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.

 

Scottish Templar and United Nation connection?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Mods: I didn’t know where to place this so please put where applicable.

I’ve been reading a book called “Forbidden Religion” which compiles various findings of researchers interested in heresies of the west. I got to a part (chapter 16) of the book on Rosslyn Chapel when the author suddenly states that the Scottish Templars have in modern times been granted special consultancy status with the United Nations and allegedly a pet project of theirs is to bring the Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock under control of the UN. I was shocked. What with the Palestinian seeking statehood I thought it interesting and coincidental.
Here is the exact quote from Jeff Nisbet as it appeared in the book:

“Today's Scottish Templars, whose connection with the original Templars is often hotly debated, have suddenly become uncomfortably pro-active in contemporary events. They have been granted special "consultancy status" with the United Nations, and their current pet project is to bring Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock under UN control. They meanwhile continue to keep an aloof silence about anything they please. Also avowed to "protect" Scottish history, they have shown no love for my version of it. I have been told in no uncertain terms that while I am entitled to my opinions, they are not "informed" opinions. When I suggested that perhaps "informed" opinions are opinions one has been "informed" about, and so may have little to do with "Truth," I got silence in reply.”

Here is the direct link to his website:

www.mythomorph.com...

I know according to Wiki the Templars believed the Dome of the Rock was the site of the Temple of Solomon so there is a loose connection:

“During the Crusades the Dome of the Rock was given to the Augustinians, who turned it into a church while the Al-Aqsa Mosque became a royal stable. The Knights Templar, who believed the Dome of the Rock was the site of the Temple of Solomon, later set up their headquarters in the Al-Aqsa Mosque adjacent to the Dome for much of the 12th century. The "Templum Domini", as they called it, was featured on the official seals of the Order's Grand Masters (such as Everard des Barres and Renaud de Vichiers), and it became the architectural model for Templar churches across Europe”

en.wikipedia.org...

Could it be that the United Nations with its templar/freemason connections seek to gain access to the Dome of the Rock for a reason and justify it with standing behind Palestinian statehood?




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsallmaya
...a pet project of theirs is to bring the Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock under control of the UN.


Even if it were true, this simply adds their name to a long list of hundreds of groups over the last 2000 years who have tried to do exactly the same thing. They had better join the queue - there's at least another 2000 years before they'll get a chance...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
.
edit on 7/9/2011 by Saurus because: Double post



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
What could they do there if they got a hold of it anyhow?


Interesting thread.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Saurus
 


True. Never the less, its always good to put "out there" when some potentionally cryptic information is exposed. Didn't it seem odd to you how the author just snuck that in seemingly off topic? It might be interesting to those ATS secret society researchers who know how to weed out the facts (obviously I'm not one of them
).



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Doodle19815
 


Well, considering that the Rock of the Dome is said to be built over the sight of Solomons Temple I would think they have information regarding what could potentionally be buried underneath. Either way they would want to be in control of it for its sacred history at the very least.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsallmaya
Could it be that the United Nations with its templar/freemason connections seek to gain access to the Dome of the Rock for a reason and justify it with standing behind Palestinian statehood?
I should point out that Sinclair's Scottish Templars are not in any way associated with the Freemasons. There are Masonic Templar orders as well, but not the group being talked about. (Sinclair / St. Claire / Roslyn Chapel)

So to refer to a "templar/freemason connection" in this case is off the mark.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsallmaya
Well, considering that the Rock of the Dome is said to be built over the sight of Solomons Temple I would think they have information regarding what could potentionally be buried underneath. Either way they would want to be in control of it for its sacred history at the very least.
Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it? I mean, ultimately, the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews ALL want that rock and what might be under it, don't they? Forget the UN and the Templars, the three largest religions on this planet have fought wars for over 2000 years to claim that spot, so what IS under it?

One legend is that Enoch buried the name of God in a vault deep underneath it before Noah's flood...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


It is somewhat confusing (for me) to reconcile the two. With my understanding the freemasons are primarily a charitable organization these days while the templars were to protect pilgrims headed to Jerusalem and collected donations from travelers. I do know there is a lot of speculation saying that freemasons are offshoots of the knight templars. I am by no means making any claims either way, so thank you for your input.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsallmaya
 


There are probably a hundred groups calling themselves "knights templar" in existence today. To my knowledge, not a single one of them has any incontrovertible proof that there exists an unbroken chain between their modern organization and the Templars that were active from 1129 until 1312.

In reality, there was a romantic resurgence of interest in chivalric values in the early 1800s. Forming clubs and calling each other "knights" and dressing up and carrying swords became a fashionable thing to do. The fact that they were espousing virtues like charity, equality, fraternity, etc, was all good, so if they want to dress funny while they're doing it, or use silly titles, what's the harm?

There are countless legends of groups that may have stayed active after the templars were officially disbanded by the pope in 1312, but there's no real evidence that any such organizations were, in fact, related to the KT, nor is there any evidence of those same organizations being active, continuously, for the last 700 years. SOMEONE would have found a scrap of paper somewhere if there were any proof of this. You can't really keep an organization like that entirely secret for that long without SOMEONE talking.

So there are Masonic groups who have Knight Templar degrees (both the York Rite and Scottish Rite have degrees styled as such), but there are also any number of other, non-Masonic degrees calling themselves knights templar also. There's no trademark on the name. There's nobody to stop you from calling yourself one. If we wanted to officially declare that anyone who posted a reply to this thread was a Knight Templar, we could, and nobody could tell us otherwise.

So that's what Sinclair has. The Sinclairs are the heriditary owners of Rosslyn Chapel, and sometimes the old man likes to put on his white robes with the red cross on the front and wave around a sword. And there are people who want to be in his club. It doesn't make his any more or less legitimate than any other group of Templars, but to think that they're all the same group would be foolish.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


I can sure see how much of the knight templars history we read in books has been romanticized. Seems to me the true knight templars were little more than mercenaries and loan sharks. I will read up on the Sinclairs and Roselyn Chapel. I appreciate the link and all your posts.

Have a great day.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
The connection may be reality, but perhaps, only because of the nature of the character of the men involved.


Many times, a conspiracy develops because Secret Society members have successes and high profile positions.

This is not to say that they used their respective SS status to gain it, but probably took the lessons to heart and made something of themselves.

If a POTUS was once a Boy Scout, does that mean being a Boy Scout is some advantage in their career?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join