baphomet

Originally posted by pepsi78
But that means to add another version, it's what version means.

You are proved incorrect by every Latin dictionary ever printed.

Maybe you can submit your 'opinion' and have them all rewritten.

reply to post by pepsi78

York Rite is just a term to describe the system nor is it called this everywhere around Freemasonry, nor are the rituals the same either. Simply for being in the Masonry (as a whole) doesn't mean two different organizations "are the same". I'm guessing you don't see the forest for the trees.

it was a head, some people say it was a horn god thats holding the caduceus, the symbol of hermes

You know, tomb, if you are going to participate in this discussion, you might want to do a LITTLE study of the facts before you go parading that highly polished set of ignorance you have going there...

try reading the REST of the threads on the subject.... you know, use the SEARCH feature. No mason, no lodge, has anything to do with anything called a baphomet...


[edit on 11/11/04 by theron dunn] don't you kid yorself. maybe you should do some research. if you are a mason as i am then i would understand. but Masonically we do not recognize them as masons but the O.T.O worships Baphomet but only to spite the anti's and the christians. most OTO members (if they admit to being members) will also say they are a mason. but i do not like the VAST MAJORITY of masons do not consider them as such

reply to post by pepsi78


NO , the Triple Tau has no significance in the Commandery , PERIOD . Again , you are talking about something you have no knowledge of , nor understanding . Unless you went through it yourself instead of relying on secondhand information , you just may realize this .

As I , and others have stated , the York Rite is made up 3 distinct , independent bodies who follow their own rituals , rules and regulations and govern themselves independently . You can keep stating " They are all part of the York Rite" until you are blue in the face , but until you get a grasp on how they operate , then you are doing nothing more than blowing hot air .

OK - different perspective...

In English Freemasonry, the Royal Arch is considered to be the completion of the third degree.

The preliminary declaration in the Book of Constitutions reads as follows:
"...pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more, viz, those of the Entered Apprentice, The Fellow Craft, and Master Mason (including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch)."

I am an active member of the Holy Royal Arch. Being the Principal Sojourner, I know most of the words of the Royal Arch ritual by heart. Of the things I have read on this thread, there are some that are blatantly wrong...

1.) The video that Pepsi showed is a fake. The setting is not even that of a Royal Arch Chapter - neither is any of the regalia. The HRA does not even have a "Master", as is indicated in the video. None of the words in that clip are from HRA ritual.

2.) The ritual itself explains the history and origin of the symbol which Pepsi has referred to so many times. It's inclusion does not need to be debated - here it is in black and white:


"...there was likewise the triple tau. The tau, by reason of its having been used to distinguish the innocent, and those who escaped unhurt in battle, has ever been considered a mark or sign of life."
(Aldersgate Royal Arch Ritual, Lewis Masonic, 2005, pg. 117)

The ritual then goes on to say that the triple Tau alludes symbolically to the Deity, how in ancient times, the triangle was considered a sacred symbol, and how symbols of Divinity were often enclosed within triangular figures. The circle is, as has always been, considered an emblem of eternity, having no beginning and no end.

3.) The words/syllables jah, bul, on, or any combination of these syllables, do not appear anywhere in the ritual.

Pepsi, please feel free to ask anything you would like to know about the Royal Arch. It is much better to get the truth from someone who knows, rather than lies from random websites where people simply guess what goes on in the RA.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

I do not agree with you, it's what version means, to turn.

Word Origin & History

version
1582, "a translation," from M.Fr. version, from M.L. versionem (nom. versio ) "a turning," from pp. stem of L. vertere "to turn"

reply to post by KSigMason

You are just playing politics, the york rite is part of masonry.

reply to post by Saurus


The triple tau coresponds with the same drawing from the Jahbulon emblem, it's almost identical, these two are from the royal arch, Jahbulon is part or was part of the royal arch ritual.


The triple tau among what you state there, (masonic crap dogma for beginers) that is invented by masons for the begginers, besides that it represents something, else, as it's original meaning is not what you state there.
But it has to do with other things among them the knight templars.

First: Did I mention I think masonry is Satanic ?
Second: I don't trust you.

Originally posted by pepsi78
You are just playing politics, the york rite is part of masonry.

Perhaps I can clear up the controversy here, and the reason why there doesn't seem to be agreement on this matter...

The Grand Lodges of Freemasonry only have control over "Freemasonry," which is the first three degrees, commonly called Craft or Blue lodges.

In the American system, RA falls under the York Rite, which is a separate order with a separate governing body. Since it doesn't fall under a Masonic Grand Lodge, it is not considered to be Freemasonry, but rather an additional order. Therefore, to an American Mason, the York Rite is considered a separate order, and not part of Freemasonry.

However, in English Freemasonry (UGLE), the Royal Arch does indeed consider the Royal Arch to be a part of Freemasonry, since it is considered the completion of the third degree. The Supreme Grand Chapter is affiliated with UGLE, and the UGLE does have a say over the governance of the Supreme Grand Chapter. It is my guess that you got your info from an English source.

The triple tau coresponds with the same drawing from the Jahbulon emblem, it's almost identical, these two are from the royal arch, Jahbulon is part or was part of the royal arch ritual.

The triple tau symbol is indeed from the Royal Arch. The other emblem you have shown with the syllables Jah Bul On is similar to one of the RA emblems, but not the way it is shown in the picture, and the real one does not contain the syllables Jah, Bul or On. If you wish to find out more about the real emblem, I would suggest that you find a copy of the RA mystical lecture (which goes into detail about the symbolism of the actual emblem) and read it.

The triple tau among what you state there, (masonic crap dogma for beginers) that is invented by masons for the begginers, besides that it represents something, else, as it's original meaning is not what you state there.

Aah, you are learning...

There is indeed much more to the symbol than is explained in the lecture, but it is for the individual Mason to find out what this symbol means. Each Mason will arrive at a different answer. This is the intention of presenting the symbol. This is how Freemasonry works.
(P.S. There is no "correct" answer.)

But it has to do with other things among them the knight templars.

Not as far as I'm aware, but I'm listening. If there is a link, I would be genuinely interested to hear about it. Please do post up any info you might have about the connection. I will use it as a starting point to do my own research.

First: Did I mention I think masonry is Satanic ?

I always find this statement odd, as many (probably most, globally) Freemasons are not Christian, and do not believe in the Bible or in Satan. This notion is as absurd to most (or many) Masons as suggesting that we Worship the Greek god Zeus - both are fictional characters to most (or many) Masons. To suggest that we worship a fictional character is absurd.

Second: I don't trust you.

This is to be expected. It usually takes most people years to build up trust, but sadly, it sometimes only takes suspicion (not proof) to destroy it.

The york rite is part of masonry there is no mistake.

The triple tau symbol is indeed from the Royal Arch. The other emblem you have shown with the syllables Jah Bul On is similar to one of the RA emblems, but not the way it is shown in the picture, and the real one does not contain the syllables Jah, Bul or On. If you wish to find out more about the real emblem, I would suggest that you find a copy of the RA mystical lecture (which goes into detail about the symbolism of the actual emblem) and read it.'

The triple tau is part of the templar legacy, the two emblems are identical in design.

en.wikipedia.org...
Jahbulon (or Jabulon) is a word which was used historically in some rituals of Royal Arch Masonry

Aah, you are learning...

There is indeed much more to the symbol than is explained in the lecture, but it is for the individual Mason to find out what this symbol means. Each Mason will arrive at a different answer. This is the intention of presenting the symbol. This is how Freemasonry works.
(P.S. There is no "correct" answer.)

The triple tau is part of the legacy with the knights templars.

Not as far as I'm aware, but I'm listening. If there is a link, I would be genuinely interested to hear about it. Please do post up any info you might have about the connection. I will use it as a starting point to do my own research.

Roslin chaple says otherwise. History with the temple of solomon where the templars served says otherwise.

I always find this statement odd, as many (probably most, globally) Freemasons are not Christian, and do not believe in the Bible or in Satan. This notion is as absurd to most (or many) Masons as suggesting that we Worship the Greek god Zeus - both are fictional characters to most (or many) Masons. To suggest that we worship a fictional character is absurd.

Satan predates christianity
Satan is a king, King Satan

jahbulon has a crown, it's a king


I find masonry most satanic, very satanic.

Strange picture you've posted there .

Of course, I assume you do know it's a drawing by an artist called Steven Daily. He is a conspiracy theorist, and the picture is, by his own words, his own impression of the conspiracy surrounding Freemasonry.

I sincerely hope you didn't think it was actually a masonic (Royal Arch) symbol or impression...???

Source

reply to post by Saurus


Yes, of course it's what the artist wanted to imply, that Satan is no other but a King.
Of course the triple tau bring about this, just shows masonry is satanic in nature, also with the conection to the knight templars since they are involved too.

Man, I wish the owners would bring back the "ignore" function. If Pepsi continues to fill these threads with such utter crap, I may have to find a new forum...

reply to post by Masonic Light

Hi Masonic Light--

We have seen it written that the O.T.O. to-day is no longer directly part of or associated (since 1918) with Global Freemasonry Proper but was originally founded as an off-shoot of Global Freemasonry (as an Academia Masonica FOR Masons to understand their own ritual underpinnings) with its members having first required to be high level initiated Freemasons…would you at least agree with that premise?

Here is a quote from their more modern initiation rules according to their own OTO Website

oto-usa.org...

“O.T.O. membership does not “of itself” confer any Status in Freemasonry.

Nearly 100 years ago, when O.T.O. was established in Germany, it was closely allied to several Rites of European Freemasonry.

However, in 1918, Aleister Crowley determined it appropriate for O.T.O. to assert its own unique identity as an ‘independent system’.

At that time, while retaining the use of certain convenient customs and terminology used in early Freemasonry, Crowley revised the O.T.O. rituals, insignia and modes of recognition to avoid infringing upon the legitimate privileges of the established and recognized authorities of modern Freemasonry, and also to specifically reflect the teachings of Thelema.

Crowley's O.T.O. has not claimed to "make Masons" since 1918….”

“In 1885, Kellner met the Theosophical and Rosicrucian scholar, Dr. Franz Hartmann (1838 - 1912).
During the course of his studies, Kellner believed that he had discovered a "Key" which offered a clear explanation of all the complex symbolism of Freemasonry, and, Kellner believed, opened the mysteries of Nature.

Kellner developed a desire to form an Academia Masonica which “would enable all Freemasons to become familiar with all existing Masonic degrees” and systems.

In 1895, Kellner began to discuss his idea for founding an Academia Masonica with his associate Theodor Reuss (Merlin or Peregrinus, June 28, 1855 - Oct. 28, 1923).

During these discussions, Kellner decided that the Academia Masonica should be called the "Oriental Templar Order."

The occult inner circle of this Order (O.T.O. proper) would be organized parallel to the highest degrees of the Memphis and Mizraim Rites of Masonry, and would teach the esoteric Rosicrucian doctrines of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, and Kellner's "Key" to Masonic symbolism.

Both men and women would be admitted at all levels to this Order, but possession of the various degrees of Craft and High-Grade Freemasonry would be a prerequisite for admission to the Inner Circle of O.T.O.

Due to the regulations of the established Grand Lodges which governed Regular Masonry, women could not be made Masons and would therefore be excluded by default from membership in the Oriental Templar Order.

This may have been one of the reasons that Kellner & his associates resolved to obtain control over one of the many rites, or systems, of Masonry in order to reform the system for the Admission of women….”

So originally, from what the website seems to be saying all “higher raniking” OTO members had first to be already good-standing member initiates of a Masonic Order…but the OTO does not actually confer Degrees recognized within international global Freemasonry…

I suppose the weird and mudy relation of the O.T.O. to World Masonry is a somewhat akin to what we to-day call ‘Christianity’ in its relation to ‘modern Rabinnic’ (i.e. non-sacrificial) Judaeism

(But…perhaps we should use plurals here, i.e. ‘Judaeisms’ and ‘Christianities’ since there are so many different expressions of each from the beginning and still running around to-day…)

i.e. in that the early ‘Christianities’ were once a variegated collection of several off-shoots of a form of Palestinian Messianic Judaiesm founded by R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (=Gk. ‘Iesous’) and his immediate family based on Daviddic bloodlineages, which after the Destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple of YHWH by the Romans in the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE), had gradually abandoned its original roots ‘within Judaeism’, and the stricter teachings of ‘Iesous’ to ‘obey every jot and tittle of the Torah’ by totally abandoning the strict Jewish Kashrut Diet and by omitting e.g. ‘Circumcision’ and by not following the precepts of the Torah of ‘Moses’) and following more the teachings of the ‘Salvation by Faith churches’ established by Saul of Tarsus (who ‘never knew the Teacher in the flesh’) and his followers…

Some would STILL regard most of the modern day ‘Christianities’ running around today as ‘Ultra Reform Messianic non Sacrificial Judaeism’ in the sense that most Christians still worship the ‘clan god of the Jews’ i.e. YHWH and STILL regard the Hebrew Scriptures (which they call the ‘old’ testament…) as ‘canonical’ and ‘inspired’ and integrally related to their understanding of their own more gentile loving and universal (as opposed to Zionist military exclusivist) Messiah figure…

Others (looking more closely at all the ‘specific dogmas’ adopted by the post Athanasian Christianities) would NOT regard today’s expressions within ‘Christianity’ as having anything to do with today’s various Rabinnic Judaeisms – (e.g. Ultra Extreme Orthodox Chasid, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Ultra Reform etc.) going back to the earlier schisms which began from the period immediately after the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) when the Nazorean family of ‘Iesous’ and the ‘original Messianic Christianities’ were basically wiped out – or even earlier if you count Saul of Tarsus bitter exchanges with the Nazorean Messianic Daviddic leaders (headed up by the blood brother off ‘Iesous’, who went by the name of ‘James the Just’ but was NOT one of the 12)…

I myself would consider most of to-day’s ‘Christianities’ today as representing a form of ultra-Reform Messianic Judaeism - since their ‘holy Texts’ which are usedto justify some of their weird belief systems are in fact at least partly ‘based’ on older ‘Jewish’ Hebrew texts with their concomitant Zionist Weltanschauungen (see e.g. the so-called ‘Book of Revelation’ which shows this ‘zionist’ Reform Messianic Jewish aspect most clearly of all the books in the so-called New Testament).

Or perhaps it can be seen as akin to the situation of what we call ‘Buddhism’ seen as an offshoot of Hinduism – since when all is said and done, ‘the Buddah’ was born a Hindu with a northern ‘Indian Weltanschauung’…
Now you yourself and others like you may not be able to see the O.T.O. as part of Masonry, but it would be very difficult to separate the world-view of the O.T.O. (especially in its founding documents) from world Masonry and its ideals – especially since originally all members of the OTO had to be higher-initiated Freemasons first…as I said earlier, to deny the Masonic Nature of the O.T.O. (to me) seems more of a ‘semantic discussion’ than anything else...the sticking point being the fact that the O.T.O. cannot grant Masonic Degrees...

Which is somewhat akin to the various claims of modern ultra 'orthodox' Israeli Jews announcing to the world that anyone who is NOT an 'born ultra-orthodox Jew actually living in Eretz Yisro'el' would ever be authorised by G-d to make a Jewish Proselyte (i.e. circumcise a Gentile and perform a Miqvah ceremony to make him a fully fledged 'Jew' ) - their conversion would be 'not effectual...'

It seems whenever men get together to form organisations (for whatever common cause) it is not long before splinter groups start to form holding many original ideas with the first group but introducing new and different ideas as they separate off...where one begins and another ends is sometimes only a matter of opinion...

In the meantime, please, stay on this ATS thread and don't let the Profanum Vulgus wear you down !!!

Originally posted by pepsi78
I do not agree with you, it's what version means, to turn.

You may not agree with me but history does not agree with you.

Word Origin & History

version
1582, "a translation," from M.Fr. version, from M.L. versionem (nom. versio ) "a turning," from pp. stem of L. vertere "to turn"

Good thing you inlcuded the French translation again incase everyone missed it the first fourteen times you posted it. Call us when you find the Latin translation for the word 'version'.

Good thing you inlcuded the French translation again incase everyone missed it the first fourteen times you posted it. Call us when you find the Latin translation for the word 'version'.

I do not share your point, to turn means version, it's what version means in all the languages, english included.
Aditionaly it is also present in medieval Latin, but not that it matters.

Ooops.

www.utexas.edu...
Medieval Latin:

versio, versionis n.fem act of turning

Exactly what I have said.
Versio, Version, Versionis.

Anyway....
I don't understand what point you are trying to make since to turn means version. It's what it means in English.

So this is accurate:

www.merriam-webster.com...
Origin of VERSION
Middle French, from Medieval Latin version-, versio act of turning, change, from Latin vertere to turn — more at

Adversary = add version, this is similar to the accuser, accuser = add cause.
Satan is the adversary.
SAT-AN -SAT-URN. Satan is the Saturnial force for what it's worth.

Originally posted by pepsi78
I do not share your point, to turn means version, it's what version means in all the languages, english included.

Really? Even English? Sure it does.

ver·sion   /ˈvɜrʒən, -ʃən/ Show Spelled
[vur-zhuhn, -shuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a particular account of some matter, as from one person or source, contrasted with some other account: two different versions of the accident.
2. a particular form or variant of something: a modern version of an antique.
3. a translation.
EXPAND
4. ( often initial capital letter ) a translation of the Bible or a part of it.
5. Medicine/Medical . the act of turning a child in the uterus so as to bring it into a more favorable position for delivery.
6. Pathology . an abnormal direction of the axis of the uterus or other organ.

Nothing about turning (except in utero). Too bad your English is as bad as your Latin.

Aditionaly it is also present in medieval Latin, but not that it matters.

Ooops.

www.utexas.edu...
Medieval Latin:

versio, versionis n.fem act of turning

Exactly what I have said.
Versio, Version, Versionis.

Opps. To bad you initially insisted it meant to 'turn a verse' or 'add a verse'. Everyone already knows that 'vertere' means 'to turn'.

Anyway....
I don't understand what point you are trying to make since to turn means version. It's what it means in English.

Uh, no. See the dictionary defintion above.

Dictionaries 100, pepsi 0.

Adversary = add version, this is similar to the accuser, accuser = add cause.
Satan is the adversary.
SAT-AN -SAT-URN. Satan is the Saturnial force for what it's worth.

I have never seen anyone argue with a dictionary before. Actually, make that dictionaries, plural.

From the dictionary:

Origin:
1575–85; < Latin versiōn- (stem of versiō ) a turning, equivalent to vers ( us ) (past participle of vertere to turn; see verse) + -iōn- -ion

Version=to turn.

To bad you initially insisted it meant to 'turn a verse' or 'add a verse'. Everyone already knows that 'vertere' means 'to turn'.

I stated that adversary meant to add another version, as in an addon, I stand by what I stated.

Originally posted by Sigismundus

We have seen it written that the O.T.O. to-day is no longer directly part of or associated (since 1918) with Global Freemasonry Proper but was originally founded as an off-shoot of Global Freemasonry (as an Academia Masonica FOR Masons to understand their own ritual underpinnings) with its members having first required to be high level initiated Freemasons…would you at least agree with that premise?

Not in the technical sense, because none of the founders or early members of the O.T.O. were legitimate Freemasons.

Here is a quote from their more modern initiation rules according to their own OTO Website

In a nutshell, the original first three degrees of the O.T.O. as propagated by Reuss were basically plagiarisms of the Masonic Rite of Memphis' first three degrees. When Crowley took over the O.T.O. leadership, he revised the rituals, and removed the explicit Masonic content.

So originally, from what the website seems to be saying all “higher raniking” OTO members had first to be already good-standing member initiates of a Masonic Order…but the OTO does not actually confer Degrees recognized within international global Freemasonry…

The O.T.O. was organized by a couple of people who belonged to irregular pseudo-Masonic rites. But for the most part, at that time, the O.T.O. existed only on paper, without any lodges or real body of membership. It was only after Crowley was appointed by Reuss to spread the order in English-speaking countries that the first couple of real O.T.O. lodges were actually opened, the first one being Agape Lodge in British Columbia, under direction of Charles Stansfeld Jones (who was a Mason).

Now you yourself and others like you may not be able to see the O.T.O. as part of Masonry, but it would be very difficult to separate the world-view of the O.T.O. (especially in its founding documents) from world Masonry and its ideals – especially since originally all members of the OTO had to be higher-initiated Freemasons first…as I said earlier, to deny the Masonic Nature of the O.T.O. (to me) seems more of a ‘semantic discussion’ than anything else...the sticking point being the fact that the O.T.O. cannot grant Masonic Degrees...

If by "Masonic Nature of the O.T.O.", you mean the plagiarizing of Masonic elements in their rituals, then yes it is true. The Mormon Church also had plagiarized elements of Masonry in their original temple endowment ceremony. It's really no different.

Both the O.T.O. and the Mormon Church have sinced purged their ceremonies of Masonic elements. The O.T.O. is a very small organization, with its worldwide membership being less than 3000. It basically functions today as a study group for Crowley fans, and has no bearing on orthodox Freemasonry.

Originally posted by pepsi78
The york rite is an official masonic body.

No, actually it's not. The General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons International is an official Masonic body, the General Grand Council of Cryptic Masons International is an official Masonic body, and Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States is an official Masonic body. But only in the US are these organizations lumped together under the name "York Rite", and then just for convenience.

Triple tau is associated with the Templars.

No, the triple tau is not associated with the Templars.

reply to post by Masonic Light


ML,

Do not question pepsi's all knowingness. Or else you will be arguing in circles for infinity. The triple tau is TOTALLY part of Knight's Templar.