John's Brother - John the Baptist - Freemasons, Templars & Leonardo DaVinci

reply to post by robertauthor

Snake like words? Such as?

Plus this thread wasn't started by a Freemason, or at least I don't think BeastMaster2012 is a Freemason last time I checked. Are you so weak in your faith you cannot bear to see discussion that might contradict your faith? If you faith and knowledge were well founded you would be able to articulate a well thought out argument instead of attacking the Freemasons.

Did John the Baptist go to hell... as only men of sin venture that dark doorway ...

So now you're hypothesizing that the man who baptized Jesus went to Hell?

Actually wouldn't the "as above, so below" rule go along with this verse:

Matthew 6:10 (Part of the Lord's Prayer) - Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Freemasons are about truth, love (aka charity towards mankind) and freedom. We're not claiming to be Christ like, but we are a good, moral organization. You have shown quite a bit in your post that you know nothing in regards to Freemasonry.

Originally posted by ShadowScholar
reply to post by Logarock

 

He did make the break and start following Jesus, and he also broke again after that and returned to being a fisherman and then afterwards came back to Jesus again.

Interestingly a fisherman is also the term for a Nazarene priest, with the congregation also known as the fish. John the fisherman is another reference to him also being a nazarene priest. When he left to become a fisherman again, this is reference to him continuing his work as a preacher within the nazorite faith.


It's good fun having this conversation with you by the way!

I take you to mean that with all the guys in the early church that were former John the Baptist followers ect that there remain a strong association with all things John. Yes I can see that.

And yes thank you. You have brought up an issue that has led me back to areas not visited for a long time!

Originally posted by moltquedelo
I was reading in "diagonal" posts in this thread and saw your posts and there is something blatant that disturbe me with them as it seemeed to me (sorry if im wrong about that feeling/observation) that never you mention the fact that Jesus was a JEW, that the people he was in relation/friendsip/conflict/etc most of the time were JEWS. No matter if Jesus was part of a reformist or marginal side of the jewish people/religion (or whatsoever jewish sect) when talking about him "historicaly" at least, I think it hard to omit totaly the fact he was a jew among others jews in a jewish country during his living.

edit on 14-1-2011 by moltquedelo because: (no reason given)

Yes you are certainly correct. When that term Jew is used it means really those of the synagogue or the sect of the Pharisees like ultra jews or something. I have often wondered why they didnt use a clearer term. This word use, as you may know, has lead some to even believe that Jesus wasnt a Jew! But this is just poor study. Maybe this word use should be pointed out when used in public.

reply to post by moltquedelo


Hi moltquedelo,

I did mention it once briefly

But yes of course he was from israel and hence jewish, i don't want to detract from that at all. The thing is though that he was of a certain sect within the nation of israel.

It's in this little nuance in history with which I am interested, not taking away from the jews at all I promise.

I suppose the difference would be like comparing christians, they're both christians but one is roman catholic and one is protestant. Which last time I checked could mean a helluva lot of difference.

Hope that makes sense to you

reply to post by Logarock


What you are saying is correct of course in regards to the early church but what I am alluding to is the fact that there was an older religion where these guys plied their trade, which was from a specific sect within Israel.

I get super specific because I like to see where the roots of the religion came from and follow the story backwards.

I guess my main point is there is good evidence linking Jesus and John to an older group of people who have largely been forgotten or not given the correct kudos for the part they played in history

Of course this history then becomes linked with freemasonry also, as Beastmaster2012 showed us by revealing the old title freemasons used back in the day.

It's been a revisit for me too, I haven't presented this information in awhile so it took awhile to get the gears going! Been good fun though!

i'm starting to see that John the Baptist is VERY important. Is there any way that the gnostics, or early christians/jews whatever they were believed in John the Baptist over Jesus? I see that the Mandeans believed in John the Baptist:

en.wikipedia.org...

Mandaeans recognize several prophets. Yahya ibn Zakariyya, known by Christians as John the Baptist, is accorded a special status, higher than his role in Christianity and Islam. Mandaeans do not consider John to be the founder of their religion but revere him as one of their greatest teachers, tracing their beliefs back to Adam.
Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba "false messiah"[18] who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John. The Mandaic word k(a)daba, however, might be interpreted as being derived from either of two roots: the first root, meaning "to lie," is the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; the second, meaning "to write," might provide a second meaning, that of "book"; hence some Mandaeans, motivated perhaps by an ecumenical spirit, maintain that Jesus was not a "lying Messiah" but a "book Messiah", the "book" in question presumably being the Christian Gospels. This seems to be a folk etymology without support in the Mandaean texts.[19]

Is it possible that most of the Jews believed this, that it was not Jesus that was so great, but possibly John the baptist?

What makes me confused is the fact to see that so many are commenting on this site concerning the occult and have absolutely no idea about what the occult is.

First, the Bible is written in allegories and trivial cycles. There are at least 4 codes employed in all texts. The same story is repeated in all gospels and evangiles and only the names differ. This has for object to hide numeric values in that names and thus open different mathematical fields in geometry, trigonometry, astronomy and astrology.

The Torah is the beginning, the apocalypse is the end. The Alpha and the Omega in some way. In the Hebrew letters, the first and the last are the same, Aleph or A, it is the Nothing out of which all becomes and when it has become and is, then the spot where it became becomes A again. Aleph is the symbol of Air, and Air is Nothing.

John Baptist is in Greek IANIS, and this is a mirror of SINAI. So, obviously, the mount Sinai and John are the same place or same object. Now, genesis is creation or better said cosmogenesis, in our language, Procreation.

Follow the way from nothing, shake that nothing to create something and plant the something on the mount Sinai, The first letter of the 22, the small arcane in hebrew Alphabet, is A the last is T, the cross. Then, there are 6 finals, and the last of that 6 is A. So, 22 stations from the Nothingness, the Ayin, to the Crucifixion of the Christ and 6 days that follow it. Together there are 28 letters, one moon-cycle. The moon in hebrew or Arabic is SIN. Note that you find that moon-cycle in the Bible in the battle of Jericho, 4-7-10-7 or 777-4+3 in uterusian slang. The 3 is the moment where God says, there will be light. then the black sun, the moon, will light for 3 days in FULL. So, Jericho is again the same place, same as Holly Land, Goliath, Ararat, Troy, Sparta, cavern of Alibaba, and some others in mythologies and scriptures. (note the AL or EL and Ba Ba, a permutation of ABBA in Alibaba. BA is the house of the father and AB is the father of the house, together they are the father of creation)

Note that the Christ and Jesus are 2 different things, Jesus id the emitter, the source of the Christ, X-Tos. He takes crucifixion in charge first, the Christ 9 days later, if all goes the way it should, for sure. The first day after resurrction he is X-Y, after day 9 he is X-Y, XY, YX. 2 become 4 in the shape of a 4 leaf clover, symbol of luck.

If you play with eggs at Easter, the Christ, after resurrection and crucifixion, will start his 33 years of life at Pentecost, 50 days later. In 33 weeks he will finish his job, that are his 33 years of life, the 33 path of the tree of life of Kabbalah and the 33 degrees in free-masonry. The last 4 weeks he rests. So, from Easter to Christmas where the Christ gets finally reborn there are exactly 9 month. And the one who puts him in the water is the one where he was created, John Baptist.

Maybe I told to much, but figure it out yourself. I hope that none of you is that stupid. If not, study your own anatomy, you will find out you have 33 vertebrae and it needs 1 week to build each of them.

This is a topic I'm chomping at the bit to talk about...but at least to my own understanding think I should not comment tooo much on as much of it is what I would considered to be covered on things not to be discussed with non masons.....it's not that there is any super squirrel secret, much of it has already been stated, and can easily be researched....I just would rather error on the side of saying too little than too much, and the symbolism about the Saints John is one of those topics I will not discuss for that reason...

The Saints John are of course KEY to masonry....Two Johns....not just one...

Also as to red hair, supposedly the tribes of Judah, and Dan both had red hair as a prominant feature.

Outside of Masonic symbolism and allegory....I can say John the Baptiste is interesting for many reasons. For instance many beleive he was the leader among the essenes....which provides yet another link to Pythagoras and the Pythagorians possibly......in any case....yes he is important, but no more so then John the Evangelist.

Along these lines I think Rev. Jeffrey Bütz has written a most interesting book..."The Secret Legacy of Jesus"...one that while it may not be all correct, has an excellent section that among other things discusses why John is important, but so is James....really understanding just who Jesus's family was is very helpful, as the family of jesus is very much misunderstood.....and one only needs to read as far as Matthew's beginning to understand why. People overlook 1-17 but that this was kept up with by his family during Roman occupation is the first clue......it was so important to the author of Matthew they lead with it......

...If you "like" this topic.......I recommend "The Secret Legacy of Jesus, and the teachings of The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just to the Founding Fathers" The author makes some great leaps before the end, so I'm not saying the book is fully true, but much of what is written about jesus's family in the first section is very important to making sense of it all. Just take him with a grain or salt. Also in regards to John the Baptist......I also recommend you read "Pythagoras: His Life and Teachings" by Thomas Stanley, James Wasserman, J. Daniel Gunther and Manly P. Hall" a 1600's classic updated to the modern tongue... and may just be key in understanding John, the Essenes,

As to the meaning of the Saints John to masonic work and ritual.....it can not be overstated. But I personally feel is not a topic masons should discuss, but that may be only my understanding. However all that one would want to know is available online provided you have a filter of common sense, rationalism, and logic. to

reply to post by eurocrates


Until the veil is lifted, mon ami, they will not understand.

My feeling is that yes, Da Vinci was hinting at something with John the Baptist. My gut feeling is that Jesus never even existed, it's only a place holder name to cover up the true "messiah" John the Baptist.

They were both born miraculously around the same time and Luke even starts off talking about John's conception before moving to Jesus'. Good thread, I know I'm a little late to the party but S&F!

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
i'm starting to see that John the Baptist is VERY important. Is there any way that the gnostics, or early christians/jews whatever they were believed in John the Baptist over Jesus? I see that the Mandeans believed in John the Baptist:

en.wikipedia.org...

Mandaeans recognize several prophets. Yahya ibn Zakariyya, known by Christians as John the Baptist, is accorded a special status, higher than his role in Christianity and Islam. Mandaeans do not consider John to be the founder of their religion but revere him as one of their greatest teachers, tracing their beliefs back to Adam.
Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba "false messiah"[18] who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John. The Mandaic word k(a)daba, however, might be interpreted as being derived from either of two roots: the first root, meaning "to lie," is the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; the second, meaning "to write," might provide a second meaning, that of "book"; hence some Mandaeans, motivated perhaps by an ecumenical spirit, maintain that Jesus was not a "lying Messiah" but a "book Messiah", the "book" in question presumably being the Christian Gospels. This seems to be a folk etymology without support in the Mandaean texts.[19]

Is it possible that most of the Jews believed this, that it was not Jesus that was so great, but possibly John the baptist?

edit on 19/1/2012 by Sauron because: - internal quote tags to external quote tags

There is a note made in the NT that certain christians came upon a follower of John still teaching Johns warnings and messages but were taken aside and shown the new way in Christ. So seeing the strength of whatever John was about, even after Christ, it is very real that Johns teachings could have been spun into the foundations of a gnostic group.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
My feeling is that yes, Da Vinci was hinting at something with John the Baptist. My gut feeling is that Jesus never even existed, it's only a place holder name to cover up the true "messiah" John the Baptist.

They were both born miraculously around the same time and Luke even starts off talking about John's conception before moving to Jesus'. Good thread, I know I'm a little late to the party but S&F!

Luke talking about John may simply have been to put things into their prospective. John was indeed a heavy and his mission had majior impact. But John is said to have said himself that his mission and time were now overshadowed by Jesus. John even said when asked if he were the christ that he wasnt and there will be one coming after him whos shoes he was not worthy to lace. That he was not even worthy to baptize Jesus.

reply to post by Logarock


In my opinion, if they could edit him out as the main character then they could have edited that part in. I have no doubt in my mind that Rome edited the story to fit their own needs.

I believe they inserted pagan themes like the virgin birth and the miracles in order to merge paganism (which was beginning to fail) with the things John/Jesus taught in order to keep their political power. Why would they change his name, I'm not sure but it could be because he was gay. Jesus did kiss John the apostle frequently, maybe John the apostle was Jesus and Jesus was John, they just switched their names? I don't know but I definitely don't buy the "official" story.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I have seen here at ATS far to much credit given to offical church tampering with text. Even if this were the case it hardly makes room for run away ideas that have just about zero weight be it by flaging offical tampering or comparison with current textual limits with questionable "scriptures".

Jesus being John and John Jesus is an idea brought in from the dark corners. This idea cant even be contrived by the strangest of mind when the "offical" text is looked at to find clues of a coverup. Its a strange idea brought in from somewhere that seeks to subject truth to itself.

reply to post by Logarock


I don't really understand why it's so hard to believe it's been tampered with. Humans have lied and stolen throughout history, why would it be any different here? Da Vinci was obviously hinting at something with John the Baptist and even painted him pointing to his chest and sky as if saying "I am god", who was Jesus supposedly again?

Da Vinci had extremely close ties to the RCC and was privy to many things most people never get to know. Why would he paint in riddles when dealing with Jesus/John if he had nothing to hide? He was a very smart man, possibly the smartest ever, so I doubt he would do it for no reason. I'm not saying that my theory is the answer but I think it's close.

All it takes is a little time and research with an open mind to see what I see, it may not be 100% right but I think it's closer to the truth than what the church preaches. They have completely overstated the story with lies that it's hard to pick out the truth from those lies.

reply to post by Logarock


Also, we can hardly get the truth from our leaders today so why would you think differently about the leaders 2,000 years ago? Do you really believe Rome would have just started telling the truth after murdering and conquering for a thousand years? No they wouldn't, they knew paganism was declining so they decided to make Christianity their official religion, but only after inserting pagan themes into the story.

You know how the Roman empire ruled for so long and spread so far? Because they would attack these cities and towns and then force the people to join them, if they didn't agree to join and help them spread even further they would kill them. Apply that same logic to what they did with Jesus/John's message, they killed him then once paganism started declining they pulled his story out and twisted it to mean what they wanted it to by adding pagan themes and teaching the message in the wrong context.

Jesus was actually trying to say that we are all sons of god and that we all have eternal life, but in order to see this you have to read what he was saying in the right context. Being born again literally means being born again, as in reincarnation. In order for us to leave this hell called Earth and "see" heaven is if we die and are born again through reincarnation. The teachings of the Roman church has distorted this truth because it's a lot easier to control people when you convince them they only have one shot at life. We don't see heaven because we have been taught that this isn't heaven and we believe it for the most part.

Call me crazy or dumb or whatever but it is absolutely possible this could have happened. They say the winner writes history, Rome was the winner for a thousand years, including when Jesus was alive. Think about it.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


Ooh; I was wondering if that was the one. I have it as well.