It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Origins of Masonry ( nothing to do with building, or is it)

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2004 @ 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Smudge
There appears to be a strong case for a relationship between Jesus and Mary M.
Jesus was a Rabbi yet we are told that he was celibate, not likely as the Jewish central theme is procreation.

I agree. The Bible doesn't actually say that Jesus is celibate and it would have been very unusual for a rabbi not to be married. The wedding at Canaa could actually have been Jesus' wedding and it has been discussed previously here on ATS.
It's probable that Magdalene's importance (she is the only woman in the Bible with a surname) was downplayed due to the view taken of women in religion back in history.

But as I stated, Magdalene does not feature in any masonic ritual to my knowledge, isn't the woman represented by the Black Madonnas and isn't an issue here.
If you're interested in the theory that she came to Europe though, you can read about it in "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by Baignent, Leigh and Lincoln. Personally, I reckon they over-reach too far in their book but it still makes interesting reading.

Although masons built the early churches, they did not place the black madonnas within them. As I said earlier, they were probably already on these sites prior to their becoming Christian places of worship. Christianity was a relative latecomer to Europe - up until the first millenium, paganism was widespread and, in some places, the main religion. Christianity was represented merely by a smattering of monasteries. A lot of people don't realise that Christian churches didn't actually start getting built until a thousand years after Christ and they think that they were built by the Catholic church, but this was not normally the case. Local communities paid for their own churches and they were seen as a matter of prestige. If a local landowner put money into his community's church, he could also gain power and influence as the Church would reward him favourably. But obviously, building a new church from the ground up comes at a heavy price, so the cheapest and easiest way to create a new building was to use a site that was already set up by the old pagan religions, instead of starting from scratch. It is highly likely that parts of the older building and some of it's objects and relics would have been adapted to the newer - if only as a cost cutting measure.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 06:41 PM
Now I'm going to speak some jibberish, and you are going to wrack your brains out to find any points of light that may peak through and see if we can get somewhere with this under cover secret society.

Lucifer was called the gaurding angel over the temple of God. Now they have compared Lucifer to the star Venus. He was known to be beautiful. Now beauty is generally a female trait. Perhaps he is on the mothers side and the mother is actually the ruler of hell. And so he had to fall, and now who is the protector of the secrets? Who's the Veil? The black and the white pillar of the veil? If God is the masculine and Michael is there, and Lucifer is feminine, then who is the mother?

Lucifer is known as the thinker, the office type, the socializer, the charming, the beautiful. He loses his temper and acts insane. Alot of women do this when they're Whereas Michael usually keeps his cool and doesn't go over board. Alot of these freemasons I think, are under his image. And others are under the Luciferic image. I don't know how this all fits in with the John the Baptist...except that this is a different side of it all. The Lord influence.

But then again, I don't know how this fits in then, by Steiner...The influences of Lucifer. The influences of Christ and then the influences of Ahriman. I would think that Ahriman was masculine, and Lucifer was feminine. Because it seems that Ahriman takes over the influence of the world while Lucifer takes a seat further back. But then they are friends. Or they have made friends with each other. And the strangest thing is that Jesus loves both of them. It goes way beyond physical human mind understanding. The thing seems to be covered over so much, it's hard to get to the facts.'s difficult to spread open like a deck of cards. It could be dangerous. In fact, I'm not even going to say anything about the Mother!

Oh, one more thing. I think Jesus IS the God. He just couldn't say it over and over and over again to minds that weren't listening. Or they would have stoned Him before He did what was in His Plan to do.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:01 PM
Tesla, that sounds the most plausible Jesus story yet, and is precisely what I am looking into interesting isn't it.

Leveller I am not trying to say that the modern Masons are in any way implcated in this ideology and are trying to hide it.
Merely that they are an end of the evolutionary line of " secret societies " that seem to have started as a way of protecting some sacred knowledge. The sort of knowledge the church did not want spread around. That knowledge has reported to have been many things. So as we have Masons here today I thought that hidden somewhere in the ancient rituals may be some remnants of the original knowledge.
It does not in any way imply that you are all still guarding it, as I said before I think the system has become way to watered down over the years to have maintained any real continuity.
I do think that there is evidence however albeit tenuous that the knowledge was passed down through Gnostic rituals etc. and ends today with the modern Masons.
Who knows maybe one of these outlandish fringe groups shunned by the mainstream Masons really do have an original version of events enshrined in their rituals.
Or even better as Grand Master or deep within their fraternity descendants of Christ.
It is more likely that Mary Magdalene is the Mary related to the Isis, Black Maddona cults. Often in Godess worship there are sex rites, this is not acceptable with the virgin mother of christ in the role, however, replace her with the Magdalene and we see already her refered to as a whore, ( often translated as high priestess ) and with an almost equal status to Peter she is high enough in the pecking order to be worshiped. The Virgin Mary is clearly an after thought for the whole story. Here we have Jesus, his cousin and his wife as leaders of a rebel movement so revolutionary for its time that they are remembered for thousandsof years to come.However its not until 70 to 100 yrs after the event they start to gather writings about them. Someone wants to know about his lineage and the church transplants an existing image onto the story. That of Isis and Horus. Familiar with the plot the people gobble it up.
And viola
"...Jesus mum was a virgin you know...yeah... and he was born in a manger."
" well I never...I always thought he was special..."
you get the gist.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:07 PM
Sam your either hiding something special, or you are a very good bluffer. U2U me a clue PPPLEEEASSSEEEE. pretty please.

A proper clue, none of that...
My mother is the wife of your brother, who's head shall be forever with the dancer...and behold men shall seek but through their arrogance be defeated bowllocks.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Leveller
The Bible doesn't actually say that Jesus is celibate and it would have been very unusual for a rabbi not to be married.

Thats true, but rabbi doesnt necessarily mean the same thing now as it did in the context of Jesus time. The word today usually denotes an ordained minister of God in the faith of Judaism, while this term as was applied to Christ appears to have been the generic teacher.
I think for a long time it was just assumed by many that Jesus was celibate, for two reasons. Firstly, the Essenes took vows of celibacy, and some historians believe that Jesus was of this sect. In the Scriptures, Jesus is constantly criticizing the Pharisees and Saducees, but is oddly quiet concerning the Essenes. Secondly, followers of Pauline Christianity believe that Jesus was literally the incarnate Son of God, and came in the flesh for the sole purpose of sacrificing himself. Were this the case, it would seem irresponsible to purposefully leave behind a wife and family with no care givers. After all, the Scripture informs us that Christ, while on the Cross, instructed John to take care of his mother Mary, but never mentioned a wife or child. The New Testament is also filled with allusions of a Mystical Marriage between Christ and the Church, where Christ is identified as the Bridegroom, ready to receive His Bride, the Congregation of Saints.
But this is not to say there may be no esoteric importance to the legend of a marriage union between Christ and Magdalene. If there is indeed an importance, perhaps we should not take the legend too literally, but symbolically, as it would seem to parallel the union between Osiris and Isis, whose Fruit was the Sun.

Fiat Lvx.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:18 PM
Hahaha. Your're so mean. The only reason I can't say what I have to say is because it would cause too much controversy. So I drone along on the most simple lines of expressing that I can without getting into too much trouble. Besides, I'm learning here too. I'm not knocking this down by my own desires. When I am misunderstood, which happens often, I don't say what I want to. I say what I have to. I would like to say what I wanted to, but that would be playing against the rules.

And I do get bored so easily. Back to the game. I want to mention that it is illegal to spill secrets. Now if one can create a story that helps another to grasp the knowledge therein because they have been searching for it, then that is a good thing. Yet if people who aren't there yet, and are not ready to hear these certain things, get a taste of's like poison. It won't only harm them, it harms the teller of the secret too. So I won't be going to hand anything that I keep secret out on a silver platter to anyone. When the time is right, then they'll get fed the appropriate amount of food for thought, whether by myself or another. And likewise me too. I also need to eat.

Now, I found a beautifully well written phrase, thanks to one of our ATS members who has shown me the link , from another website. I so thought this would be an appropriate paragraph to insert here now. I will leave the link out of respect for the one who wrote it.

Here it is...

"There is a single event coming which none of us can escape that is designed to change the world as we know it, after which, a King is to return descending from the Holy Lineage of Israel to whom is seemingly given every Godly wisdom and temperance to a weak darkened world in need of such a leader of Light, a 'Resitiutor Orbis' to some, a Messiah to all, yet there are two Messiahs who will fufill this prophecy. Twin Morning Stars, the Old Ones, one of God's Holy Light, the other from Satan's eternal void, humankind between them. The resulting paradigm created means the choices you make now in the present, as an individual, are important as to which one will ultimately prevail, for you."

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:54 PM
Wow, now that is a lot to be getting on with.
Thanks Sam.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Smudge

It is more likely that Mary Magdalene is the Mary related to the Isis, Black Maddona cults.

I'm sorry, I disagree.
As it is, the Black Madonnas being Isis is only a theory. But the theory is that they represent Mother Mary.
As I said, there are too many similarities between the Madonna and Isis and not enough between Magdalene and Isis. All of the scholars who have put forward the theory agree that it is the Madonna.

The vast majority of pagan rituals were not sex cults and it is only through more recent interpretation (ie since paganism has been stifled) that Magdalene was given the impression of being a prostitute.

Masonic Light: I agree with you on the symbology. Although Jesus may have been an Essene he may also have been from a religious sect within that faith. Even as an Essene it would not have been unheard of to be married. There were two branches of the Essene creed - Ossaeans and Nasaraeans. Although the Ossaeans encouraged celibacy, equally the Nasaraeans encouraged marriage. We also have "Jesus of Nazareth" and as the town didn't exist in Jesus' time, might it be likely that this is from whence the name derived?

The NT is also very unusual in that it doesn't say that Jesus was celibate. As marriage and procreation was the norm of the time, surely it would have warranted mention?

But I digress. My personal belief is that Jesus was a man. His story was taken, embellished and given the symbolism that you refer to, but changed again at a later date. Although I have a lot of love and respect for the idea of Jesus, I can't help but think that the actual, historical figure would have been totally different from the one that we know today.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 07:19 PM
The association with actual stonemasons are based in reality.
There were two pillars carved with the underlying principles of the UNiverse; Mathetmatics, geometry, astronomy, astrology, etc. These two pillars were lost in the great flood(s) that overtook the earth.
After the floods, the great sciences were all brought together in physical form in the construction of the building itself. A pyramid will align with the stars, will contain inherent geometric data in its construction, and can calculate the position of constellations. The Mayans built entire cities that mimic the sky, and predict eclipses as well as serve as calenders.
It was believed that if a building could bring together these sciences, on a holy or special geographic location (for instance,Stonehenge is the only place on dry land that the paths of the sun and moon create a rectangle), then that building could serve as a device to understand (be closer) to God

the Feminine aspects of Humanitys history are more interesting, and frightening. The oldest known church is on Malta, and is in the form of a womans body. to enter you pass between her legs, down into the earth. fascinating. it took several hundred years to build out of solid rock. The great early agrarian cultures were all goddess worshiping, there are thousands of small to massive statues carved to reflect the feminine form. The summerian culture brought the matriachal system to a head; women ran political offices, ran many business, and created the first known brewery. we do not know what caused the fall of sumer yet.
Greece was the first culture to create the patriachal system. the most oppressing aspect were the witch burnings in Europe during the early middle ages...some estimates are over 1 million women killed over 250 years....tragedy upon tragedy, many killed were midwives that died with thousands of years medical knowledge... tragic.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 08:49 PM
I am a Knight of St. Andrew, a Master Mason and a 32nd Degree Mason, so I have some knowledge of the subject.

The Masons trace their origins to the builders of King Solomon's Temple. Secrecy became a part of their craft to protect their jobs, allowing them to travel and be recognized as such by others in their crafts as builders and mathematicians.

Masons today are not necessarily architects, engineers or mason-workers as they were in olden times. The principal requirement is a sincere belief in a Creator, the Great Architect of the Universe.

Yes, they have many secrets unknown to the public at large, and the organization is worldwide. And yes, many Masons hold positions of power around the globe. (See a list of famous masons by visiting But they are not attempting to control the world.

A group that departed the Masonic Order did, as a matter of historical record, attempt to take over governments, but the Masonic Order itself - nor any of its members - didn't participate in any of those actions.

Robert Walker O'Neal, MS-M

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 06:22 AM
Yes the Masons are builders. I believe they built the Pyramids if I am not Mistaken. They are still building Pyramids if you know what I mean;-)

I am of the Opinion that Raw Occult Power should be separate from
Raw Political Capitalistic Power. The concept of separation between
Church & State is a valid Idea BTW - they came up with it for a good reason. Otherwise we would be having constant "Crusades" - woops!
Ok who am I kidding - it would be nice if they were separated - but it never has been!!! It is just the nature of the World we live in I guess - everything is constantly Mixing & Mingling & Changing & Evolving. This is called the "Brotherhood of Man" - and so we have the Order of the Illuminati (which did mingle) & we will always have the Illuminati in one form or another!!!

-"E Pluribus Unum"

P.S. What is the big deal if Jesus did have Sex with Mary Magdalene? Was he not a "HuMan" become "Divine". It is a NATURAL thing to have Sex. Humans do it & Animals do it too! I am so sick of the
"Oh so Holier/Moral/Righteous than Thou" Orthodox trying to make us feel Guilty on this issue! Like we are Evil or something because we are Sexually Active. If it is done as an act of LOVE - Sexual Union can also be a
Powerful Union with the Divine! The Orthodox will never understand this!!!

-"Little children LOVE one another"!

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 11:08 AM
Your kinda missing the point with the whole Jesus sex thing.
The people interested whether he did or not are trying to use the answer to shape an entire ideaology.
Those that say he did not, claim he was the true son of God and was raised into heaven, and worship accordingly.
Those, like myself, that say he was probably a real man with real urges that happened also to be the greatest revolutionary of his time, are more interested in the reason behind the greatest conspiracy of all time.
What was it so dangerous about the real man and his followers, to his new church heirachy, that they doctered scriptures erased people from events and set about a two thousand year persecution of women and secret societies.
Which brings us rather neatly back to the subject at hand.
What information did the secret societies have that forced them to be so secret?
Were they genuinley builders, their secrets lodged firmly in their architecture?
Or was the organisation protecting something else hidden deeper within the groups.
If this latter was true is the original information/beliefs still available today through rites and ceremonies or has it been to watered down by years of break away groups and re definition of the entire reason detre.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Smudge

Which brings us rather neatly back to the subject at hand.
What information did the secret societies have that forced them to be so secret?
Were they genuinley builders, their secrets lodged firmly in their architecture?

They had to be secret. If you study the history of Orthodox Christianity, you can see that there is a lot in there that is just entirely illogical, impossible and unthinkable. Yet the Church was forcing people to believe in lies and if they even showed a glimmer of disagreement, they were put to death.
When you have such a situation as this, nothing can progress - even science was not allowed, as it may have found answers that disagreed with Church thinking. Any deviation from Church doctrine had to be kept secret.
Once Orthodoxy became the norm, man was literally stifled of free thought. We call the Dark ages "dark" because they literally were, in the context of thought. In my opinion, orders such as Freemasonry sprang up to counter this stifling of mankinds very essence - his freewill, his imagination and his very ability to think for himself.
Without a doubt - freemasons were also genuine builders. There is evidence of masons being teachers on the architectural sites that they built.

I do not dispute a feminine side to Christianity, but I do believe that you are looking in the wrong place when you look at Magdalene. She may well have been Jesus' wife, but she was not in anyway divine - nor was Jesus himself until well into the 4th Century, after the Council of Nicea. The conspiracy surrounding Magdalene concerns her as a physical force - the possible heir to Jesus's bloodline and therefore a continuation of royal blood. She is not a figure that would merit worship as a divinity; early Christians didn't look at Jesus as divine and they certainly wouldn't have looked on Magdalene as anything else other than a royal personage. If you're taking the view that she is Isis, it actually contradicts the argument. Isis was viewed as divine. The Virgin Mary, on the other hand, could be viewed as being at least semi-divine as her recent elevation to Imaaculate Mother of God by the Vatican shows.
It should also be remembered that it is The Virgin Mary who is always said to appear in the visions that have supposedly occured throughout history, therefore reinforcing her status as a goddess figure. Coincidentally, the majority of these visions occured in Middle Ages France, right in the area where the Black Madonnas are more populous.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Leveller]

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 11:24 PM
It seems that you are a little contradictory in your aproach. On the one hand as a practicing mason you accept the church's interference in religious history was such that groups of highly intellectual and influential men and women were forced to start secret societies, on the pain of death, to pursue spiritual and scientific knowledge outside of orthodox christianity. Yet you are unable to accept that the church's account of visions and their insistence on the importance of The Virgin Mary are anything more than manipulation of the story, to suit the structure of a corrupt organisation who in the early days would do anything, including wholesale slaughter of entire villages,( see beziers ) to maintain control.
I cannot accept that a woman was visited by an angel who told her to expect a child, and then went on to give birth to the son of God.
This kind of story is more akin to the myth like legends of an older time. Legends like Gilgamesh, Achillies etc. fanciful tales to fill the people with awe and often dread.
To that end I find it more likely that it was an invention at the time of writing,( 50 -100 yrs after the event) to give colour to an otherwise ordinary story by modern standards.
My fascination with Mary Magdalene comes from the insistence of the Church that she was irrelevant, whilst being prominent enough to have a surname and be the first person to see the resurected Christ etc. etc. etc.
I maintain that the relationship and perhaps the practices of Jesus and Mary M demand further scrutiny. Unfortunately this is impossible due to the total control over documents and transcripts within the Vatican library, itself a reason for suspicion.
That Jesus was a great man with the desire to free his people and educate them in the process, is in no doubt. However I feel his original teachings have been the subject of selective representation and misinterpretation, resulting in a contradictory book that would be comical were it produced today as proof of anything other than the authors obvious insanity.
The truth will probably never be known. However I look elsewhere than the church when I'm looking for it, simply based on their early record. Please let it be noted that mine is only a historical interest, and accept that the modern church is full of good people with honest intentions and solid morality. I will continue to look for anomolies and alternative accounts untill my suspicions are satisfied. I will not, take anything the church say's for fact unless I feel I can corroborate it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in