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.

 

Masons not a secret society

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Alex, you really take things off track. Please read the posts. I never said it belongs to moorish science. Nowhere. I said it has origins and history in moorish culture. Why are you turning this into a race issue? Anybody who reads these posts can see that was never a premise for this conversation. A moori s not an organization it is a culture. You dont have to be in a temple to be a Moor. And moors for your information are all colors including white. Come on Al, you really are way oof base. Again READ the posts carefully.




posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
We have our opinions, etc agree to disagree. Isn't that more sensible?


That, also, I can get behind 100%. I'd get behind it more, but that were impossible. I certainly don't mind you believing that the "Moors" (whoever you mean by that) invented Masonry. As a matter of fact, I'l go further: the rituals found within Masonry are traceable to a number of archaic rituals, in two ways: one, that certain archetypes within our rituals are so common and universial that they are found in many other initiatic systems (this is a weak way in which Masonry may be connected to the "Moors") and two, that when Masonic rituals were first developed, they were devloped by intelligent individuals with access to esoteric learning from many sources. I will with great gladness concede that one of those sources may in fact be the "Moors." Now, that doesn't mean that Masonry "came from" the Moors in the sense that it was a full transfer, but rather that many Masonic ideas may have come from the Moors.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
Alex, you really take things off track.


If you're responding to the post that I think you're responding to, that post was actually adressed more to Khonsu than you.

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by the word "Moor." I've told you what I understand the word to mean, previously.

P.S. Please don't call me "Al" if you can avoid it. It doesn't make me mad or hurt my feelings (like those who call me "Kennedy" without permission), but I'd much prefer it if you called me "Alex".

[edit on 18-6-2004 by AlexKennedy]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy

Originally posted by MOOR45
I may not be your Masonic brother but I am your brother and everone else's as well.


This, I can agree with 100%. I laud what you are saying here.

Please don't misunderstand me... I don't mean to suggest that you are not a Son of Adam and Brother of the Dust. Not only that, you are a fellow initiate, although our initiatic systems may be different. I simply disagree with you about the origins of Masonry.

Also, Moor45, you claim to be a scientist. As a scientist, you must be aware that when a new thesis is presented, references for the antithesis are not required. The onus is completely on the person who presents the new thesis to prove his or her point. Those who cry out "prove me wrong!!!" are looking at things the wrong way up. Before anyone is required to prove you wrong, you are required to prove yourself right. This is always the case with science, and the same rules apply to everyone.

I did that and you told me to give you proof. I gave you references. When I stood on my own you asked me how. Disagree, fine. But I asked you a Mason to correct me if you knew different of the history and you said I dont. So how can you defend a point if you dont know? That's all I'm saying. At least have some answer. If I'm wrong on the history teach me. I am not perfect. But before you condemn me open your mind to the possibility SOME of what I am saying could possibly be true.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy

Originally posted by MOOR45
We have our opinions, etc agree to disagree. Isn't that more sensible?


That, also, I can get behind 100%. I'd get behind it more, but that were impossible. I certainly don't mind you believing that the "Moors" (whoever you mean by that) invented Masonry. As a matter of fact, I'l go further: the rituals found within Masonry are traceable to a number of archaic rituals, in two ways: one, that certain archetypes within our rituals are so common and universial that they are found in many other initiatic systems (this is a weak way in which Masonry may be connected to the "Moors") and two, that when Masonic rituals were first developed, they were devloped by intelligent individuals with access to esoteric learning from many sources. I will with great gladness concede that one of those sources may in fact be the "Moors." Now, that doesn't mean that Masonry "came from" the Moors in the sense that it was a full transfer, but rather that many Masonic ideas may have come from the Moors.

At last we have a winner! Sorry Alex.

[edit on 6/18/2004 by MOOR45]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
If I'm wrong on the history teach me. I am not perfect. But before you condemn me open your mind to the possibility SOME of what I am saying could possibly be true.


Of course I have an open mind. But not so open that my brains fall out.

First, I need to know what you mean by the word Moor.

Here is Masonic History as I understand it:

In 1717, four Lodges got together to form the first public Grand Lodge. They did so in London.

Here is the supposition:

The fact that four Lodges existed in 1717 means that Masonry existed before that time. As Masonic Light has indicated in other threads, however, only two degrees apparently existed at that time. The third was added later.

My belief is that at some point between 1000 AD and 1600 AD, some individuals got together with an interest in esoteric systems of the past, and created the first two Masonic degrees, possibly on the scaffold of already existing operative Masonic degrees. These individuals used what information they could regarding the type of quasi-protestant, free-thinking, scientific organisation they wanted to create. Later, as Masonry developed, the rituals matured into the various forms we have today, and contain many symbols of exquisite beauty and meaning because of the work put into their creation by many generations of well-informed Masons.

OK, that's what I know and believe of Masonry. Now, how does your theory fit in? I hope this is enough info for you to work with. I assure you, whatever theory you have to give will be gratefully received and thoughtfully applied.

P.S. I am now going to bed, as it is surprisingly late, and I am back from working and eating hard at my Chapter meeting


[edit on 18-6-2004 by AlexKennedy]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I left a list of a history of the Knights of Templar and Order of the rose I think that spurred english freemasonry. But anyway prior to 1000 AD archaelogically speaking, Masonic lodges and wriiten symbols of initiation were found here throught North America. More recently the (anakazi indian). Masonry draws on many ancient rites. When I say Moor it is inclusive of ancient mayans olmecs even before the olmecs where many of today's present Masonic themes can be found in temples thousands of years old. Today's freemasonry is out of that culture and practice. England may have been the first public lodge but it doesn't mean it's roots begin there. At one time according to texts following Jesus life, Masonry wasn't even called that. It was also know as The Silent Brotherhood that supposedly Jesus was a member of.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Going to bed myself. Enjoy.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Moor. You are drawing on conspiracy foundations to base you argument upon.
"Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" is a work of fiction and your theory that Western masonry was founded by the KTs is also very open to question.

The early North American masonry that you are referring to is only your interpretation. There is absolutely no valid evidence that freemasonry began outside of Europe. I agree, that it is a possibility. But that's all that it is - a possibility. You can't argue your corner as if it is fact because you don't have any.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Moor. You are drawing on conspiracy foundations to base you argument upon.
"Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" is a work of fiction and your theory that Western masonry was founded by the KTs is also very open to question.

The early North American masonry that you are referring to is only your interpretation. There is absolutely no valid evidence that freemasonry began outside of Europe. I agree, that it is a possibility. But that's all that it is - a possibility. You can't argue your corner as if it is fact because you don't have any.

Holy Blood Holy Grail is just one book of many. If you believe freemasonry originated in Europe you may check that theory as well. Egypt is know to have practiced the craft long before 1717 as again wriiteen scrolls and archaelogical evidence of secret chambers and initiation rites have been uncovered. You say I dont have any fact but where is yours. You are only telling me what you have been taught. Give me some reference or your point is no more valid thatn mine.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Oh and theses are not my theories as I am not the author of Holy Blood Holy Grail. Just because you are not open to other possibillities does not make everything that contradict your point fiction.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
Holy Blood Holy Grail is just one book of many. If you believe freemasonry originated in Europe you may check that theory as well. Egypt is know to have practiced the craft long before 1717 as again wriiteen scrolls and archaelogical evidence of secret chambers and initiation rites have been uncovered. You say I dont have any fact but where is yours. You are only telling me what you have been taught. Give me some reference or your point is no more valid thatn mine.


Initiation rites into mystical traditions have occured in all ages in all nations. This, of course, is true of ancient Egypt.
But being initiated into a more or less secret rite does not make a person a Mason, nor does it make the organization he was initiated in Masonic.
It is true that Freemasonry had liberally borrowed from the symbols and rites of the past. But these rites of antiquity are not Freemasonry.
We know that Freemasonry began as a craftsmen’s guild in medieval England. We have the source documents of the Fraternity to prove this. We also have the Charters and Constitutions of the Mason’s Company of London, composed of operative stonemasons, who chartered all 4 Lodges that formed the first Grand Lodge in 1717.
Therefore, although we can look to the oriental nations of the past for many of our symbols and rites, those symbols and rites entered Freemasonry at a relative recent date, and Masonry can only trace her documented history to 14th century England. Modern Masonry’s mystic rites of initiation were introduced no earlier than the late 17th century, as is evidenced by Lodge minutes, Anderson’s Constitutions, and the writings of the other early Grand Lodge era Brethren.

Fiat Lvx.




[edit on 18-6-2004 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by MOOR45
Holy Blood Holy Grail is just one book of many. If you believe freemasonry originated in Europe you may check that theory as well. Egypt is know to have practiced the craft long before 1717 as again wriiteen scrolls and archaelogical evidence of secret chambers and initiation rites have been uncovered. You say I dont have any fact but where is yours. You are only telling me what you have been taught. Give me some reference or your point is no more valid thatn mine.


Initiation rites into mystical traditions have occured in all ages in all nations. This, of course, is true of ancient Egypt.
But being initiated into a more or less secret rite does not make a person a Mason, nor does it make the organization he was initiated in Masonic.
It is true that Freemasonry had liberally borrowed from the symbols and rites of the past. But these rites of antiquity are not Freemasonry.
We know that Freemasonry began as a craftsmen’s guild in medieval England. We have the source documents of the Fraternity to prove this. We also have the Charters and Constitutions of the Mason’s Company of London, composed of operative stonemasons, who chartered all 4 Lodges that formed the first Grand Lodge in 1717.
Therefore, although we can look to the oriental nations of the past for many of our symbols and rites, those symbols and rites entered Freemasonry at a relative recent date, and Masonry can only trace her documented history to 14th century England. Modern Masonry’s mystic rites of initiation were introduced no earlier than the late 17th century, as is evidenced by Lodge minutes, Anderson’s Constitutions, and the writings of the other early Grand Lodge era Brethren.

Fiat Lvx.




[edit on 18-6-2004 by Masonic Light]

Oh, I am not doubting that modern freemasonry started in england. But even as you must agree if the rituals and symbols have been borrowed from something archaic, is that not the source? As I stated before, many different names were used for the craft, such as the silent brotherhood. It may take on a different name but does not mean as an entity known to us in modern times, that it is the first. That's al I mean. But look back as I talk about the books that discuss the several orders and supposedly gave birth to the Scottish Rite. Order of the Rose, etc. These were around in the late 14th and 15th centuries.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Aloso I do not mean because one is initiated in a secret society that he is a mason. That is common sense. But the shared rituals does form a common bond whehter it's freemasony or Rosicrucians or any other organization. If a man shares the same rituals of initiation, what you call yourself is inconsequential to what your purpose is as a raised individual. Make sense?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
No one made any mention of the fact that all the secret societies all seemed to be based somehow in astrology and alchemy. They all have these symbols involved in their societies even the Jesuits!! The more I have been researching it the more I find there are only 3 societies.

The Freemasons, the Illuminati, and the Jesuits. The Illuminati hate the Jesuits, the Jesuits don't find them as a threat right now, so they do nothing about them. But the Jesuits have know that some of them are Freemasons and the Jesuits use the Freemasons. But then the Freemasons also use the Jesuits in return.

It is one big triangle. no pun intended..lol...

I have been really studing Nostradamus and I find more and more it seems he is discribing a war between the three societies. I find it really strange that when people have interpreted Nostradamus that they don't look at the fact that he was trained in Alchemy and astrology. And most likely had a clue about these people back then.
To me it seems the fight between the Jesuits and the Freemasons are over Solomon's Temple and who should have it. And the Illuminati just want both parties gone so they can rule.

One thing I wanted to correct that I saw in some of the first posts was that Freemasons are only white, this is not true. Illuminati are only white, but there have been plenty of black men that were Freemasons, just never very high, I think it was like 2 33rd degree masons were ever black. They do let women in to some of the lower organizations too just not into the freemasons themselves. THe Rosecruisians and The Oder of the Golden Dawn allow women, they are just the low levels of Illuminati.
I keep you posted on anything else I decipher out of Nosradamus, I have found it to be my new hobby.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoddessSekhmet
To me it seems the fight between the Jesuits and the Freemasons are over Solomon's Temple and who should have it. And the Illuminati just want both parties gone so they can rule.


There is no fight between the Masons and the Society of Jesus over anything...much less the Temple of Solomon, which hasn’t existed in over 3000 years.


Illuminati are only white, but there have been plenty of black men that were Freemasons, just never very high, I think it was like 2 33rd degree masons were ever black.


Who told you that? Practically all the 33° members of the Prince Hall Scottish Rite Bodies are African-American. There are thousands of black 33° Masons.


THe Rosecruisians and The Oder of the Golden Dawn allow women, they are just the low levels of Illuminati.


The Illuminati had no ties to the Rosicrucians or the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (by the time the Golden Dawn was founded, the Illuminati had ceased to exist).
The Rosicrucians were a fraternity of Christian mystics, which existed before any of these other organizations were formed.
The Illuminati had loose ties to Freemasonry, but not Rosicrucianism. Beginning around 1779, the Illuminati began to illegally confer the Blue Lodge Degrees on its members.

Fiat Lvx.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Well the thing about the Temple is that thye are trying to rebuild it but the the Muslum dome is there. What better why to get rid of it then say have a war on Islam? Eventually it will happen the Jews have been pushing to have it rebiult for years.
And as far as the black Freemasons I was not sure I had only seen a few names of ones that were 33rd degree mason but plenty that were below.

I did know the 33rd degree was from the Scotish Right. My greatgrandfather had relitives in it and he made sure to all my aunts and grandmother never to marry a mason, that they were not to be trusted. I am wondering what he knew, he was from Scotland origanally.

I order of the Golden Dawn a lot older then the books Allestier Crowly wrote about. They date back to 1500's. They were part of an Alchemist group. Now the Rosecrusians were alot older, I am aware of that. there are records of them back as far as 950 ad from what I have read maybe even older. The two groups are strangly similar and the Illuminati never ended, just became more hidden. There are so many things that point to their exisitence that it can't be denied. But what is weird about the Illuminati is that they recruit from many places but I think rich and powerful is a prerequist.

I don't know I seem to be able to see connection, maybe I am psychic..LOL...all in good spirit.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
You say I dont have any fact but where is yours. You are only telling me what you have been taught. Give me some reference or your point is no more valid thatn mine.


I don't have to give references or offer fact. You are the one making the claim and therefore you are the one who has to supply the fact.
This is something that you have not done.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoddessSekhmet
Well the thing about the Temple is that thye are trying to rebuild it


Who is "they" (or "thye," if you prefer). What eveidence do you have that "they" are trying to rebuild it?



but the the Muslum dome is there.


The Dome of the Rock? The one next to the Al-Aqsa Mosque?

There's no evidence that Solomon's temple was located anywhere near where the Dome of the Rock is built. The Temple Mount is a big place, you know... the only reason for rebuilding the Temple in the same place as the Dome of the Rock seems to me to be that people just don't like the Dome of the Rock. It's a beautiful building, though.



What better why to get rid of it then say have a war on Islam?


I don't know if you're aware, but the Dome of the Rock is in Jerusalem, not the United States. The United States' "War on Islam" if such a think can be said to exist has very little bearing on policy in Isreal on this point: if the Israelis really wanted to tear down the Dome of the Rock, they could have done so years ago, but it would have led to animosity of grievous proportions.



Eventually it will happen the Jews have been pushing to have it rebiult for years.


Any evidence at all?



I did know the 33rd degree was from the Scotish Right. My greatgrandfather had relitives in it and he made sure to all my aunts and grandmother never to marry a mason, that they were not to be trusted.


I'm sorry to hear that your Great-Grandfather was a bigot and a fool. Still, we need not hold to the presumption of these things being hereditary, do we?



I am wondering what he knew, he was from Scotland origanally.


The Scottish Rite is from France, not Scotland. Sorry. Close, but no cigar.



I order of the Golden Dawn a lot older then the books Allestier Crowly wrote about. They date back to 1500's. They were part of an Alchemist group.


Do you have any evidence of this?



Now the Rosecrusians were alot older, I am aware of that. there are records of them back as far as 950 ad from what I have read maybe even older.


The fact that you don't know how to spell "Rosicrucians" makes me doubt that you have great insight into their history. What is this that you have read that says they go back to "950 AD?"



The two groups are strangly similar and the Illuminati never ended, just became more hidden.


Which two groups? Any evidence of the Illuminati "never ending?"



There are so many things that point to their exisitence that it can't be denied.


What "things" are those?



But what is weird about the Illuminati is that they recruit from many places but I think rich and powerful is a prerequist.


How do you know this?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by MOOR45
You say I dont have any fact but where is yours. You are only telling me what you have been taught. Give me some reference or your point is no more valid thatn mine.


I don't have to give references or offer fact. You are the one making the claim and therefore you are the one who has to supply the fact.
This is something that you have not done.

Yes I have. It may not quench your expectation but oh well I don't know what else to give you. I gave you just a fraction of references but other than you meeting me face to face and reading all the material I have this is as good as it gets. And you are presenting an argument that I am wrong. You are not supporting I am wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join