Knight is best known for his book “Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution” where he claims the Ripper murders were a plot to cover up an illegitimate Royal baby. (The book was one of the major inspirations behind Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell’s “From Hell”.)
However, this book has been comprehensively debunked and his other work on Masonry, “The Brotherhood” is equally suspect, so Cecil should take care in using his claims as an authoritative source.
Disclaimer: I am the son of a Mason, but have no interest in joining myself (and am actively prevented from doing so due to my lack of religious belief).
That name is used, rather fleetingly, in one of the more advanced degrees in the York Rite branch of Masonry. The name is used, but Knight’s reference is out of context, moreover, wrong.
He’s a guy out to sell books, facts are unimportant.
Wikipedia, s.v., has a few things to say on “Jahbulon”. Lord! how all this stuff ends up draining into the same old foggy Gnostic bog.
–
John W. Kennedy “While the Pistis Sophia is just readable, the Books of Jeû are not. The revelations they contain are conveyed in mystic diagrams, and numbers, and meaningless collections of letters, and it requires a vast deal of historical imagination and sympathy to put oneself in the place of anybody who could tolerate, let alone reverence, the dreary stuff.”
—Montague Rhodes James
Like with all religious doctrine, it’s clear enough if you bother to do your research.
Plenty of excellent scholarship has been done since Montague Rhodes James’ day on both the Pistis Sophia, the two Books of Jeû, Gnosticism generally, etc., etc. The same is true for Masonic lore, Masonic history, etc.
Brill’s “Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism” is a good place to start – the entry about “Gnosticism” deals, in part, with the Books of Jeû, and reflects the latest scholarship. (The entries on the Ophites and the Perates are great as well.)
As a Mason for thirty years…a couple of brief comments. 1) the clear request to all candidates is that they acknowledge the existence of supreme being of some kind - which flavor you pick is up to you, but clearly no atheists allowed - at least in the American lodge. 2) The basic Freemason’s organization, sometimes call Blue Lodge - goes to simple straight ahead philosophy and working together and should not be confused with some of the later added organizations or "advanced degrees, such Chapter, Commandry, etc, up through Shriners
As for sneakier, more sinister, deep seated plots… heh, heh, heh … none of you really believes that do you? … heh, heh, heh …
The most accurate portrayal of freemasonry is found in the book A secret history of freemasonry written by freemason and historian Paul Naudon,
Freemasonry is linked with Rosicrucianism (see the Georgia Guidestones as to what the rosies believe in)
The rosies are still very much in existance controlling most of the media and hence then enabling them to control the governments of the world,
the Guide stones were erected 33 years ago on the 22nd june 1979 if you understand Occultism and the connection they have with numerology you will realise these are a seriously disturbed group of individuals that are trying to bring about what the guidestones say.
so if you can’t be bothered to go and read books that historians have wrote:) this biblebelievers.org.au/masonic.htm link will give you a general idea
but as you are so interested in fighting ignorance then i say you should always start with yourself
go and find the book and dont shout down what others tell you until you know yourself.
freemasonry is an extension of stonemasonry when the majority of the bridges and churches were built they expanded stonemasonry into adding other trades and keeping secrets to one group of people mathematicians poets these types of people
even if you type in history of freemasonry in wikipedia it tells you it goes back to the 13th century
:smack:
Better yet, where can I send an application to transfer departments? I have a feeling being part of the International Banking Elite is more lucrative than Marxism.
The earliest official English documents to refer to masons are written in Latin or Norman French. Thus we have “sculptores lapidum liberorum” (London 1212), “magister lathomus liberarum petrarum” (Oxford 1391), and “mestre mason de franche peer” (Statute of Labourers 1351). These all signify a worker in freestone, a grainless sandstone or limestone suitable for ornamental masonry. In the 17th century building accounts of Wadham College the terms freemason and freestone mason are used interchangeably. Freemason also contrasts with “Rough Mason” or “Layer”, as a more skilled worker who worked or laid dressed stone.[1]
The adjective “free” in this context may also be taken to infer that the mason is not enslaved, indentured or feudally bound. While this is difficult to reconcile with medieval English masons, it apparently became important to Scottish operative lodges.[17]
