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.

 

The Carpenter of Nazareth and heroes?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Who is HUGH M'CURDY? Has anyone ever heard of him before? I found some interesting links in regards to him. The first one is kind of cheesy but convincing none the less. He more or less ties masonry in with the Knights Templar and goes on to talk about the Carpenter of Nazareth. If I'm reading a letter of his correctly it also ties "the son of man" in with Egypt and goes on to talk about the beginning of Christianity through the Knights Templar. Could this possibly explain why some Christian Masons are led to believe in a blood line? And if I'm not mistaken he is saying that Jesus was only a spiritual man???

And finally, the link that was the most disturbing to this Christian:

query.nytimes.com...

Edited to remove the first two links regarded as non pertinent




[edit on 5-4-2008 by Straighten Arrow]




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
None of the words Jesus, Christ, Knight nor Templar appear in the first link. The second link has absolutely no mention of Hugh M'Curdy or Masonry or Templars or anything else, for that matter.

So that leaves the third link, written more than 113 years ago. I don't see how you could possibly interpret that as him saying Jesus was only a spiritual man. He writes, quite explicitly, "Worship of Him has always been, is to this hour, and at all hours the vivifying influence of every Templar's life. Templar faith is loyalty to Him. The true Templar hope is to be like Him—to live His life is the genial flame that burns up all lower considerations..."

So how from that do you get him calling Jesus "only a man"? As a Christian, why do you find that so disturbing?

And why do you think this bloodline nonsense is particularly a Masonic theory?

[edit on 4/5/2008 by JoshNorton]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
What I got from his text is that Christianity was somehow made up by the Knights Templar? I never heard him refer to Christ as our Lord and Savior or as God. What I got from his text was that he was basically saying that Jesus was nothing more then a spiritual man. I think that I stumbled upon something here!



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


"And why do you think this bloodline nonsense is particularly a Masonic theory?"

I'm not saying that necessarily. I just think that I may have stumbled upon something here. I'm making more of a connection every day it seems. Stay tuned!



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
You seem to keep stumbling, then, because you're doing absolutely nothing to back up your position with anything that doesn't fall over the moment you blow on it.

Since you've already removed the first two citations that you were trying to build your argument from, let me again remind you of what the remaining link says.

"That man might have the life and the light which come only from such love, the Incarnate Son was born."

So you're saying Hugh McCurdy doesn't say that Christ was God, and yet he clearly calls him the Incarnate Son, which is, you know, God incarnate!

So strike that last citation as your "proof" and there's nothing left. I think I may have stumbled upon something here!



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
You seem to keep stumbling, then, because you're doing absolutely nothing to back up your position with anything that doesn't fall over the moment you blow on it.

Since you've already removed the first two citations that you were trying to build your argument from, let me again remind you of what the remaining link says.

"That man might have the life and the light which come only from such love, the Incarnate Son was born."

So you're saying Hugh McCurdy doesn't say that Christ was God, and yet he clearly calls him the Incarnate Son, which is, you know, God incarnate!

So strike that last citation as your "proof" and there's nothing left. I think I may have stumbled upon something here!


I'm not trying to judge you Josh so don't feel threatened. Go ahead and feel comfortable in what you believe but try to keep an open mind without being so defensive please.

The scholary word incarnate doesn't prove anything to me in regards to Jesus Christ as our God and our father in the flesh. All that it proves to me is that it's another cunning word used by masonry to take God out of context. Can you maybe see my point? You can see my point without having to agree.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Straighten Arrow
The scholary word incarnate doesn't prove anything to me in regards to Jesus Christ as our God and our father in the flesh. All that it proves to me is that it's another cunning word used by masonry to take God out of context.
Oh, so Incarnate is a cunning word used by Masonry?

Like here here or here? Oh wait. Those aren't Masonic sites. Those are Christian sites. Darn those cunning Christians and their scholarly words used to make us believe Jesus & God were one!



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Straighten Arrow
The scholary word incarnate doesn't prove anything to me in regards to Jesus Christ as our God and our father in the flesh. All that it proves to me is that it's another cunning word used by masonry to take God out of context.
Oh, so Incarnate is a cunning word used by Masonry?

Like here here or here? Oh wait. Those aren't Masonic sites. Those are Christian sites. Darn those cunning Christians and their scholarly words used to make us believe Jesus & God were one!


LOL, no I was wrong to say that, I don't know what I was thinking. Still, even though the word was used the only feeling that I get from his letter is that he was suggesting Jesus was only a spiritual man in the esoteric sense and refered to as nothing else. But I could be wrong, I've been wrong before, once.


How are you doing brother?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 



What it seems like to me is that he is giving Templarism all of the credit and the glory rather then Jesus Christ our Lord. There's also a hidden message or context in there that suggests religions are weak. What I also get from his use of the word incarnation is used in a tricky way to basically say that we all are incarnates, which is incorrect. We are not Gods and certainly not the templars. We are unique images of God that is correct but he needs to be more careful in how he uses that word. You're kidding yourself if you do not think otherwise.

Another thing that I've noticed consistently is how the words "so be it" is taken out of context. Alot of the verbage that I am seeing and noticing that is used in freemasonry seems to take the words of the bible and place them in a different context.

So what IS the mission of the templars?


[edit on 6-4-2008 by Straighten Arrow]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Straighten Arrow
So what IS the mission of the templars?
I'm afraid only a Christian Mason could tell you for certain. And since I'll never become a Christian, and you'll never become a Mason, that may be an area of which we shall both remain in the dark, my brother.

Unless someone else wants to hop in this thread. It's been a pleasant enough dialog and everything, but I feel like we've both failed at rallying any further discussion from the bystanders on either side.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 



Yeah, it's beating a dead horse. If you were a Christian then I might be more interested in carrying on with it but I don't.

By the way, I am not being sarcastic when I call you brother. You are my brother regardless of whether you have a religion or no religion or a freemason or not.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join