Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 3

← previous |

Archive 3

| next →

Gospel of James

I removed the following text from the legends section of the article:

Still others speculate the Knights Templar found a missing Gospel written by James, the brother of Jesus, which preaches conversion to more Jewish religion, traditions and ceremony for Christians and the rejection of a central church figure (and thus the rejection of the Papacy). Those that consider this tale also believe that this could be the reason for the persecution in 1307.

• 1. What is the source of this information? One book from a fringe researcher?
• 2. Since its not a widely-known Templar legend, I think it's necessary to add it to the article and give it so many lines.

--Loremaster 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean to say it is necessary to give it so many lines, or it is not necessary? DonaNobisPacem 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! I meant not necessary. Also, I've added a mention of James at the end of the Legends section, which I think is sufficient. --Loremaster 20:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree.DonaNobisPacem 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Grand Masters from 1118 to 1314

Could someone find the time to write stub articles for the five remaining Grand Masters who do not have articles of their own. Once this is done, all links in the Knights Templar article will be blue. --Loremaster 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Request edit protection from user 166.66.16.116

User 166.66.16.116 is clearly a 'masonic Knight Templar' with an agenda who refuses to accept that 1) this is a neutral article about the original Knights Templar, 2) this article is not about the Masonic Knights Templar, which have their own article, 3) the article should present critical views of the notion that there is a historical connection between the Knights Templar and Freemasonry, 4) no article should be used for promotion or recruitment purposes. --Loremaster 10:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the intervention of Mike Rosoft of the Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit, I am happy that this situation has been resolved... for now. --Loremaster 11:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This IP should be banned, or banned from editing Freemasonry & Knights Templar. Nearly every edit by this user has been reverted. The edits are a constant nuisance. Their comments have always been confrontational, & recently violate WP:NPA. Vandalism includes editing & deleting other users comments. Also, this IP & BlueTemplar13 are the same. I have never seen a logged in user go to editing from an IP for a good reason. Judging from their quality & sparse communication & lack of consideration, I think BlueTemplar13 actually thinks they are invisible if they are not logged in. Again, Ban. Grye 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BlueTemplar13 is at it again as User 166.66.16.103. --Loremaster 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User 166.66.16.103 continues to vandalize the article by removing entire section, which many worked hard to write, without any discussion. I've upgraded the article from semiprotected to protected. --Loremaster 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you didn't; adding a tag to an article does not protect it. I have blocked User:166.66.16.103 for the next 24 hours; if more vandalism takes place, I will semi-protect the page once again. - Mike Rosoft 12:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I actually realized that fact before you wrote this but thank you for making it. --Loremaster 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Baphomet

In the article, it reads that the Templars were accused of a belief in Baphomet as God's messengers - as I recall from Barber in The New Knighthood, the name Baphomet came up rarely, and then in reference to an idol; I don't recall anything so specific coming up in the trials. Is there confirmation for this, or is this a later interpretation? It should also be included that the interpretation of Baphomet as the mutation of the name Mohammed is commonly accepted by modern academia as well - as it is, it seems that that was only an interpretation taken by the Inquisitors - if that term should even be used..... : ) DonaNobisPacem 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edit the article to reflect your comments. --Loremaster 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Inheriting knighthood as Templar-Masonic connection?

A reason that can point the theory of transition from the Order of the Knights Templar to Freemasons occurs in the manner of Knighthood inheritance from descendent to descendant. Hence it is possible that the Founding Fathers were in fact descendants of the Knights Templar, ere go, their descendants could still be alive today, and could very well be Knights. This goes the same for all Freemasons or people of Templar descent, they have according to Templar heredital transitional Knighthood, the right to Knighthood. This Knighthood is apart and completely different from that of the Knighthood offered by the Royal Monarchs of Britain.

I've removed the text above because it is a weak if not pathetic argument to desperately try to connect the Knights Templar to the Freemasons or anyobody in need of glorification. --Loremaster 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on my own research, the Templar-Masonic link was mainly because it was simply "fashionable" to claim Templar connections in the 18th Century. Then some of the Masonic lodges started deliberately adopting Templar symbols and ceremonies as their own in the 1800s, and things have been muddled ever since. Elonka 06:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the supposed "Templar-Masonic" connection was most likely the famous Ramsay Oration of the mid-18th century. Certainly the "Oration" was the first pairing of the religious-military Orders with the Masonic lodge of which we are aware today.

Initiation secrecy?

Initiation into the Order was a profound commitment, and involved a secret ceremony. Few details of the rituals are known, but initiates,

Elonka wrote: The secrecy of the initiation is important, since it made it difficult to refute the charges that came from the later Inquisition)

However, I've removed this line because user 66.156.107.108 pointed out that the ceremonial involved in becoming a Templar is not secret or unknown; see Professor Upton-Ward's "Rule of the Templars" for a description.

--Loremaster 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not unknown now, but it was definitely unknown then. Initiations were secret, as were the methods of encrypting the letters of credit. The secrecy of the initiation ceremony was one of the things that got them into so much trouble during the Inquisition. All kinds of charges were made up about what happened during the ceremony, and these were difficult to refute because of the lack of documentation of what really happened. Elonka 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I reversed my edits. --Loremaster 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)