Originally posted by Masonic Light
Further, it contains all the formerly secret documents that were given to initiates of the Order which taught them the theories and practice of ceremonial magic. This book is indispensable to even the most casual student of secret societies and esoteric teachings.

Not all of them, there are other books that have some documents not published by Regardie, Ritual Magic of the Golden Dawn edited by Francis King comes to mind. And Pat Zalewski published some books with more documents along with some initiations higher than Adeptus Minor.

For those interested there are 2 books called The golden dawn by Regardie.

1) The Golden Dawn first published in '41 now published by Llewellyn as a paperback. This book has the rituals from the Stella Matutina one of the offshoot orders formed when the Golden dawn broke up.

2) The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magick - Big hardback from New Falcon. This one has the rituals from the original Golden Dawn, and as a bonus includes a few from A.E. Waite's more Christian offshoot order (The Fellowship of the Rosy Cross).

Originally posted by saint4God
By the way, nice pyramind surrounded by the sun in your avatar pic

What are you implying? It's not a pyramid, it's a triangle: an ANCIENT symbol of deity.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
What are you implying? It's not a pyramid, it's a triangle: an ANCIENT symbol of deity.

I sit corrected! And candidly didn't mean to offend, just pokin' at ya . Since we're on the topic, what's the difference between a filled in triangle and a pyramid? Which deity? Masons don't use pyramids in their symbols?

[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Since we're on the topic, what's the difference between a filled in triangle and a pyramid?

The Triangle is an ancient symbol of Divinity. It was probably first used as such by the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician, Pythagoras. It was adopted by Plato's school from Pythagoras.

The three sides of the Triangle (or Delta, as the Greeks and Scottish Rite Masons call it), represent the Threefold Nature of Deity. Christians and Hindus often refer to this as the Trinity. Secondly, we can't forget the Hermetic axiom "As above, so below," and Plato pointed out in the "Republic" that man's soul is likewise composed of three parts: Reason, Spirit, and the animal passions.

Which deity?

The Holy Aged and Ancient of Days. The Muslims have a saying that "there is no God but God". This to me seems an appropriate response.

Masons don't use pyramids in their symbols?

I don't recall ever seeing a pyramid used as a Masonic symbol. I don't have anything against pyramids, but they do not carry the same important symbolism as a delta. After all, the pyramid is just a tomb for rich Egyptian guys. But the Delta is an ancient symbol of the Source of Life itself.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Christians and Hindus often refer to this as the Trinity.

I'm unfamiliar with a Hindu Trinity, can anyone please expand?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Secondly, we can't forget the Hermetic axiom "As above, so below," and Plato pointed out in the "Republic" that man's soul is likewise composed of three parts: Reason, Spirit, and the animal passions.

Yeah, but didn't he come up with an expansion pack later that had 5 (or something), then represented each individual as one of those separated by the resilience in approaching education? It's been some time since my Philosophies of Life class. Hey wait, we're doing that today. How about that. No High School = $14,000/year. High School = $25,000/year. Bachelors = $35,000/year. Masters = $50,000/year. PHD = $70,000/year. (Disclaimer: Estimates are base on observation. This is not a scientific poll)

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Holy Aged and Ancient of Days. The Muslims have a saying that "there is no God but God". This to me seems an appropriate response.

It was said that way in the Bible before Mohammed. Now, this is very interesting. God, as represented in the New Testament, says through His son that "whoever believes in me will not perish but have eternal life" and "no-one gets to heaven except through me". So, here's the dilemma. How can people who say that Christ was not the son of God acheive the same salvation?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't recall ever seeing a pyramid used as a Masonic symbol. I don't have anything against pyramids, but they do not carry the same important symbolism as a delta.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
After all, the pyramid is just a tomb for rich Egyptian guys.

I'd think any Christian or Jew would distance themselves from using a pyramid. After all, their ancestors were trying to get as far away from them as possible per Exodus, yes? Why do you think the Egyptians used triangles...er...pyramids I mean, as the shape for their tombs?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But the Delta is an ancient symbol of the Source of Life itself.

How so?

If you're wondering why I'm asking here and not read a book, I'd like to provide the following reasons:
1.) You can stop a book and ask it in detail what it means.
2.) A book can't cross-reference and challenge itself.
3.) I'd much rather here from people who have experienced instead of compiling sources.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

I'm unfamiliar with a Hindu Trinity, can anyone please expand?

Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. The Creator, Destroyer, and Preserver.

It was said that way in the Bible before Mohammed. Now, this is very interesting. God, as represented in the New Testament, says through His son that "whoever believes in me will not perish but have eternal life" and "no-one gets to heaven except through me". So, here's the dilemma. How can people who say that Christ was not the son of God acheive the same salvation?

The interesting thing about religion is that everyone has their own opinions concerning it. Even within Christendom itself there is a schism that seemingly cannot be healed. I'm reminded of John Wesley (an Arminian) who said to George Whitefield (a Calvinist) that "you're God is my devil."

If Christians cannot agree even among themselves who the true God is, it is doubtful that they will agree with non-Christians. Practically every religion claims a monopoly on God and salvation. From my experience, I have came to the conclusion that the reason for this in the vast majority of cases is simply because people who hold this belief were taught it in their youth. Therefore, because a person is socialized in this manner at such a young age, this religious belief of exclusivity acts as a psychological self-defense mechanism later, when confronted with doubts and/or tragedies in life.

I'm not picking on Christianity here, I've seen the same spiritual elitism in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism (so far, I can let the Taoists off the hook, but I'm keeping a close eye on them, hehehe).

Anyway, all this being the case, I don't think I'm qualified to speak for God concerning salvation. I think if we approach life honestly and with integrity, God will show us our paths regardless of personal religious belief and/or mythological systems. In other words, I'd argue that what we do is much more important than what we think.

I'd think any Christian or Jew would distance themselves from using a pyramid. After all, their ancestors were trying to get as far away from them as possible per Exodus, yes?

I think they were running from tyranny, not pyramids.

Why do you think the Egyptians used triangles...er...pyramids I mean, as the shape for their tombs?

Probably both for aesthetic purposes, as well as astrological ones. The Native Americans in South America also used them for apparently the same purposes.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. The Creator, Destroyer, and Preserver.

Thank you. I did not think they had a big 3...in fact in reading the Bhagavad Gita, I expected Krishna to be one of them. Shows how little I know on Hinduism I guess and need to read more.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The interesting thing about religion is that everyone has their own opinions concerning it. Even within Christendom itself there is a schism that seemingly cannot be healed.

What schism?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I'm reminded of John Wesley (an Arminian) who said to George Whitefield (a Calvinist) that "you're God is my devil."

If Christians cannot agree even among themselves who the true God is, it is doubtful that they will agree with non-Christians.

Christians are not supposed to agree with non-Christians about God. Luke 12:51 "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. " This does not mean go to war, rather it means that when it comes to belief in God, those who follow Christ will not believe what those who do not believe. If anyone is still in disagreement with that, we have Matthew 25:31 and the other half dozen parable that talks about separating those who believe from those who do not.

Matthew 6:7 says "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words" so I guess pagans pray differently too.

Paul reinforces in 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believe have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people'. Therefore come out from them and be separate."

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Practically every religion claims a monopoly on God and salvation. From my experience, I have came to the conclusion that the reason for this in the vast majority of cases is simply because people who hold this belief were taught it in their youth.

Not I. I got it from the Book, which He directed me to.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Therefore, because a person is socialized in this manner at such a young age, this religious belief of exclusivity acts as a psychological self-defense mechanism later, when confronted with doubts and/or tragedies in life.

Interesting theory. Pot calling the kettle black about exclusivity. Here's the difference. Christians are told to let God do the sorting. There's no code about being 18, male or of a certain degree.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I'm not picking on Christianity here, I've seen the same spiritual elitism in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism (so far, I can let the Taoists off the hook, but I'm keeping a close eye on them, hehehe).

Let's not talk about elitism, the discussion could turn counterproductive. Pot, kettle.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Anyway, all this being the case, I don't think I'm qualified to speak for God concerning salvation. I think if we approach life honestly and with integrity, God will show us our paths regardless of personal religious belief and/or mythological systems. In other words, I'd argue that what we do is much more important than what we think.

I know of 4 gospels (and a few books thereafter) that disagree. This is why I'm having a hard time understanding how a Bible reading Christian could be associated.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I think they were running from tyranny, not pyramids.

True dat, but still don't think they want to hold up a symbol made of the same heavy stones they were whipped into moving.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Probably both for aesthetic purposes, as well as astrological ones. The Native Americans in South America also used them for apparently the same purposes.

Maybe, but think there was more to that. A lot of those answers lie within the function and interior design. This is where the difference between Egyptian and Mayan pyramids are most clearly defined. To use the fire example - It can be used for light or it can be used for heat.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Anyway, all this being the case, I don't think I'm qualified to speak for God concerning salvation. I think if we approach life honestly and with integrity, God will show us our paths regardless of personal religious belief and/or mythological systems. In other words, I'd argue that what we do is much more important than what we think.

Who's this God that you speak of?

Originally posted by saint4God

Thank you. I did not think they had a big 3...in fact in reading the Bhagavad Gita, I expected Krishna to be one of them. Shows how little I know on Hinduism I guess and need to read more.

The Krishna cult is actually far more modern, although some sects contend that Krishna was an avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu.

What schism?

Between the various denominations and branches. Catholic and Protestant, Reformed and Arminian, to immerse or not to immerse, etc.

Christians are not supposed to agree with non-Christians about God.

Maybe, but my point is that often they do not even agree amongst themselves.

Matthew 6:7 says "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words" so I guess pagans pray differently too.

Actually, the word there is "Pharisees", not "pagans". The Pharisees were not pagans, but were a sect of Judaism who, along with Saducees, populated the Sanhedrin. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, as was Paul before his conversion.

Interesting theory. Pot calling the kettle black about exclusivity. Here's the difference. Christians are told to let God do the sorting. There's no code about being 18, male or of a certain degree.

Maybe not, but Masonry doesn't claim a monopoly on God or salvation.

I know of 4 gospels (and a few books thereafter) that disagree. This is why I'm having a hard time understanding how a Bible reading Christian could be associated.

Well, what I've posted are my own beliefs, not Masonic doctrine. I already held these views when I became a Mason, and still hold them today. I suppose the same thing could be said of the Methodist or Presbyterian Mason (i.e., their beliefs have not changed since being involved in our fraternity).

True dat, but still don't think they want to hold up a symbol made of the same heavy stones they were whipped into moving.

I don't personally think they would care, nor do I believe that they necessarily played a role in building them. There is no historical document that mentions anything about the Israelites being involved in pyramid-building, not even in the Torah.

"I don't personally think they would care, nor do I believe that they necessarily played a role in building them. There is no historical document that mentions anything about the Israelites being involved in pyramid-building, not even in the Torah. "
I am new so forgive my sloppyness. All that I have read recently about the Pyramids is that they were built my the Egyptions themselves and that it was a matter of National pride to work on them. It is quite out dated to claim that Israelites worked on them.

lost in the midwest (University of Missouri)

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Krishna cult is actually far more modern, although some sects contend that Krishna was an avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu.

I see, learn something new everyday.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

What schism?

Between the various denominations and branches. Catholic and Protestant, Reformed and Arminian, to immerse or not to immerse, etc.

Tomaeto, Tomahto. The question is, "Are you John 3:16 or not?" The rest is details on how to run a good church. Here's a most excellent measure. Take the Book, hold it up next to the church. If it's a good match, it's a good church. I'm a self-proclaimed Protapresbymethobaptist if we really wanna talk denomination. I've been to many in each, they say the same thing when preaching the Word. Paul said it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Maybe, but my point is that often they do not even agree amongst themselves.

A Christian believes in God, Jesus Christ as His one and only son as saviour and teacher, who died and was resurrected. If they contest this, they are not Christian. The rest is details.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Matthew 6:7 says "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words" so I guess pagans pray differently too.

Actually, the word there is "Pharisees", not "pagans". The Pharisees were not pagans, but were a sect of Judaism who, along with Saducees, populated the Sanhedrin. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, as was Paul before his conversion.

I'm quoting my Book, which was translated by 200 scholars from the original Greek & Hebrew texts. I don't know Greek yet, but looking to start in the very near future. Aren't there different words used for Pharisee and pagan? Because I see distinctly within the same book where Jesus uses both words.

Wait, wasn't Paul a roman soldier?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Maybe not, but Masonry doesn't claim a monopoly on God or salvation.

God gave requirements to us, not Christians to the non-Christians. People can call themselves all kinds of things, it doesn't change we are on the inside. I will never say to anyone "follow me" and "do what I say", rather do what He says and talk to Him. God led me to Christ, not man to his religion.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Well, what I've posted are my own beliefs, not Masonic doctrine. I already held these views when I became a Mason, and still hold them today. I suppose the same thing could be said of the Methodist or Presbyterian Mason (i.e., their beliefs have not changed since being involved in our fraternity).

That's what I cannot understand. I see where you're coming from, but the Masonic Methodists and Presbyterians remain a mystery to me per the passages quoted.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't personally think they would care, nor do I believe that they necessarily played a role in building them. There is no historical document that mentions anything about the Israelites being involved in pyramid-building, not even in the Torah.

Touche'. It's just accepted that Hebrews being slaves in Egypt, then all of the sudden massive structures appearing that they were done by those slaves and not Reptillians from Rectus Prime. I know I'm getting silly but can't fathom how they got there otherwise.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God




I'm quoting my Book, which was translated by 200 scholars from the original Greek & Hebrew texts. I don't know Greek yet, but looking to start in the very near future. Aren't there different words used for Pharisee and pagan? Because I see distinctly within the same book where Jesus uses both words.

Jesus probably wouldn't have used the word "pagan", as this word was not used in a religious context until well after the time of Constantine. The word "pagan" is Latin, and literally means "country dweller". The early European Catholics called those they couldn't convert "pagans" insinuating that because they mostly lived in rural areas, they were not sophisticated enough to understand Catholic theology.

Anyhows, the Pharisees were the religious leaders in Israel during Jesus' lifetime. They controlled the Sanhedrin, and counted Caiphas himself as a member. They were staunch conservatives, and strong opponents of Jesus. They interpreted the law strictly and literally. It was they who claimed that Jesus was inviolation of the law for healing the lame on the sabbath, and it was they who orchestrated his arrest and execution.

Wait, wasn't Paul a roman soldier?

No, according to his own writings, he had been a Pharisee and doctor of the law. He had possibly been a member of the Sanhedrin, and was part of the conspiracy against Jesus. according to his epistles, he would be "the least in the kingdom of heaven" because he had persecuted Jesus, but he also believed that God had called him to be the Apostle to the Gentiles for that very reason, i.e., that he could show in his own person that an evildoer could be converted.

That's what I cannot understand. I see where you're coming from, but the Masonic Methodists and Presbyterians remain a mystery to me per the passages quoted.

One of the purposes of Masonry is to unite good men of differing opinions into a bond of fellowship. This idea was important during the Enlightenment because the clannishness of sect created distrust. I see no reason why a Presbyterian, Methodist, Jew, Deist, and moderate or liberal Muslim cannot belong to the same fraternal organization that teaches mutual tolerance and respect without compromising their personal religious opinions.

I see no reason why a Presbyterian, Methodist, Jew, Deist, and moderate or liberal Muslim cannot belong to the same fraternal organization that teaches mutual tolerance and respect without compromising their personal religious opinions.

Can I have an Amen. In my lodge we have Muslims, Hindu, Chirstains,and other odds and ends. I have not see any one converted to any thing that they were not before entering the lodge.

lost in the midwest

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Jesus probably wouldn't have used the word "pagan", as this word was not used in a religious context until well after the time of Constantine. The word "pagan" is Latin, and literally means "country dweller". The early European Catholics called those they couldn't convert "pagans" insinuating that because they mostly lived in rural areas, they were not sophisticated enough to understand Catholic theology.

Whatever word he did used is best translated into pagan in english. The definition of pagan is as you say (looked it up ) but apprently there is no other word in our language that comes close to the word Jesus used. I guess that's all of our faults who don't know Greek. It's in my future though, within 1-3 years.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Anyhows, the Pharisees were the religious leaders in Israel during Jesus' lifetime. They controlled the Sanhedrin, and counted Caiphas himself as a member. They were staunch conservatives, and strong opponents of Jesus. They interpreted the law strictly and literally. It was they who claimed that Jesus was inviolation of the law for healing the lame on the sabbath, and it was they who orchestrated his arrest and execution.

And Jesus also "added to scripture" which was in violation as well as some other "crimes". *nods* Good background, yes.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No, according to his own writings, he had been a Pharisee and doctor of the law. He had possibly been a member of the Sanhedrin, and was part of the conspiracy against Jesus.

I knew about him being a persecutor and from Roman territory (hence my thinking soldier since male Roman citizens were typically ones who served at least 1 term), but a Pharisee? Also, he says that he's not a practiced speaker so what kind of doctor of the law can't speak on it? I know little about the Sanhedrin, so goes to show I have more to learn.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
according to his epistles, he would be "the least in the kingdom of heaven" because he had persecuted Jesus, but he also believed that God had called him to be the Apostle to the Gentiles for that very reason, i.e., that he could show in his own person that an evildoer could be converted.

Ya! I'm down wit it.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
One of the purposes of Masonry is to unite good men of differing opinions into a bond of fellowship. This idea was important during the Enlightenment because the clannishness of sect created distrust. I see no reason why a Presbyterian, Methodist, Jew, Deist, and moderate or liberal Muslim cannot belong to the same fraternal organization that teaches mutual tolerance and respect without compromising their personal religious opinions.

Then the purpose for coming together is not spiritual growth?



[edit on 19-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God


Whatever word he did used is best translated into pagan in english.

Under absolutely no circumstance could "Pharisee" ever be correctly translated into "pagan". I do not know which Bible you use, but I can see that the editors took great liberties with the translation.

The definition of pagan is as you say (looked it up ) but apprently there is no other word in our language that comes close to the word Jesus used. I guess that's all of our faults who don't know Greek. It's in my future though, within 1-3 years.

Jesus used "Pharisee", which is the same in Hebrew and Aramaic. "Pharisee" is not an English word, and the translators of the Vulgate and KJV left it alone. It does not mean anything even similar to what "pagan" means. The Pharisees were a class of Hebrew scholars, and were doctors of the law of Moses. They were highly educated in theology, and would be the opposite of a "pagan".

I knew about him being a persecutor and from Roman territory (hence my thinking soldier since male Roman citizens were typically ones who served at least 1 term), but a Pharisee? Also, he says that he's not a practiced speaker so what kind of doctor of the law can't speak on it? I know little about the Sanhedrin, so goes to show I have more to learn.

We do not know for sure if Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, but he claims in the Bible that he was a Pharisee.

Then the purpose for coming together is not spiritual growth?

I can certainly see where that could be considered spiritual growth.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Under absolutely no circumstance could "Pharisee" ever be correctly translated into "pagan". I do not know which Bible you use, but I can see that the editors took great liberties with the translation.

New Internation Version, again 200 scholars who could read original Greek and Hebrew text. Looking forward to learning Greek within next 1-3 years, though doubt a 201th translator (me) will draw a different conclusion.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Jesus used "Pharisee", which is the same in Hebrew and Aramaic. "Pharisee" is not an English word, and the translators of the Vulgate and KJV left it alone.

Very well then, let us look at KJV:
"7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. "

Heathen is it? Well, I can see how that would be compared to pagan.

How about Vulgate?

"tu autem cum orabis intra in cubiculum tuum et cluso ostio tuo ora Patrem tuum in abscondito et Pater tuus qui videt in abscondito reddet tibi "

Whoa! What on earth is all this? Looks like Latin so we can pitch it. As you said, it's the fault of Latin translation that Pagan was used, right?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It does not mean anything even similar to what "pagan" means. The Pharisees were a class of Hebrew scholars, and were doctors of the law of Moses. They were highly educated in theology, and would be the opposite of a "pagan".

I agree that Pharisee and pagan/heathen are not the same word.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
We do not know for sure if Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, but he claims in the Bible that he was a Pharisee.

That's what I'm trying to find. Not saying it's not the case, but trying to find it.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I can certainly see where that could be considered spiritual growth.

*nods* Again, is why I see a conflict of interest for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or whatever Christian having with the organization. In Christianity, spiritual growth is done through God, His teaching, His fellowship, and His works.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by saint4God]

Concerning the translation: I was going from memory, and see that I was mistaken. You are correct that the word used there is "heathen", instead of Pharisee.

Again, is why I see a conflict of interest for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or whatever Christian having with the organization. In Christianity, spiritual growth is done through God, His teaching, His fellowship, and His works.

We can grow spiritually through any number of things. In fact, ideally, we could grow spiritually from everything.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Concerning the translation: I was going from memory, and see that I was mistaken. You are correct that the word used there is "heathen", instead of Pharisee.

No worries my friend. I have so much more respect for you, being one who cares about the truth, than anyone who insists what I'm looking at doesn't really exist. You've been a great help on a lot of threads, have learned a great deal, and thank you for one.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
We can grow spiritually through any number of things. In fact, ideally, we could grow spiritually from everything.

I may have been mistaken about the 'point' of masonry. Perhaps that's where I was getting tripped up. I thought the main focus was on enlightening through spirituality and knowledge but I'm on the outside looking in.