Freemasons await the coming of their master, the holy one!

Originally posted by LUXUS
I have clearly demonstrated that even if today Nimrod and the others are not part of your rituals he was so in the past.

Really? How? By quoting someone's opinion and linking to a group of actual stonemasons? Nimrod has never had any relevance in Speculative Masonry and there is no ritual evidence to support your claim. Speculative Masonic ritual has been available since the early 1700's and continues to remain accessible to the non-Mason today.

My observation still stands as all those I listed were part of older rites of masonry and are all genetically related to Cain.

The group you listed is not a 'rite' they were a seperate orginization that had their own rituals and methods of initiation. Did you even read the link I provided?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I think you will find it is a little more then “someones” opinion, was clearly a widespread teaching within freemasonery!

www.rgle.org.uk...

reply to post by goinglocodowninacapulco


A teacher wants nothing more than willing students. I would hate to give you something you didnt want. I would hate to tell you something you didnt want to know. The wheel turns with purpose and those that understand offer up their pottery to be smashed.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Sorry? I don't understand your riddles. What do you mean in normal talk? I have an idea, but am probably wrong.

reply to post by LUXUS

According to Masonic legend Solomon also oversaw a great deal himself. He is considered to be our first Grand Master.

Maybe I missed it, but where does it say in the Bible that the Temple was built against God's wishes? No regular Grand Lodge that has ever expressed wishes to rebuild the Temple. Nor is there any legend that speaks of a return of great, grand, or holy figure in Masonry.

There is no Master of ALL Masonry. There are elected leaders who serve for only a term set by the members. You speak of too much which you do not understand. One cannot know Freemasonry just books and connecting imaginary dots.

reply to post by goinglocodowninacapulco

Masons don't believe themselves better than non-Masons. You speak of materialism as if we Masons judged men on that basis. We don't.

reply to post by LUXUS

"We Freemasons can be a funny lot. Never content with simply being part of an organization that has survived and thrived for three centuries, we are constantly searching for evidence that the Masonic Craft must stem from some ancient source."
- Stephen Dafoe

reply to post by Maponos

What cares do I have for the head of the Catholic Order of Malta, not tied with the Masonic Order of Malta? Nor what does it concern me of the British Monarchies various orders?

None of this has anything to do with Freemasonry.

reply to post by Maponos

The Order of Malta now lies below the Order of the Temple. The Order of the Temple is highest order of knighthood in York Rite Masonry.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
My question.... are Freemasons still awaiting a Messiah? It's certainly not Jesus/Yahashua as He judged and destroyed the last temple and made the body the new temple.

There is no Messiah of Freemasonry.

reply to post by Maponos

The blog is of my own research. It is no book by any means, but it is my wish to eventually write one.

reply to post by Maponos

That monitor goes back to when the Chivalric Orders were organized differently. Thus is the reason I made note of the difference.

Even if the Order of Malta were to top the ranks of Chivalric Masonry it would not change anything of your assertions. The Catholic order is not tied to the Masonic order. Our leadership would, as it is with the Order of the Temple, be democratically elected and sovereign. The names "Malta", "Templar", and "Mason" are not copyrighted so can be used by anyone as you do see many Orders of Malta, Knights Templar, and Masonic groups who are tied or connected by no other means.

reply to post by JoshNorton

He also fails to see in the very post of my blog where I say:

The one noticeable thing about the Chivalric Orders though, was that Order of Malta wasn't in between the Order of the Red Cross and Order of the Temple, it appears after the Order of the Temple.

reply to post by Maponos

Not really. Since the Order of Malta falls now below the Order of the Temple, the Grand Master of the Grand Encampment, Knights Templar of the USA (GEKT) is head of the Order of Malta as well. The current Grand Master of the GEKT is Bill Koon, but his term draws to an end with the end of this upcoming Summer. The leaders of Masonry are democratically elected and rule within the bounds of the Rules, Laws, Regulations, and Constitutions established by the vote of the governed, the voting members.

reply to post by LUXUS

Where in is this what you talk of written?

You speak of much, but history and fact tells us otherwise.

reply to post by LUXUS

This MANUSCRIPT is not the Charge given. There are many manuscripts that claim many things, but if only all of them were true and accurate you would comments stand true.

Originally posted by LUXUS
So you were not taught that Nimrod was the first grand master and originator in freemasonary? You are not taught about the building of the tower?

No, we are taught that King Solomon is the first Grand Master of Freemasonry.

Originally posted by LUXUS
You are not taught about the two pillars and their history/origin?

What of them? Which two pillars do you speak of? All symbols are properly explained throughout all Masonry. Do you speak of the two pillars prominent in King Solomon's Temple?

Originally posted by LUXUS
If this is true it means that there is more than one version of freemasonry and some get told the truth whilst others don’t. Which btw I think is so with prince hall freemasonry!

There are differences in the names of the affiliations, but your version of what Freemasonry is differs from them all in meaning and history.

reply to post by JoshNorton

Well put Brother.

reply to post by LUXUS

This is not the Obligation taken in the 1st degree.

reply to post by LUXUS

You post manuscripts not ritual. The rituals have no changed so much as to omit those persons you named. The ritual has hardly changed and manuscripts, unsubstantiated, are not proof. You would call Nimrod the first Grand Master, but he is not and was never mentioned in Masonic tradition and ritual.

Originally posted by LUXUS
I think you will find it is a little more then “someones” opinion, was clearly a widespread teaching within freemasonery!

www.rgle.org.uk...

Once again, you are linking to the ritual of Operative Masons. Did you not notice the dates (1500's) in your own link? Speculative Masonry (and its rituals) did not exist at that point. These men were actual stonemasons and their ritual reflects this.

reply to post by LUXUS


It seems that you want very badly to paint modern freemasonry as ignorant and unaware of it's origins. I am not sure why that is such a goal, but you have done this exact thing in the past. Modern speculative freemasonry is a group that started in the 1700's. Yes, it did take lots of things learned from operative masons (as far as history can prove) and we use ritual all the way back to Solomon's Temple. We use that to illustrate a story. To teach a lesson.

There are many scholars who have searched for obscure references and trying to find more "secrets" that may exist.
Lots of books exist for this purpose. But you have to understand which parts are speculation and which are proven history. The Bible has lots of factual information in it. But to think that everything in it is true or that nothing of importance was omitted from the original text is a bit of a stretch. Did you ever play the telephone game as a kid?

Freemasonry of today is at it's base level, nothing more than the teachings of charity, brotherly love, relief, truth, friendship, and trust. You can dig much deeper and get much more knowledge if you chose, but on the surface, it really is just that. And many are very happy with just that.

Nobody wants to throw knowledge at someone who is not ready/is not interested in hearing said knowledge. It's out there for the ones who are looking for it to find. Mason or non mason alike.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

You would have read that there are in existence at least 70 copies of this charge of which I have given you two examples. Clearly it was not then just “someone’s” opinion but the official teachings of all those lodges from which those documents were collected from.

Yes they were operative freemasons as would be fitting for that time however saying that operative freemasons and speculative freemason are completely unrelated would be false. To be exact lodges of operative freemasons started to accept speculative freemasons within their circle. Over time the number of speculative freemasons grew to outweigh the number of operative freemasons.

Do you think when these operative freemasons started accepting speculative freemasons that they dumped what they had been teaching up to that point?

No what probably happened was as some point freemasons got together and decided that some of the teachings for whatever reason should be removed, probably placed in side degrees/orders.

This is what naturally happens when the popularity of a “secret” society expands out of control. It becomes an impossible task to validate the integrity of all its members. As a result some teachings have to be removed, placed higher-up the tree.

Originally posted by LUXUS
You would have read that there are in existence at least 70 copies of this charge of which I have given you two examples. Clearly it was not then just “someone’s” opinion but the official teachings of all those lodges from which those documents were collected from.

It does not matter if there are 100. This is Operative ritual and what is used in that system is not what is used in Speculative.

Do you think when these operative freemasons started accepting speculative freemasons that they dumped what they had been teaching up to that point?

No, but the Speculative Lodges obviously did.

No what probably happened was as some point freemasons got together and decided that some of the teachings for whatever reason should be removed, probably placed in side degrees/orders.

Nimrod (and the other persons and places you mentioned) are not in any 'side degrees/orders'.

This is what naturally happens when the popularity of a “secret” society expands out of control. It becomes an impossible task to validate the integrity of all its members. As a result some teachings have to be removed, placed higher-up the tree.

You are just speculating as there is no ritual evidence to support your premise.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by LUXUS
What are you guys trying to say are you denying the fact that Tubal-cain, Haram, Nimrod, Zilla, Lamech, Jabal and Jubal, were not ” ALL” descendants of Cain and are not all held in great honour in freemasonary?

In Masonic ritual only Tubalcain is mentioned. The others are never even referenced so they are irrelevant.

So Hiram Abif of the line of Nephtali (descendent of Cain) is not? You don’t learn about how Hiram was betrayed by two masons he refused to promote, how they killed him and an acacia leaf was placed at his grave…none of that is in your teachings?

Originally posted by LUXUS
So Hiram Abif of the line of Nephtali (descendent of Cain) is not? You don’t learn about how Hiram was betrayed by two masons he refused to promote, how they killed him and an acacia leaf was placed at his grave…none of that is in your teachings?

You did not have Hiram, you had Haram, I was under the impression you were refering to someone else. Hiram Abiff is a large part of the Master Mason Degree.

operative Free Masons existing prior to modern speculative Freemasonry. Membership of the Society is restricted to those who are Master Masons, Mark Master Masons and Holy Royal Arch Companions in good standing.

www.operatives.org.uk...

So to access the teachings within "operative" freemasonry you have to be already a master mason in "speculative" freemasonry. This signifies what? Firstly that there is and always was a connection between the two and secondly the teachings within "operative" freemasonry is only accessible to certain people considered worthy to receive them!

Originally posted by LUXUS
www.operatives.org.uk...

So to access the teachings within "operative" freemasonry you have to be already a master mason in "speculative" freemasonry. This signifies what? Firstly that there is and always was a connection between the two and secondly the teachings within "operative" freemasonry is only accessible to certain people considered worthy to receive them!

Do you even read your own links? The group you attached was constituted in 1931. They have no relation to the Operative Guilds of the 1500's.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


That being so the existence of over 70 copies of old charges collected from various lodges of operative freemasonry clearly demonstrates that great importance was given to the individuals I stated or are you going to dismiss that too?

Originally posted by LUXUS
That being so the existence of over 70 copies of old charges collected from various lodges of operative freemasonry clearly demonstrates that great importance was given to the individuals I stated or are you going to dismiss that too?

That is not relevant to your Orignal Post. You were attempting to link Operative Ritual and the places and characters therein to Speculative Ritual. There is no such link as your sources have proved. What was important to Operatives obviously did not make the transition to Speculatives.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Was I ? I think you will find that in my OP I never mentioned, ritual, operative or speculative...somehow you have misunderstood the meaning of my OP.

My OP is to show that these individuals are all descendent of Cain and that freemasonry (operative freemasonry to be exact) put (and perhaps still do?) great importance in them as founders of (operative) freemasonry.

Originally posted by LUXUS
Was I ? I think you will find that in my OP I never mentioned, ritual, operative or speculative...somehow you have misunderstood the meaning of my OP.

Semantics. You were quoting text that discussed ritual.

My OP is to show that these individuals are all descendent of Cain and that freemasonry (operative freemasonry to be exact) put (and perhaps still do?) great importance in them as founders of (operative) freemasonry.

Your Original Post did not distinguish between Operative and Speculative as you were unaware of the difference. You wrongly assumed the rituals of one belonged to the other.

Luxus, you really should stop while you're behind.

reply to post by LUXUS

Ugh, it's just a manuscript. It doesn't mean it was actually used by any regular Masonic body. 70 copies?! Whoa, watch out now. Like I said, just because it may have been used at one time, it doesn't mean it was accepted by a Grand Lodge nor were the bodies that did accept it recognized Masonry.

reply to post by LUXUS

Wow, you're even getting part of the Hiramic legend wrong.

reply to post by KSigMason


"A" manuscript NO, over 70 manuscripts all being slightly different i.e. not "copies", think you will find they did not have photocopying machines back then The fact that they show variation shows that one writer was not responsible for this. We have therefore several writers in several lodges all giving similar history's indicating that the teaching was widespread and not just one poor deluded persons opinion!