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.

 

Templars

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Didn't think you (Seraphim) could provide it- so then is this meant to 'prove' you are just posting random observations?

Seems like that to me.

Why are you bringing religious questions NOT related to the thread?

Why do you ask questions regarding things you clearly don't believe exist?

Is this another hijack attempt?

The Templars-

(still waiting for the thread starter to bring something forward)




posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   
People from another forum also said some Templars escaped to Scotland and allied with King Robert Bruce who had a curse upon him; but they told me nothing more
I was hoping ADVISOR would tell me something

[edit on 17-10-2004 by AtheiX]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
People form another forum also said some Templars escaped to Scotland and allied with King Robert Bruce who had a curse upon him; but they told me nothing more


O.K., thanks.

I've heard of some Templar/mason/Stuart link somewhere. This 'Bruce' angle is a little further back, but same lineage-

    mason/Templar site
    In Scotland the possessions of the order were very extensive. Their Preceptories were scattered in various parts of the country. A papal inquisition was held at Holyrood in 1309 to try and, of course, to condemn the Templars. At this inquisition only two knights, Walter de Clifton, Grand Preceptor of Scotland, and William de Middleton appeared. The others absconded, and as Robert Bruce was then marching to meet and repel the invasion of King Edward of England, the Templars are said to have joined the army of the Scottish monarch.
    . . .
    it is supposed to have been the fabrication of Michael Ramsay in the 18th century.


This web site has a lot of interesting information. I am not going to claim I 'buy' it all however. Much of it is substantiated by others. The next page sadly becomes a sales page but does provide bits of information.

Another site, you may not appreciate as much but I feel may be a little more in touch with historical reality is an “anti-mason” site. The numbers of the troops at the famous battle are much more believeable than the 100,000 troops claimed on the Templar site. Still not what I would consider definitive as the English are referred to as 'British' (which may or may not be correct but I feel is incorrect at that time in history). Still, near the middle of the page is some food for thought.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Your second 'source" is entitled "Freemasons: the enemy of Islam."

I wouldn't take that source very seriously. Besides, it looks like it was written by a 10-year old.

There is no food for thought there, Gadfly.



[edit on 2-10-2004 by LTD602]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The thing i find most interesting is that the Templars went from bieng a very small group, something like 9 strong, who did no active recruiting for something like 5-8 years to the most powerful Knightly Order in Europe and the Middle East in a very short time indeed.
Im working from memory as i dont have my books to hand so some of that may be off a bit.
Also just what were they doing at the Temple Mount at that time? I know that is where they were based during the Crusades, but i wonder if they chose it for a specific reason? Any ideas?
Also there are reports that after they had been in Palastine and Jerusalem for a while some may have gone native, so to speak, even going as far as converting to Islam.
After the purge in France by the King it seems the Templars vanished into Spain the Middle East and parts of Europe, including Scotland.
I was fortunate enough to visit the Chapel at Roslyn and its a very Beautiful and peaceful place. I can well imagine why people think there is something hidden there. It does have a air of mystery around it.
Theres an interesting connection between the Templars and the Cathars im looking into as well. As for the Masons claiming decendancy from the Temple Knights id like to see some proof of that. Or perhaps the Templars were Masons? Were they both about at the same time?



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus

Theres an interesting connection between the Templars and the Cathars im looking into as well. As for the Masons claiming decendancy from the Temple Knights id like to see some proof of that. Or perhaps the Templars were Masons? Were they both about at the same time?



Modern Freemasonry evolved long after the Templars - some 400 years. There is no verifiable connection that can be made. Rosslyn chapel is a Mecca to those who try to tie in Freemasonry with Templarism as it contains the only reference to the two to be found together (the stained glass window depicting the initiation ceremony).
Of course, it's possible that the two are linked and modern Freemasonry does contain a Knights Templar degree, but again there is no evidence and the degree is thought to be a fairly recent creation.
A few masons do claim descendancy from the KT, but they are a minority within the Craft and the others amongst us have not seen any proof to back up those claims either. If you look back through this forum, you should be able to find a paper written by Alex Kennedy which refutes the claim of a link.

As for a link between the Cathars and the Templars, again, I believe that this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. The Templars were strictly Orthodox. They couldn't be further away in religious belief from the "heresy" of the Cathars.
The suspicion that has surrounded the link was created by the French king who wanted the Templars out of the way for financial reasons. It was good propaganda to link them with heresy, paganism and non-conformism and gave another excuse to hammer a nail into the Templar coffin. The same probably goes for the rumours of Templars converting to Islam. What you have basically read concerning a link betweeen Templarism and Catharism, is centuries old propaganda that is still working today.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Thanks for the reply Leveller

I am pretty ignorent when it comes to Masonary so i value the input.
Its not uncommon though for people who live and die in a foreign land to take on the customs and traditions of their adopted country. A lot of Templars lived in Palastine for most of their lives, some never returned to Europe at all. So even though it is unlikely for a Christian Knight to convert to Islam its not impossible wouldnt you agree? From what i have read, converting from Christianity to Islam was rare but not un heard of. I have tried to find a link to help but have been unable, sorry. But i did read it in a book about the Crusades. If i can find it i will let you know the title.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Janus I believe you have a good start on the theories regarding “the temple.” There are some theories regarding this as well as some regarding the Cathars/Templars. A few of these tie the Templars into activities many (probably most) will have a hard time agreeing with.

Switzerland, Scotland, Germany, Spain- lots of Templar escape stories.

Another possibility to add- Templar/Assassins/drugs (opium, hashish)/gold

(love your avatar- Hospitaller?)

Leveller as to Templar orthodoxy? I can't see it. Too many disputes with the Papacy.

LTD step back, take a s-l-o-w breath

The author obviously believes that the masons and Templars are tied together. The Templars WERE anti-Islam! This is one of the things they (Templars) did really well. They killed Moslems.

The author is obviously unaware of masonic reach into many Islamic countries or he would really be upset. Don't tell him that masonry has a Templar degree and he'll be O.K.

As to the author of the site- he is not a native English speaker. Had you followed the links at the bottom of the page you could have been exposed to this non-too-subtle enlightenment.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Leveller as to Templar orthodoxy? I can't see it. Too many disputes with the Papacy.


Not until Philip of France had the Pope in his pocket. Until that time they were working under a Papal Bull and had the full blessing of Rome.
The rumours surrounding heresy have their foundation in the French king's propaganda which was a weapon used to help destroy the Order.

All history books point to the Templars being a strict Christian Military Order whose members lived a life not unlike those of many Monastic Orders of the day. Daily prayers, rituals and penances that followed mainstream Catholisism were a part of everyday life for Templar Knights, squires and the entourage. If anything they lived a stricter version of Orthodoxy than the mainstream as they operated within a set structure. They were such feared fighters precisely because they fervently believed in and manically fought for the god of the Vatican.

Just because a few modern day romantics swallow the French propaganda and use it to exactly the purpose that Philip intended, does not make it truth. The Templars were Orthodox.

What happened after the Order was pounced on by Philip may be a different story. Evidence would suggest that the Templars exploded into fragments and dispersed around the world (and this at a time when the American continent wasn't even supposedly discovered by Europeans). Who knows what paths they may have followed once free from the rigid military and religious command structure.

Janus. Conversion to Islam may not have been unheard of. But within the Templar Order there is absolutely no evidence of this ever occuring. Even though the Templars may have been in Acer and been surrounded by Islam, thier mission was to promote Christianity and it's doubtful that there would have been any major turning away from the religion that they were trying to root and spread. It's quite likely that any convert would have been executed on the spot by his peers for breaking his vow.
It is possible though, that some individual Templars may have been aware that God is universal and that he is not tied to a specific religion. Being surrounded by different religions and being immersed in one means that a few Knights (they along with the priests were about the only literate class) may have discovered that Islam could sit nicely next to Christianity if the extremism and politics were ignored. Maybe this is why Freemasonry includes a Templar degree - as masonry isn't a religion but does recognise that God is available to all men whatever form of worship they may practice (Freemasonry also accepts Muslims amongst it's members) - although it should be noted that in the UK, the degree of Knights Templar is only open to Freemasons who express a belief in the Trinity. Elsewhere in the world, I believe it is universally open to all.
So although I don't believe that the Templars converted, it is possible that there may have been a small number who accepted Islam as just as valid as Christianity. This in itself would have been a heresy in the eyes of the Catholic church and if just one Templar had held this view it would have been a propaganda coup for Philip when he later came to destroy the Order.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I must confess that my entire knowledge of The Knights Templar is from the various Masonic books I own such as "Morals and Dogma" and "The Book."
The highest degrees in the Scottish rite all revolve around them, most of the bigwigs like Pike seem to think Freemasonry is borne of Templarism, but I must say I can't see a direct link, there is a "quiet period" of about 200-300 years, but as Janus points out they originally rose from a group of only 9 to the most powerful legion in the empire in 5-8 years.
I remember flicking through a copy of an English translation of "The Monitor of the Knights Templar" and noted that there were many similarities between it and Scottish Rite also.
My cop out is I believe it is a resuscitation, someone wealthy and powerful (and French ) probably traced back their heritage and decided to resurrect the order using the materials they had available to them in approximately 1650AD.

The "Scottish" tag would for want of any other explanation suggest the Scottish Rite has its origins with either the Stuarts or Chevalier Ramsey, remembering that it is derived from the original French Rite.
Although McClenechan makes special note that Robert the Bruce originally conferred the degree “Knight of the Rosy Cross”, he stresses that the degree was in a detached form.
Much of Freemasonry is composed of pre-existing societies, rituals and religions, question is whether this is a deliberate attempt to disguise its true origins or just the side effect of having such an emphasis on secrecy that everyone over time forgot what it was all about in the first place.

In Abbe Augustine Barruell's memoirs he makes the observation that he was greatly disappointed and surprised to discover after some time that nobody he met during his time in the Lodge really understood the meanings of many of the rituals or symbols.

As to the Templars being Orthodox - well from a Masonic point of view (which could be completely fictitious) they were the first Freemasons - having failed to win the hearts of the people of the Middle East over to Christianity, Jacque Demolay sought a new tact and began to incorporate local religions and Islam into the order of the Knights Templar but kept up the facade to Rome that he was still loyal to their cause, serving “The One True God.”



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
How far do the teutonic knights go back?

How far do the teutons go back, and are the teutons closly linked with the Goths?



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Quote: "posting random observations?"

Observations - Yes. Random - No. If you were paying attendition Gadfly you would see that my postings - especially on separate Thread Topics - all
tie-in together - pointing in a certain direction.

I am an Intellectual, Free Thinker, Mathematician, Scientist, Scholar, Historian & Writer. I am just making a contribution.

As far as me not Believeing & Not having Faith - who said that I was an Athiest? I am not - I do however study all the Religions Equally (Although I must admit I do derive more benefit from Some than Others).

GadFly - You on the other hand have posted more Tripe & Useless Garbage/Non-Sense on this Web Site than anyone else!!!
You are simply a Dogmatist! An Annoying FLY indeed!


[edit on 2-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
From the research ive done it seems that the Templar Knights were founded by a French Knight by the name of Hugues de Payens from the Champagne region. He and eight like minded Knights swore an oath to the then King of Jerusalem to defend the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, as it was then. How these poor Knights were to acomplish this lofty goal is still a puzzle. But Baldwin II was impressed enough to give them an entire wing of his Palace to use that joined to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. That is were the name " Pauvres Chevaliers du temple " or the " Poor Knights of the Temple " comes from.
Now here is where the first puzzle of the Templars begins. Here we have 9 Knights who were so poor that they apparently had to ask for Alms, or charity if you like, to survive walking into the Palace of the King of Jerusalem and offering their services out of the blue, so to speak, to protect the Kingdom and being given an entire wing of a Royal Palace. Bearing in mind these Knights were unknowns at the time this was quite a coup on their part. So it would not be unreasonable to assume that they had a quite powerful sponser back in Europe. But the problem is that the Templars were founded in 1118 or there abouts and did not become assosiated with anyone of note or influence until 1128 when they joined up with St Bernard and the Cistercians there by adopting the white robes of the Cistercians and adding to it the Red Cross for which they would be come famous.
So the question is who was their sponser in Europe and what did they do between the years of 1118 and 1128? They did no active recruiting in these years and also acomplished nothing of note, no great deeds no nothing.
In the Middle ages it was not unusual for a Knight to ask a favour of his leige Lord but a King didnt give up a full wing of his Palace to a group of poor Knights, they were so poor that they had to ride two to a horse something they were so proud of they adopted a symbol of two knights on one horse as their official seal, unless those Knights had some heavy connections in Europe or if he thought that he would get something back in return.

Now we have the second mystery. By the 1130's the Templars had grown so high in stature that the Pope took them under his wing and made them exempt to all laws exept those of the Holy Roman Church. This as you can imagine didnt go down too well with local Clergy who did their best to curb the growing Power of the Templars, and the other Knightly Orders that came after, but were rebuffed time after time by the residing Pope. This Papal protection made the Templars very powerful indeed, so powerful that the Kings of Europe had no control or juristiction over them at all. Why were the Templars, and to a lesser extent the other Knightly Orders, given so much power and free reign do do more or less what they wanted withing the Laws or the Church? Bearing in mind this is only about 20-30 years after those poor Knights walked into the the Palace of Jerusalem and offered their meager services to Baldwin II. Quite a feat im sure you will agree, a feat i think they had some quite powerful help with. Who was the unseen power behind the Templars? I have no idea but im open to any suggestions anyone may have.

So if we jump forward a couple of hundred years we have the supression and eventual destruction of the Order. Most of what Phillip the Fair and the then Pope got up to is well known and doccumented. ut there are a few things that were not widely known at the time, or now for that matter. In 1311 the Inquisition in England, a no less bloody and vicious orginisation than the ones in France and Spain, was given some interesting info by a Templar Knight called Stepen de Strapelbrugge that he was told in his initiation that "Jesus was a man and not a God." Another Templar by the name of John de Stoke was recorded by the same inquisition as saying that the then Grand Master Jacques de Morlay had told him " he should know that Jesus was but a man, and that he should believe in the 'Omnipotent God' who was the architect of Heavan and Earth, and not the Crusifiction " this as anyone who has studied the middle ages will know is the part of the Cathar religion. Baring in mind these statements were prob made under torture they still raise interesting questions about what connection if any there was between the Cathars and and the Templar Order.

Im sorry about my poor spelling and grammer but it is very late and im very tired. But suffice it to say, the Templars were backed by someone or some powerful orginisation from the very beginning, and i think that same power was instrumental in their down fall. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.


EDIT: Edited for corrections and additions



[edit on 3-10-2004 by Janus]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I've realized one thing: after Robert Bruce's death English king Edward I conquered Scotland. I wonder what could have happened to the Templars who escaped to Scotland after the trials.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
I've realized one thing: after Robert Bruce's death English king Edward I conquered Scotland. I wonder what could have happened to the Templars who escaped to Scotland after the trials.


Not all Templars were burned at the stake, if they repented in front of the Inquisition and their repentance was deemed sincere they were allowed to go back to their normal state of ' Knight of the Realm ' or in some instances allowed to joint one of the other Knightly Orders, such as the Hostpitllers and the Knights of Christ.
So its likely that there were Templar Knights on both sides of the War with Scotland. Also there isnt any evidence that Edward held any ill feeling to the Templars and would have recognised them as superb heavy Cavalry. Edward was a ruthless King when it came to the Scots and would have used every trick in the book to crush them, including using Ex- Templars as Cavalry in his Army.
If the Templars in Scotland were persecuted it would have been for raising arms against Edward and aiding The Bruce, not because they were Templars.
The English court of the time forbade the use of Torture as a means of gaining a coffesion, until the Inquisition came into the picture, all conffesions to crimes against God and Church were freely made and penance was made. This changed when the Inquisition became involved as they were not subject to the Laws of Man but to the Laws of God and the Church.
Its possible that some Templars fled to Ireland after the death of the Bruce because their options at that time were limited. For a wanted Templar Europe was a no go area. Others would have sworn alligience to Edward as other Scottish Knights did, others were probably Executed for Crimes against what Edward saw as his Realm and right to rule over the Scottish people.



[edit on 3-10-2004 by Janus]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tnfzpaul
How far do the teutonic knights go back?

How far do the teutons go back, and are the teutons closly linked with the Goths?



The Teutonic Knights first come into the picture around about 1190, although they may have been around earlier than that. The first mention of them comes when King Guy of Jerusalem awarded the Teutonic Order or "Teutonic Knights" a portion of a tower in Acre, the bequest was made permanant on Feb. 10, 1192.
They were not actually made a Military Order until Mar. 5, 1198 where they held a ceremony at the Church in Acre. The Event was attended by all the heads of the Clerical leaders of the Latin Kingdom.
There is evidence to suggest that the Teutonic Knights sided with the Knights Hospitaller againts the Templars in some kind of long running dispute, although i cannot find any mention as to what the dispute was about. The Templars were at this time were the senior Order of the time, so it is reasonable to assume that the other Orders thought they were getting a tad too powerful. What is known is that this became the reason for a long standing animosity between the Teutonic Knights and the Templars.
Im sorry but i cant find any reference to any connection between the Teutonic Knights and the Goths in any of the books i have or on any of the sites i have visited.


[edit on 3-10-2004 by Janus]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Janus where are you getting this “entire wing of the palace” idea?
It is my understanding the Templars (later called) were given something akin to a stable on the side (kind of a side building).

Also my understanding they 'promised'/vowed to protect Christians on their (Christians) journey. As robbery of pilgrims was a well known problem in those days the grant for a few 'extra' patrolmen was granted. This was trickery on the Templars part- they really meant to protect those Christians going from the temple to heaven and not those traveling to the temple.

Also, the Templars chose the location of their 'temple' abode because they knew it was over or very near the underground tunnels of the temple itself so that they could gain access to these tunnels undisturbed.

As to St. Bernard- one only needs to review him to realize what high esteem he was held in Christian Europe. The man was a living saint and much revered. That the Templars persuaded him to be their sponsor/benefactor was a major coup.

Powerful (unseen) sponsor?- Needs to be researched. The jump you make in time from their beginnings to their supposed demise is the time period where the Templars gained their notoriety (both good and bad).



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Janus I've got some questions:
Did the Templars continue their organization in Scotland after all or not?
Did the Templars continue their organization in England? I know most kings were greedy like Philip the Fair but maybe the English king didn't and accepted Templar organizations in his country as enemies of his enemy - France.
Where did you get you avatar?



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Janus where are you getting this “entire wing of the palace” idea?
It is my understanding the Templars (later called) were given something akin to a stable on the side (kind of a side building).

Also my understanding they 'promised'/vowed to protect Christians on their (Christians) journey. As robbery of pilgrims was a well known problem in those days the grant for a few 'extra' patrolmen was granted. This was trickery on the Templars part- they really meant to protect those Christians going from the temple to heaven and not those traveling to the temple.

Also, the Templars chose the location of their 'temple' abode because they knew it was over or very near the underground tunnels of the temple itself so that they could gain access to these tunnels undisturbed.

As to St. Bernard- one only needs to review him to realize what high esteem he was held in Christian Europe. The man was a living saint and much revered. That the Templars persuaded him to be their sponsor/benefactor was a major coup.

Powerful (unseen) sponsor?- Needs to be researched. The jump you make in time from their beginnings to their supposed demise is the time period where the Templars gained their notoriety (both good and bad).




The use of the Palace wing is well documented you can read about it here.

Knights Templar

Also you can find info regarding the Knights Templar on the Catholic Encyclopedia. The author of the above link seems to have copied and pasted the direct info from their site. I tried to put in the link but it wiped out this entire post but this is the Url for the page . www.newadvent.org...

Im sorry if the term " wing " was missleading although i have read that they were given a wing of the Palace for their use it does not say how big that portion of the Palace was. It could have been a few rooms it may have been bigger than that. But the fact they were given the portion that was connected to the Temple may have had some symbolic significance to the 9 Knights. The fact that they were put up at all was unusual, at the time Jerusalem was teeming with Knights and men at arms. So these guys must have had something different to offer. You cant after all walk in to a Kings Palace and expect to be put up free of charge unless you had something to offer, and to be honest 9 Knights offering to protect Pilgrims just doesent do it for me. There were a lot of Pilgrims comming into Jerusalem and 9 Knight wouldnt have made much of a difference to their safety. They were given the use of the stables and i also have read that after they took over the Temple as a whole they did indeed keep them either inside or in a side building to the main Temple proper.
But at the time the Knights were not in direct control of the Temple itself.

As for the reason they chose the Temple, well this was the time when the tales of King Aurther was comming into vouge and they may have indeed thought that the Grail or someother Holy relic was stored somewhere in the Temple. Some people have said that the Templars were looking for something and conducted excavations of a sort at the Temple, but i havent been able to find any confirmation of this.

As for St Bernard, he was indeed considered a living saint at the time, but when the Templars were founded he wasnt what he later became so there must have been another reason why they were made so welcome by the King of Jerusalem. I believe, although i have no evidence of it, that they had something to offer him. Something important enough for him to make welcome 9 very poor Knights into the Palace and give them rooms.

I did make a jump from the beggining to the end but it was late and i wanted to highlite a few important points about the Templars and the fact that their begginings were as mysterious as their demise. There is a lot of stuff about the Templars that is unknown and shrouded in conjecture and myth. They do need to be looked at closely but the chances of being able to find out about those mysteries after all this time is unlikely. Although Papal records would prob still exist at the Vatican they will prob never see the light of day.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Janus]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
Janus I've got some questions:
Did the Templars continue their organization in Scotland after all or not?
Did the Templars continue their organization in England? I know most kings were greedy like Philip the Fair but maybe the English king didn't and accepted Templar organizations in his country as enemies of his enemy - France.
Where did you get you avatar?


I believe that the Templars did continue for a time after the purge by the Pope and Phillip the (un)fair. They more than likely opperated either as small groups or were absorbed into the other Orders. The templar connection to Scotland is strong, as it is in certain parts of France and Spain. It is entirely possible the Templars did indeed over time go from a Knigtly Order to the Masons we know today, but you would have to ask a Mason about that. There are also parallels between the Templars and the Knights of St John so perhaps some Templars sought refuge with them.

In England there are many Templar Churches and Buildings. After the purge all of these would have reverted back to the Church. Englands Kings have always been an indipendant bunch so perhaps they did allow the Templars to continue in one form or another. But again there is no evidence either way.

I found my Avatar on the net, not sure if he's a Templar or a Hostpitllar. But he is what most people think a Knight should look like. The reality though was very different.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Janus]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join