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.
Originally posted by Extant Taxon
But...if we are talking speculative then it can't be any older than the late 1600's, surely?
Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by Extant Taxon
I think it's deeper than just for money..
Had the Knights been a "Normal" christian group, Pope Clemens would have just extended his hand and helped them, but the church was just as anxious to get rid of them as well.. Why? Because, they knew it was a sham..
Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by Extant Taxon
Do you, by chance, now anything of the two separate Christian groups? The religious Christians and the people the Christians?
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by Extant Taxon
But...if we are talking speculative then it can't be any older than the late 1600's, surely?
My friend,
You may wish to look at the Halliwell Manuscript A.K.A Regius Poem which gives an early look at Scottish Freemasonry as early as 1390 A.D., which itself is a copy of a Book of Constitutions from 926 A.D.
Here is a link about it:
Regius Poem info
I may have an electronic copy of a scanned original floating around somewhere. If you are interested in a copy for your own research purposes, I will be happy to oblige.
With Love,
Your Brotheredit on 4-12-2010 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Extant Taxon
the fact that Philip was an apopleptic, seething bas**rd, and there you go.
Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by Extant Taxon
I read about the pre-roman Christians in a book, before i saw it on here, but i cannot find anything online about it.. I'm looking but not finding anything..
They were like the Hippies.. flower children kind of religion and then it came to Rome and turned into a Strict power structure..
I'll do more searching and get back to you if i can find anything
Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by Extant Taxon
the fact that Philip was an apopleptic, seething bas**rd, and there you go.
True.. I'm just saying the Templars aren't what everybody (ESPECIALLY the people here on ATS) thinks they are..
Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Am I interested in the scanned original? Heck yeah!
But I've read this manuscript online previously, quite some time ago so my memory isn't that fresh. Doesn't this deal with operative masonry, as opposed to speculative?edit on 4/12/10 by Extant Taxon because: (no reason given)
Issac and Ishmael had different mothers. But perhaps you are referencing the view of the Serpent Seed where Cain and Able are believed to have had different fathers. (?)
I used to think Abraham was just a psychotic deadbeat dad. It's not exactly normal to have a parent make you gather the sticks for your own altar burning and then tie you up and threaten to cut your throat. Was it really an act of "holy reverence" sacrifice to a god or a fit of rage and anger at the child? According to some commentaries, it is believed that Ishmael was the one that Abraham attempted to sacrifice and then changed his mind.
It's pretty cold to throw the mother of your first born and your child out into the wilderness. There must have been some reason. Scripture gives a subtle reference that something was wrong. Various translations and further commentaries allude to Ishmael having perhaps molested or tormented Issac. Because Ishmael was the older child and could exert influence and power over Issac, trouble was brewing due to some reason of Ishmael being a bad influence or an agitator.
Originally posted by orangetom1999 The story of Abraham and Issac and the sacrifice is one of Faith. Abraham showed himself to be Faithful to God and thus God spared his son and did not break Faith with Abraham.
By the law..if Abraham went in unto Hagar the son would be Abraham's son. But if Sarah made the decision to send in her bond maid/servant...the child was Sarah's. This is how the law was written.
But the time came when both Abraham and Sarah were well past time for children. And God made it possible for them to conceive one more time..and the child was Issac.
But God said ...Hearken unto your wife. It was Sarah who wanted the bondwoman and her son out. This was a dispute between two women Alethea.
In early Greek and Roman history, a few philosophers claimed that although every child has one absolute mother, it did not follow that every child had one absolute father. They suggested that a child's genetic character could be influenced by the seed of two or more men if they had inseminated the same mother. This was considered a fringe theory even in its time, however, and was never widely accepted. Traces of such a theory appear to underline various myths of a hero (such as Heracles) with both a human and a divine father
Originally posted by orangetom1999 The story of Abraham and Issac and the sacrifice is one of Faith. Abraham showed himself to be Faithful to God and thus God spared his son and did not break Faith with Abraham.
Tell that to a child scarred by gathering his own firewood knowing that his father is about to set him on fire and burn him on an altar.
By the law..if Abraham went in unto Hagar the son would be Abraham's son. But if Sarah made the decision to send in her bond maid/servant...the child was Sarah's. This is how the law was written.
A man-made law, no doubt. More laws to invite trouble and division among people. More laws to cause sibling rivalry and hurt feelings. Someone always has to "be lesser" than someone else. I suppose that is why every culture has a "class" system which is based on birth status.
But the time came when both Abraham and Sarah were well past time for children. And God made it possible for them to conceive one more time..and the child was Issac.
Pretty twisted 'reward' for 'faith'. Rather sadistic to wait till you're 100 years old and in no shape to chase a two year old! I don't think much of Abraham's god.
But God said ...Hearken unto your wife. It was Sarah who wanted the bondwoman and her son out. This was a dispute between two women Alethea.
Scriptures say that "god is no respecter of persons." To say that god chose sides and intervenes in personal arguments invalidates those scriptures, imo.
It really does not matter who the mother's were; in the Bible, lineage is established through the male.
Now, with your claim of "having a different father" in reference to the lineage of Issac and Ishmael, the only way this could be possible is if Issac had two fathers.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
.
All this talk about the President being a Muslim. I don't think so at all. I do think that this President has in his heart the world position of Ishmael. He is an Ishmaelite. He is not after Issac.
Proto has stated numerous times throughout these pages that this thread is NOT about religion. For that reason and on this basis, I shall leave you to your delusions.
I am taking this rock out of my shoe and heading back to the dusty trail that leads to Rome.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
.
All this talk about the President being a Muslim. I don't think so at all. I do think that this President has in his heart the world position of Ishmael. He is an Ishmaelite. He is not after Issac.
This statement is just out of left field. No one has said anything about that on this thread that I am aware of. It's rather arrogant of you to make such a judgment and purport that you can read a man's heart when all you know of him is what the media bias chooses to portray.
Proto has stated numerous times throughout these pages that this thread is NOT about religion. For that reason and on this basis, I shall leave you to your delusions. You are welcome to start another thread if you wish to continue on with this subject matter.
Given the temporal power the Church wielded (and still does to a certain degree, though more through influence now), one could say that the Roman Empire is still at the heart of Western society.