Where it all started..........

As a few of you know as you recomended it i am reading Born in Blood, which supports the theory that masons got there start with the Knights Templar. I wanted to know from the Freemasons on this site or anybody else into History how do you believe Masonry started??

Our oldest documents are the Regius Manuscript and Gothic Constitutions, which show there were Masonic organizations in England in the 13th century. According to the Regius Manuscript, King Athelstan organized a Masonic assembly in the 9th century, but it is not known whether this is a fact or a legend.

Some of these Masonic guilds of the middle ages evolved into the Masons Company of London, which was chartered by King James I. Although the Masons Company consisted strictly of stonemasons at first, they are very important in Masonic history because they chartered the 4 London Lodges that eventually formed the world�s first Grand Lodge in 1717, and they admitted the first non-stonemason that we have evidence of, this being Brother Elias Ashmole, a noted antiquarian, mathematician, Rosicrucian, mystic, and professor of physics and philosophy at Oxford University. Ashmole was initiated in the late 1600�s, and some Masonic historians believe that he helped shape the fraternity into what it is today (i.e., from a guild of stone and brick masons into a philosophical fraternity).

Fiat Lvx.


[edit on 19-6-2004 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by ANTONIO
As a few of you know as you recomended it i am reading Born in Blood, which supports the theory that masons got there start with the Knights Templar. I wanted to know from the Freemasons on this site or anybody else into History how do you believe Masonry started??

Greetings Brethren and Fellows,
A good friend of mine, WBro. John Karnes; knew John Robinson... I shall quote John Karnes from here on in...

Posted by John Karnes on the Sephirotic Order
John Robinson (upon whom be peace) was a friend of mine and had an interesting style of writing. However, you'll find very little Masonic "Light" in this book. Robinson (who was not a Mason at the time of writing this book) took a lot of liberties and made a LOT of assumptions, speculations, etc. ...which,sadly, he wrote to be fact. Again, it's an interesting book, but serious Masonic research it isn't.

I was quite disapointed after hearing this as I did enjoy Born in Blood, even if it was pure speculation.

Regards,
Bro. Daniel Brown

Hello,
Have you read a book called "The Hiram Key"?
It contains some very interesting theories about the roots of freemasonry, it was also written by 2 masons, so i feel there is a possibility it could be biased.
Apologies if that offends any of you masons.

Originally posted by ANTONIO
As a few of you know as you recomended it i am reading Born in Blood, which supports the theory that masons got there start with the Knights Templar. I wanted to know from the Freemasons on this site or anybody else into History how do you believe Masonry started??

I dont know much about the mason/templar connection but I now that the Templars started as an Order before the crusades to protect the pilgrams going to Israel (just like the Hospitalars, knights of malta.) I beleive they where called the poor knights since they owned nothing and vowed to poverty. When the crusades started is when the knightood orders began to aquire land.

Originally posted by Decretal

Originally posted by ANTONIO
As a few of you know as you recomended it i am reading Born in Blood, which supports the theory that masons got there start with the Knights Templar. I wanted to know from the Freemasons on this site or anybody else into History how do you believe Masonry started??

Greetings Brethren and Fellows,
A good friend of mine, WBro. John Karnes; knew John Robinson... I shall quote John Karnes from here on in...

Posted by John Karnes on the Sephirotic Order
John Robinson (upon whom be peace) was a friend of mine and had an interesting style of writing. However, you'll find very little Masonic "Light" in this book. Robinson (who was not a Mason at the time of writing this book) took a lot of liberties and made a LOT of assumptions, speculations, etc. ...which,sadly, he wrote to be fact. Again, it's an interesting book, but serious Masonic research it isn't.

I was quite disapointed after hearing this as I did enjoy Born in Blood, even if it was pure speculation.

Regards,
Bro. Daniel Brown

Bro Daniel,

A lot of people are intrigued by books like Born In Blood & The Hiram Key, until further research shows them for what they really are. But as I've said many times, they ARE entertaining...and in some ways they do make you think. ..But one must go a bit further and not take them at face value. Masonic origins are lost in our history (which is food for anti-Masonic drivel...) Unfortunately many people (like Knight & Lomas) have taken this and fabricated their own "facts" since many actual facts are lacking in our history.

As a side note, I keep my copies of John J. Robinson's books on the shelf behind my library table with other Masonic books. I set a fern on my copy of The Hiram Key in the window-seat so it (the fern) can get "more light".

Fraternally,

Senrak (John Karnes)

Originally posted by senrak

As a side note, I keep my copies of John J. Robinson's books on the shelf behind my library table with other Masonic books. I set a fern on my copy of The Hiram Key in the window-seat so it (the fern) can get "more light".

Fraternally,

Senrak (John Karnes)

You may want to keep an 'eye' on that fern least it secretly 'tap-root' into the book and gain some free growth! Could get spooky. (masonic humor)

A free growing fern just wouldn't fit in.

I kind of enjoyed The Temple adn the Lodge by Baigent and Leigh, especially Ch. 14 through the end of the book, which talks about the masonic influences on BOTH sides of the war for independence... and documents the masonic influence on the formation of the United States...

According to all of the established works on Freemasonry (as opposed to Stone Masonry Guilds) there is no defined earliest date but the "paper chase" ends in France in the mid 1600s.
One would tend to draw for lack of better evidence that this is where it originates.
The rituals in both the Scottish Rite and the original French Rite of Perfection revolve heavily around the events and beliefs of the Knights Templar who were disbanded 300 years earlier although the lower degrees are so deliberately distorted to �conceal the truth� that they are not readily apparent as such.
Albert Pike believes that the "...Freemasons were the Templars under a hood..." but it is more likely that they are a resuscitation rather than a continuation of the original group.
Many authors, both Masonic and otherwise suggest that �Bonnie Prince Charlie� of the exiled Stuart family introduced the cult to the United Kingdom and that the �Chevalier� Ramsey adapted the Rite to the customs of the British people, hence �The Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.�
Another figures of note is �Fredrick the Great� of Germany who was both the founder of modern Germany and the original patron of German Freemasonry, arguably the first �export� of the Scottish Rite which has since spread to many countries throughout the world.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
According to all of the established works on Freemasonry (as opposed to Stone Masonry Guilds) there is no defined earliest date but the "paper chase" ends in France in the mid 1600s.

There are no "established works on Freemasonry" that make such a ridiculous claim. Freemasonry did not enter France until the late 1720's, nearly a decade after the first Grand Lodge was founded in 1717. In the 1600's, there was no Freemasonry in France, nor was there any Freemasonry there before the 1600's. There was the Masons Company of London, which had been chartered by King James, and it was a stonemasons guild in England. It was this body that chartered the four Lodges that eventually became the premiere Grand Lodge.
Until the early 18th century, Freemasonry was completely a British phenomenon.

One would tend to draw for lack of better evidence that this is where it originates.

Fortunately, as mentioned above, there is much evidence to the contrary.

The rituals in both the Scottish Rite and the original French Rite of Perfection revolve heavily around the events and beliefs of the Knights Templar who were disbanded 300 years earlier although the lower degrees are so deliberately distorted to �conceal the truth� that they are not readily apparent as such.

The so-called "Templar legend" of Masonry was introduced into the fraternity long after the original degrees were established, i.e., Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason, and Templarism had no influence on them whatsoever. Your mislabeling them as "lower degrees" is extremely deceitful in this regard, as at the time, this was the only Freemasonry in existence.

Albert Pike believes that the "...Freemasons were the Templars under a hood..." but it is more likely that they are a resuscitation rather than a continuation of the original group.

Pike believed no such thing, and your misquoting from p. 814 of Morals and Dogma is once again deceitful.
Pike wrote there that "An hundred years ago it had become known that the Kadosh were the Templars under a veil, and therefore the Degree (Pike refers to the 30� of the Scottish Rite) was proscribed..."
Pike here indicates that it became known that the degree of Knight Kadosh was an attempt to revive the Templars...he never said anything about "Freemasons were the Templars under a hood", as Necros falsely claims.

Many authors, both Masonic and otherwise suggest that �Bonnie Prince Charlie� of the exiled Stuart family introduced the cult to the United Kingdom and that the �Chevalier� Ramsey adapted the Rite to the customs of the British people, hence �The Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.�

I do not know of a single authority who holds such an easily disprovable opinion. To begin with, Prince Charles Edward Stuart (the so-called "Bonnie Prince") was not a Freemason. On top of that, Freemasonry was alive and well in England long before his birth.
Secondly, the Scottish Rite was founded in Charleston, South Carolina in the United States in 1801 by 11 American Masons. Once again, I would suggest your "research" is somewhat less than commendable.

Another figures of note is �Fredrick the Great� of Germany who was both the founder of modern Germany and the original patron of German Freemasonry, arguably the first �export� of the Scottish Rite which has since spread to many countries throughout the world.

It's amazing that you've managed to convey so many lies in a single sentence. I suppose this itself is worthy of respect, since it shows hard work in perfecting the art of disinformation.
To begin with, Frederick the Great was not the "founder of modern Germany". He was the king of Prussia, just like his father and grandfather. Secondly, he was not the "original patron of german Freemasonry"; Masonry had existed in Germany almost 50 years before Frederick was even initiated; by the time Frederick became a Mason, other great Germans such as Mozart, Bach, and Goethe had become patrons of the Craft.
Lastly, although Frederick was a Mason, he was not a Scottish Rite Mason, nor did the Scottish Rite exist in the German states in any form during Frederick's reign.

Fiat Lvx.

Where does one start on this - try Google for information about "Frederick The Great" who is largely regarded as both the founder of Modern Germany and German Freemasonry.

To clarify Masonic Lite's usual ambiguous and deliberate disinformation regarding my posts - "The Scottish Rite" appears to have been written by Ramsey, prior to its completion there were only 3 degrees in English Freemasonry, most likely the early French Rite of Perfection Degrees were used for the higher lodges if any existed in the UK.

McClenechan amongst others makes the statement about the Stuarts in the "History" section of "the Book of The Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry."
The was a link here to the actual pages but my personal webspace has been shut down since I no longer use my old ISP - they will return.

I have not found any reference to "Freemasonry" prior to 1648, if you know of any (not "Stone Masonry Guilds") then let me know.

As far as the Kadosh bit "potato potato, tomato tomato."
Ironically Masonic Lite has actually agreed with my statement while at the same time saying I am wrong.
Maybe it is wrong for me to assume that the "Kadosh" is a refernece to "Freemasons", but I can't see any other way of interpreting it.
In any case at least he agrees that it is a resusitation of their ideaology ... or does he?
Oh yeah that's right, all the "Higher Degrees" (heck, these exact words are
used in the aformentioned passages) are just re-itterations of those contained in the Blue Degrees, (even though Pike also explicitly says otherwise in these passages again.)

Masonic Lite - just like a beer...only...lighter.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Where does one start on this - try Google for information about "Frederick The Great" who is largely regarded as both the founder of Modern Germany and German Freemasonry.

Frederick the Great is not largely regarded as any such thing, except maybe by a few high school drop-outs on the Internet, who know about as much about history as �Mr. Necros�.. Modern Germany was unified by Bismarck, long after Frederick's death.
As for Freemasonry, Frederick received all three degrees at Brunswick Lodge on August 14, 1738, with the Baron von Biefeld presiding as Worshipful Master. It is obvious to anyone with common sense that Freemasonry had already been �founded� in Prussia for this to have occurred.

To clarify Masonic Lite's usual ambiguous and deliberate disinformation regarding my posts - "The Scottish Rite" appears to have been written by Ramsey, prior to its completion there were only 3 degrees in English Freemasonry, most likely the early French Rite of Perfection Degrees were used for the higher lodges if any existed in the UK.

And to clarify Necros� usual nonsense concerning his attempts to rewrite history, there was no Scottish Rite before 1801, and even then it existed in the United States only. The Chevalier Michael Andrew Ramsey was never a member of the Scottish Rite; it is possible that he was a member of the Rite of Perfection, but this is only speculation since there is no evidence to confirm this.
It was widely believed by some Masonic writers in the 19th century that Ramsey may have composed Templar degrees, but this theory has since been discredited by serious Masonic historians.

What is known is that Ramsey once gave a speech to a French Lodge where he introduced the theory that Freemasonry had derived from medieval knights during the Crusades. This appears to be the first time in history that someone had suggested this, although Ramsey did not mention he Knights Templar in particular. Practically all historians believe that the new Templar degrees were then introduced into the various Rites by people who had been influenced by Ramsey, and not by Ramsey himself, and it was these Ramseyites (who were also generally Jacobites) who used the Knights Templar instead of Ramsey�s ambiguous �crusading knights�. Ramsey�s speech can be read in full in �Beneath The Stone: The Story of Masonic Secrecy� by C. Bruce Hunter, a non-Masonic author who has written several books on the history of the Fraternity.

amongst others makes the statement about the Stuarts in the "History" section of "the Book of The Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry."

An entire library of nonsense has been written trying to connect the Stuart dynasty with Freemasonry, all of which have been utterly discredited. The Young Pretender himself admitted near the end of his life that he had never been a Mason. The �Stuart Mason� theory arose from the fact that Ramsey served as the young Prince�s tutor for 6 months when the Prince was in his teens, but Ramsey himself was not a particularly active Jacobite.
There were, however, Jacobite Lodges in France. To them, Hiram Abiff was a symbol of the Young Pretender, and the raising in the Third Degree symbolized the return of Prince Charles Edward Stuart to the British throne. This Jacobite Masonry was short-lived, and was an innovation on the pure York Rite that Ramsey was a member of. The following quotes appear in �The Story of the Scottish Rite� by Harold Van Buren Voorhis, 33�:

�Put no trust whatever in accounts connecting the Stuarts with Freemasonry.� � George W. Speth

�All Statements respecting Prince Charles Edward Stuart and his relations with the Order are apocryphal and some of them most absurd.� � William J. Hughan

�Toward the end of his life Prince Charles Edward denied that he had ever been made a Mason, and according to Mr. D. Murray Lyon (another reputable Scottish Masonic historian) there is no evidence from any Scottish source that he was. The Jacobite cabinet of forgery was in France, and nowhere else.� � A.E. Waite
Bro. Voorhis then goes on to present the actual facts concerning Scottish Rite history, which were verified by other leading Masonic historians and scholars of the 20th century, including Coil and Newton.

Ihave not found any reference to "Freemasonry" prior to 1648, if you know of any (not "Stone Masonry Guilds") then let me know.

You must not be looking very hard. The Regius Manuscript, which gives the history of Freemasonry and is the oldest known Masonic document, is in the British Museum, and is dated circa 1350. The Cooke Manuscript is dated from the early 15th century, and the so-called �Grand Lodge Manuscript� (because it was in possession of the Masons Company of London when the first Grand Lodge was formed) is sated December 25, 1583.

As far as the Kadosh bit "potato potato, tomato tomato."
Ironically Masonic Lite has actually agreed with my statement while at the same time saying I am wrong.
Maybe it is wrong for me to assume that the "Kadosh" is a refernece to "Freemasons", but I can't see any other way of interpreting it.

I did not �agree� to your statement, I pointed out the fact that you were lying. You purposely misquoted Pike, making him say something he never did, to support your disinformation. I verified your one statement that the Kadosh was a revival of Templary instead of being a descendant of the original Templars, but you used this one fact to support your lie.
�Kadosh� is not a reference to Freemasons, because Freemasonry existed long before the Kadosh degree was invented. Necros had claimed that the �lower degrees� had been disfigured to conceal the Kadosh. In reality, there are no �lower degrees�, the Blue Lodge degrees remain as they always have been (i.e., original Freemasonry), and someone had just eventually invented a few Templar degrees to add to the system.

Masonic Lite - just like a beer...only...lighter.

And �Mr. Necros�, as the name implies: brain dead...only...slower.


[edit on 18-9-2004 by Masonic Light]

Actually Pike makes the claim that the truths of Freemasonry are contained in the "Higher Degrees" so does McClenechan.

I can't see the point of arguing any further about Frederick The Great, I fail to see why you want to pretend that he didn't begin the process of unifying Germany, ask pretty much any German about who he was and why he is "The Great."

Its a strange one to say that I'm lying over a text quote which you still can't explain, if the Kadosh isn't a reference to Freemasons then who is it referring to?

As far as the rest of your tripe, I'd recommend you having a quick read of the History section from "The Book of Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Freemasonry."

Of hang on thats right - you don't have access to a copy of it even though you originally claimed to have 2.
Now why would someone lie about owning a book?
Doesn't seem rational to me.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Actually Pike makes the claim that the truths of Freemasonry are contained in the "Higher Degrees" so does McClenechan.

He is speaking of the 4-32 degrees of Scottish Rite, which are expansions on the lessons taught in the first three degrees.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
I can't see the point of arguing any further about Frederick The Great, I fail to see why you want to pretend that he didn't begin the process of unifying Germany, ask pretty much any German about who he was and why he is "The Great."

That would be because he is right and you are wrong, but thanks for admitting it.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Its a strange one to say that I'm lying over a text quote which you still can't explain, if the Kadosh isn't a reference to Freemasons then who is it referring to?

Its not referring to masons. You are the one making the assertion, it is incumbent upon YOU to make your case, not for us to demolish your maunderings...

Originally posted by MrNECROS
As far as the rest of your tripe, I'd recommend you having a quick read of the History section from "The Book of Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Freemasonry."

Of hang on thats right - you don't have access to a copy of it even though you originally claimed to have 2. Now why would someone lie about owning a book? Doesn't seem rational to me.

Hmmm, well, I will leave that to him to defend...

So, Necros, were you assaulted and drugged by the Rosicrucians as you posted or by the masons as you posted, or was it by space aliens???

Come on now, don't keep it secret, tell us the real truth... for a change.

Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Actually Pike makes the claim that the truths of Freemasonry are contained in the "Higher Degrees" so does McClenechan.

Of course Pike said that Masonic truths can be found in the higher degrees of the Scottish Rite; I've said the same thing myself on here, many times. But that has nothing to do with the fact that you're concocting the most idiotic historical revisions to support your lies.

I can't see the point of arguing any further about Frederick The Great,

Neither can I. Everyone who has at least a high school diploma should know all of this already. And if they've forgotten, all they have to do is go to a library and check out a history book.

ts a strange one to say that I'm lying over a text quote which you still can't explain, if the Kadosh isn't a reference to Freemasons then who is it referring to?

Kadosh refers to one single degree (the 30th) in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (which, if I recall correctly, I've already said). Freemasonry existed long before the Kadosh degree was invented, so it is absurd to insinuate, as you have done, that Freemasonry is a front for the Kadosh degree.

As far as the rest of your tripe, I'd recommend you having a quick read of the History section from "The Book of Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Freemasonry."

And I would suggest that you toss that book (which almost universally ignored by the fraternity) to the side if you want to do some real research. The history of Freemasonry, and Scottish Rite in particular, has been treated extensively by scholars, but you seem to be completely unaware of the existence of these books...instead, you keep referring back to McLenachan's 100 + year old monitor which contains legends and lore, but is lacking in scholarly historical information.

I will repeat once again, McLenachan's book, which monitored an early version of the Rite in the Northern Jurisdiction and England, is of absolutely no consequence to anyone except those interested in early ceremonially variations of the Rite. The book is interesting in this regard, but is absolutely worthless if one is looking for Scottish Rite history. The established authorities on the history of Rite are the aforementioned Harold Van Buren Voorhis, 33� (who wrote "The Story of the Scottish Rite"), Henry Wilson Coil, 33� ("Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia"), and A.C.F. Jackson ("Rose Croix: History of the Ancient and Accepted Rite in England and Wales").
When you read these books, we'll talk...otherwise, you're doomed to keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, which has been debunked over and over.

Fiat Lvx.





[edit on 19-9-2004 by Masonic Light]

i see Mr. N has managed to hijack another thread and take it to who knows where . who knows when. Blimey nearly broke into song then.

He aint haevy , he's my Brother , Da da da da.

Back to the plot:

As a few of you know as you recomended it i am reading Born in Blood, which supports the theory that masons got there start with the Knights Templar. I wanted to know from the Freemasons on this site or anybody else into History how do you believe Masonry started??

ML gave you the start of the puzzle, for that in reality is what it is, there is no definite proof of any link between the Templars and the Masonic origin.

It is interesting however to find that the terms " Worshipful Master" are not actually exclusive to Masons or Stone Mason Guilds. They are in fact normal language for medieval England and France, The two Countries being hard to separate as one dominated then the other.

Try a search using Worshipful Company, you will find there are still many long established companies still today using this Title. Worshipful Company of furriers : In 1356 the furriers of the City of London were called together by the Mayor and established a fellowship. As a result of the Great fire of London 1666 little is known of what transpired in the next 300 or so years as the Company's records were destroyed. It is known that in 1692, the Company was, recorded by the Court of Aldermen, as having been in existence since 1356, as Marshalls of the City.

The Worshipful Company of Clockmakers etc. etc. So the many terms used in Masonry were not in fact solely used by masons. It is more likely therefore that the origins were from Guilds of Craftsmen of many and various skills. And as with most evolutionary processes, if it works copy it. I suggest this is what has happened.

There is some possibility that a similar line was taken from the Templars, or that those who s families were involved in the death strokes of the Templars may have been involved in Freemasonry at a later stage. That being more of a coincidence than a link. Unless they just all hid for 300 years.

The other rituals within Masonry are clearly copied from some of the State or royal ritual. That of Crowning a Queen or the opening of Parliament. For example Black Rod opens parliament by three knocks on the door with his "Black Rod" (Stick).

So if you look at these things without a predetermined concept you might just find that for the time they all started it was just common practice.

It was common practice in the 14th and 15 century in London , if found guilty of a crime you would be Hung , Drawn and Quartered. The searing of an Oath was also used at most State functions, in Court, the appointment of Government officers etc.

So to have an oath on the Bible, in Masonry, with a similar penalty would only seem odd at today�s standard.

so my opinion is that Freemasonry having been the product of necessity, has evolved over many hundreds of years taking the things that worked well from other groups , many of which have now ceased to exist.


[edit on 19-9-2004 by billmcelligott]

Masonic L
To begin with, Frederick the Great was not the "founder of modern Germany". He was the king of Prussia, just like his father and grandfather. Secondly, he was not the "original patron of german Freemasonry"; Masonry had existed in Germany almost 50 years before Frederick was even initiated; by the time Frederick became a Mason, other great Germans such as Mozart, Bach, and Goethe had become patrons of the Craft.

Frederick the Great is not largely regarded as any such thing, except maybe by a few high school drop-outs on the Internet, who know about as much about history as �Mr. Necros�.. Modern Germany was unified by Bismarck, long after Frederick's death.
As for Freemasonry, Frederick received all three degrees at Brunswick Lodge on August 14, 1738, with the Baron von Biefeld presiding as Worshipful Master. It is obvious to anyone with common sense that Freemasonry had already been �founded� in Prussia for this to have occurred.

What is in a name? While Frederick inarguably was the creator of Prussia as a �great power� this in and of itself was Germany. Much of what Frederick accomplished was undone by Napoleon- this does not detract Frederick's accomplishments.

To follow your logic(Masonic Light) one would have to conclude that Blucher was not German (in the modern sense of the term). Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Wikipedia on Germany

�The German language and the feeling of "Germanhood" go back more than a thousand years, but the state now known as Germany was unified as a modern nation-state only in 1871, when the German Empire, dominated by the Kingdom of Prussia, was forged. This was the second German Reich, usually translated as "empire", but also meaning "realm".
The first Reich � known for much of its existence as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation � stemmed from a division of the Carolingian Empire in 843, which was founded by Charlemagne on December 25th, 800, and existed in varying forms until 1806. �

Wikipedia on Prussia

In 1701 Brandenburg-Prussia became the Kingdom of Prussia under Frederick I, with the permission of the Holy Roman Emperor and Polish King. Under Frederick II (Frederick the Great), Prussia seized the province of Silesia from Austria, and defended it through the Seven Years War which ended in 1763 with Prussia as the dominant state of eastern Germany. Prussia also acquired various territories in other parts of Germany through marriage or inheritance, including Pomerania on the Baltic coast.

Another educator view of Frederick
He established the first German law code and enforced general education rules across Prussia. Frederick financed the rebuilding of towns through agricultural reforms and built thousands of miles of roads. Frederick built Prussia into one of the strongest nations in Europe and left a legacy of absolute devotion to the fatherland that continued to shape German history into the 20th century.

ML
I did not �agree� to your statement, I pointed out the fact that you were lying. You purposely misquoted Pike, making him say something he never did, to support your disinformation. I verified your one statement that the Kadosh was a revival of Templary instead of being a descendant of the original Templars, but you used this one fact to support your lie.

�lying�- such a harsh indictment.

No one can misquote Pike. The master plagerist is made up the 'philosophy' that is so often defended. He copied and misquoted from any and all material available to him in an effort to substantiate an abortive explanation and justification for and of his own creation.

A few source URLs to back up these claims would have been nice. Based upon the past I suppose luck has run with us and prevented more Pikeism from flowing on and on instead of legitimate sources.

ML
Of course Pike said that Masonic truths can be found in the higher degrees of the Scottish Rite; I've said the same thing myself on here, many times.

Such as what?

What masonic truth is there?

ML
Kadosh refers to one single degree (the 30th) in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (which, if I recall correctly, I've already said). Freemasonry existed long before the Kadosh degree was invented, so it is absurd to insinuate, as you have done, that Freemasonry is a front for the Kadosh degree.

And this is untrue?

Stelling.nl version of Ceremony of the Knioght of Kadosh
�I promise that I will be submissive and obedient to the Commander, and to my lawful superiors of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, and that I will strive to do my duty as a Knight Kadosh. �

Mrnecros
Its a strange one to say that I'm lying over a text quote which you still can't explain, if the Kadosh isn't a reference to Freemasons then who is it referring to?

It's probably �a secret�

Theron
So, Necros, were you assaulted and drugged by the Rosicrucians as you posted or by the masons as you posted, or was it by space aliens???

Come on now, don't keep it secret, tell us the real truth... for a change.

I just love the side-slam. Is this taught in some masonic ritual?

Originally posted by billmcelligottML gave you the start of the puzzle, for that in reality is what it is, there is no definite proof of any link between the Templars and the Masonic origin.

I can confirm this one.

I did a lot of research on the Knights Templar for an article I was writing, and found exactly what the Masons are saying: that there's absolutly no link between the Templars and the Masons.

For one thing, the Templars were a bunch of isolationist uber-monk warriors. I have it on good authority that the Masons aren't anywhere near that extreme level of religiosity and chauvanism. Templar practices were Catholic (and rather extremist Catholic) in contrast to the more liberal Protestant views and practices of the Masons.

The Catholics would not have given up their secrets to Protestants... if they gave them to anyone (doubtful) it would have been to an order of monks.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

Theron Dunn
So, Necros, were you assaulted and drugged by the Rosicrucians as you posted or by the masons as you posted, or was it by space aliens???

Come on now, don't keep it secret, tell us the real truth... for a change.

I just love the side-slam. Is this taught in some masonic ritual?

No, I posted his actual words... and he stands indicted by his own postings... or are you denying that he claimed that masons tried to force him for three years to join and that they used drugs on him, or his claim that it was Rosicrucians, or his later claim that it was masons?

Its not a side slam when you point out the truth, Michael.

by the way, how did the debate go? Did Most Worshipful hand you your head, or do you feel you prevailed?


[edit on 9/20/04 by theron dunn]

Originally posted by pbrez
I dont know much about the mason/templar connection but I now that the Templars started as an Order before the crusades to protect the pilgrams going to Israel (just like the Hospitalars, knights of malta.) I beleive they where called the poor knights since they owned nothing and vowed to poverty. When the crusades started is when the knightood orders began to aquire land.

They were not poor for long. They protected gold for the rich. They also charged the rich extra for protecting the gold (sound familiar? interest!). Then when they had enough they built little fortresses here and there so that the rich could go up to anyone of these fortresses and deposit/take out money. There you have the start of the banking system.

Also freemasonry itself is a new name compared to the practise behind it which some believe dates back before ancient Egypt.