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join