Concerning Lucifer in Freemasonry

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I suppose that've caused even more rancour if it was King Hiram, either because of a confusion with Lucifer because of the verse (and thus a confusion of King Hiram with Lucifer), or simply because it'd be god condeming Hiram.




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

From "Pistis Sophia Unveiled"

"The code of Lucifer is the Arcanum A.Z.F., the sexual force.

"Unquestionably, the creative power of the Logos is in the creative organs.

"The splendorous, interior, profound Sun shines on the path of the Initiate.

"The luminous sexual force shines most exceedingly in the aura of the Christified Ones.

"In the final synthesis, the sexual force comes from the Light of lights, which is precisely the Logos....."

"It is obvious that through sex we descend, we fall, or we ascend.

"Lucifer, the Maker of Light, is within the Mysteries of sex.

"Lucifer is the stairs to descend. Lucifer is the stairs to ascend.

"We must distinguish between a fall and a descent...."



"...However, when they arise again, the Intimate Christ smites their horrible Python Serpent with seven heads, the Tempting Serpent of Eden (the abominable Kundabuffer organ).

"The Lord raises us above the malignant roots of the tempting serpent so we can disintegrate even its seeds, the filthy germs of lust."


- Samael Aun Weor






Now we can see what Manly P. Hall is referring to here:



"When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy."






More from Samael Aun Weor(with some terms reminiscent of Gurdjieff):






From "Pistis Sophia Unveiled"

"Moses, descending from Sinai with the luminous horns upon his forehead, deserved to be chiselled by Michelangelo. The Doctrine of Moses is the Doctrine of Lucifer.

In Gnostic Christic Esoterism, we are always quoting six degrees of the conscious objective reasoning of the Being.

The degrees of development of the objective reasoning of the Being are known by the number of tridents that are shown on the horns of the Individual Lucifer, who is within each one of us.

Obviously, the Individual Lucifer within each one of us is a reflection of the Logos (Christ) within our interior. This is why he is referred to us as Christus-Lucifer.

Lucifer gives us the sexual impulse. Therefore, Lucifer is the stairs to ascend and the stairs to descend.

We arise, we ascend, when defeating Lucifer.

Lucifer, integrated with ourselves, converts us into Archangels.

When the fourth Trident appears over the horns, then the objective reasoning of the Being has been perfected up to the sacred Ternoonald.

Therefore, only two gradations remain before obtaining the Anklad degree.

The reasoning of the sacred Anklad is the most transcendental and luminous gradation that any Being can attain, and it corresponds to the third degree, in relation to the absolute reasoning of the Infinitude that sustains all.

The reasoning of the sacred Podkoolad is the final gradation before the sacred Anklad.

The fifth Trident over the horns indicates the degree of the sacred Podkoolad.

The sixth Trident over the horns marks the degree of the sacred Anklad.

It is necessary to know about the Taurinean Mysteries in order not to alarm ourselves with the luminous horns of Christus-Lucifer within each one of us.

Let us remember the horns of silver of Great Hierophants.

The horns of demons are the fatal antithesis of the horns of light.

The horns of the tenebrous ones grow in accordance with each evil action.

Therefore, we must not confuse the horns of the demons with the luminous horns of Christus-Lucifer."


- Samael Aun Weor










When we raise the Seven Kundalini Serpents by working with Alchemy, i.e. to incarnate the Seven Souls of Ra; we eliminate Satan's Tail(Apepi) and defeat lust!









It is taught that that is how the Bodhisattva attains the level of Christhood.



But when we spill the semen,
we fail in the Great Work
:








[edit on 13-9-2005 by Tamahu]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
ML is right again.

Lucifer is mentioned one time in the bible, in Isaiah 14:12. It was not in reference to Satan, but to Tiglath-pileser III, King of Babylon.

Lucifer is the term the early Romans used for the planet Venus.
It came into the bible through a translation error. The original Hebrew term "HeYLeL BeN-ShaCHaR" that ment bright son of the morning/dawn was translated as
Phosphorus,The then current Greek Term for Venus, and then into Lucifer, the term used by the Romans for Venus. Now we are stuck with it, and many christians belive it refers to an archangel that fell from hevean. If you dont belive me, break out your good book, and start reading from Isaiah 14:1.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
He quite possibly could be Wiggy which dose`nt change my faith one iota and was`nt the one of more than one points or opinions i made to no comment, either i`m wrong or right in area`s would have been appreciated in your or other`s opinion as you did ML,i`m not seeking attention its more if the author and others think i`m just just wasting space here i`ll go to a thread that i`m more interested in because whats happening in the world is much more important to me than this and i`m kind of embarrassed talking about Pike at this point in time.No biggy

I`ve asked a member i respect as a Christian for his opinion via u2u on this matter of King Tyre and Lucifer to give his comments by either u2u or post,because i`ve read it argued here on ats before and can`t find it as it must have been talked about in an unrelated thread.



But one who bears a false light isn't really a "light bearer" at all. But please read on.
{


no argument there ML that goes without saying,what i did say is we are to be on guard for it.

Nygdan IT WORKS

Thanx for explaining the Quote function,i can`t believe i actually understand now,and they all laughed saying that i would`nt pfttttt


[edit on 14-9-2005 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Lucifer........'Day star' or 'light bearer' in Heaven

Lucifer fell away from God because of Pride......He loved only himself...wanted to exalt himself above everthing and everyone.

He became Satan or the Devil........meaning slanderer or Deceiver......The Father of all LIES.

From LIGHT he became DARKNESS.

IX
helen

[edit on 9/14/2005 by helen670]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Lucifer is the term the early Romans used for the planet Venus. wiggy
lucifer, then michael, then gabriel. he was the top dog, they say, and most beautiful. God's most beautiful creation. In some Jewish documents, it says Shaitan is God's D.A., heaven's prosecutor. So he is feared, and he metes out punishment... which might explain how reviled he has been. maybe he's not so bad afterall. I mean, look at the front of Rockefeller center in NY. Prometheus, the Greek God who was punished for enlightening mankind......Lucifer's counterpart, is represented and memorialized with a huge gold statue. He got a real licking for sneaking us som Godpowers.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
Lucifer........'Day star' or 'light bearer' in Heaven

Lucifer fell away from God because of Pride......He loved only himself...wanted to exalt himself above everthing and everyone.

He became Satan or the Devil........meaning slanderer or Deceiver......The Father of all LIES.

From LIGHT he became DARKNESS.



This is what I was referring to. This doctrine is not biblical, but instead comes from Milton's "Paradise Lost." Nowhere in Hebrew or Christian scripture is it claimed that the devil is named or called Lucifer.

Tamahu's post is important in this context because it points out a common misunderstanding concerning some Masonic authors' use of the term "Lucifer". When Pike or Hall mention "Lucifer", they do so in the classical Roman sense, from which Theosophy had borrowed it. They do not refer to the modern Christian notion of the devil, which in fact isn't Christian at all, but Miltonian.

In classical Roman usage, "Lucifer" described variously:

1. The Greek titan Prometheus.
2. The Greek solar deity Apollo.
3. The planet Venus (when written "Lucifera", it could also describe the Greek goddess of love associated with that planet, Aphrodite).



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
According to these:

Luke 10:18
And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.(quote Jesus)

2 Corinthians 11:13
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

and the previous texts quoted, Satan isn't going to stand up as Lucifer and say "I am Satan!" ...at least not right away. If he's going to say he is Lucifer or a lucifer, then it will be a cover until a person is so committed that Satan will not reveal his true identity until he feels his battle has been won. I have doubt that sitting here talking about it will reveal the truth undeniably, since this a deception. It would a conspiracy that could not be uncovered unless God or the devil uncovers it. What would I do if I bumped into Lucifer? Instructions are right here:

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”
1 John 4

My question then is this to those who know Lucifer. Answers are "yes" and "no" only please. Does Lucifer acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

[edit on 14-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Tamahu's post is important in this context because it points out a common misunderstanding concerning some Masonic authors' use of the term "Lucifer". When Pike or Hall mention "Lucifer", they do so in the classical Roman sense, from which Theosophy had borrowed it. They do not refer to the modern Christian notion of the devil, which in fact isn't Christian at all, but Miltonian.
In classical Roman usage, "Lucifer" described variously:
1. The Greek titan Prometheus.
2. The Greek solar deity Apollo.
3. The planet Venus (when written "Lucifera", it could also describe the Greek goddess of love associated with that planet, Aphrodite).

masonic light

I am grateful to be learning about the other connections between ancient deities, so thank you for that. I just wanted to ask if you agree that since Prometheus was punished for sneaking the knowledge of fire...(enlightenment?) to humanity, and in Eden the serpent did the same thing, then are they not likely to be the same character by different names? It also puzzles me as to how Venus could represent Lucifer and Saturn represent Satan... In that case the two are separate identities. Is the serpent therefore not Satan? Or maybe Venus is Lucifera, or Aphrodite, and Satan is Lucifer, or Pan. A moon of Saturn is named Pan coincidentally.
Maybe they are separate because they are a couple, Saturn the male and Venus the female? Interesting to speculate about anyway.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Answers are "yes" and "no" only please. Does Lucifer acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?



Ah, but you set up a Catch-22 here, asking for only a "yes or no". By doing so, we must assume that (1.) Lucifer is an actual being or entity and that (2.) he is capable of either acknowledging or denying that Christ has come in the flesh.

In my previous posts, I have pointed out that, in the one verse where Lucifer is mentioned in the Bible, the reference was actually to Tiglath-Pilaser III, emperor of Babylon. Secondly, the word "Lucifer" was inserted here by St. Jerome in order to take a jab at a theological opponent, St. Lucifer, who was a monk. See en.wikipedia.org...

Again, some have applied the title "Lucifer" to Christ himself, as he is the "light bearer", while others have attributed the word solely to the classical Roman myths. Still others who are Theosophists (such as Manly Hall) have used the word to refer to abstract intellectual enlightenment.

Therefore, to answer your question, it depends on which definition one uses, and cannot be discarded with a simple "yes or no". If by Lucifer we mean Tigleth-Pilaser, then obviously the answer is no, as he lived before Christ. If by Lucifer we mean St. Lucifer, who was an enemy of Jerome's, then the answer is yes, Lucifer was a Christian theologian. If by Lucifer we mean Christ, then the answer is obviously yes. If by Lucifer we mean Prometheus or Apollo, then the answer is obviously no, because these are fictional characters who represent different aspects of cosmology.

If we take the Theosophist view, the answer is also no, because the term "Lucifer" is there used as a sort natural force toward learning, and is not a person or an entity.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I just wanted to ask if you agree that since Prometheus was punished for sneaking the knowledge of fire...(enlightenment?) to humanity, and in Eden the serpent did the same thing, then are they not likely to be the same character by different names?


There are indeed obvious parallels between the stories of Prometheus and the serpent at Eden. Zeus ordered than men not be given fire, Yahweh ordered that they not be given knowledge. Prometheus gave fire (which represents knowledge) to men anyway, the serpent gave the fruit of the tree anyway. The serpent was condemned to crawl on his belly the rest of his days, Prometheus was chained to a rock to be tormented by vultures for eternity.

There are many other parallels elsewhere. The Hebrew Eve and Greek Pandora, as well as Christ and Osiris, Samson and Hercules, and many more. I wouldn't necessarily say that the serpent is Prometheus under a different name, or that Jesus is really just the Hebrew version of Osiris, though. I would say that men often share the same sorts of ideas, and that through cultural diffusion in the ancient world, many borrowed aspects from each other, creating their own unique myth cycles.




[edit on 14-9-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Ah, but you set up a Catch-22 here, asking for only a "yes or no". By doing so, we must assume that (1.) Lucifer is an actual being or entity and that


What lightbring is not an actual being? If this lucifer is not an actual being or entity, why are we bothering at all with it? There are people in this world who need help, we haven't the time to play games mixing fiction with reality.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
(2.) he is capable of either acknowledging or denying that Christ has come in the flesh.


If he is an entity, then he is capable of indicating a "yes" or a "no" in one form or another. In fact, I think it'd a gross underestimate of a supernatural intelligence to say he cannot.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
In my previous posts, I have pointed out that, in the one verse where Lucifer is mentioned in the Bible, the reference was actually to Tiglath-Pilaser III, emperor of Babylon. Secondly, the word "Lucifer" was inserted here by St. Jerome in order to take a jab at a theological opponent, St. Lucifer, who was a monk. See en.wikipedia.org...

Again, some have applied the title "Lucifer" to Christ himself, as he is the "light bearer", while others have attributed the word solely to the classical Roman myths. Still others who are Theosophists (such as Manly Hall) have used the word to refer to abstract intellectual enlightenment.

Therefore, to answer your question, it depends on which definition one uses, and cannot be discarded with a simple "yes or no". If by Lucifer we mean Tigleth-Pilaser, then obviously the answer is no, as he lived before Christ. If by Lucifer we mean St. Lucifer, who was an enemy of Jerome's, then the answer is yes, Lucifer was a Christian theologian. If by Lucifer we mean Christ, then the answer is obviously yes. If by Lucifer we mean Prometheus or Apollo, then the answer is obviously no, because these are fictional characters who represent different aspects of cosmology.

If we take the Theosophist view, the answer is also no, because the term "Lucifer" is there used as a sort natural force toward learning, and is not a person or an entity.


On the whole, I think you've cleared a lot of it up and negated the "catch-22". I always appreciate your candid openess. I think we tend to make things more complicated then they actually are. Am I correct in assessing that you consider Lucifer to be a title?

Sidenote: My experience with Satan never in any way set-forth the indicator that he was a bringer of light (goodness, peace, etc.) though different tactics are used for different folks I'm sure.

What I thought was even more interesting is that I posed this question to someone who knows Lucifer and got this reply. So I'm curious, which Lucifer do you know Masonic Light, and to what degree?

This has a point. You can represent just yourself or Masons in general. In either case, I think answering will bring a lot of clarity to us outsiders.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
, the serpent gave the fruit of the tree anyway.


In Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it". Not only did the serpent not give her the fruit, I'm thinking the reason is he was incapable of touching the tree or fruit. Why do I say this? If you've ever been in sales, the best way to sell someone anything is to put it into their hand. The serpent had to pitch the idea and get her buy-in first. Also, he didn't jam it into their mouths while they slept, though pretty easy to do I'm sure. Man, woman, and the tree seem to be protected. They had to give their will to do this act. Eve didn't even make Adam eat it. Adam wasn't made to blame Eve and God for the sin.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
The serpent was condemned to crawl on his belly the rest of his days, Prometheus was chained to a rock to be tormented by vultures for eternity.


Other than condemnation, I don't see any connection. Surely this isn't the only 2 cases of condemnation in history or religion.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
There are many other parallels elsewhere. The Hebrew Eve and Greek Pandora, as well as Christ and Osiris, Samson and Hercules, and many more. I wouldn't necessarily say that the serpent is Prometheus under a different name, or that Jesus is really just the Hebrew version of Osiris, though. I would say that men often share the same sorts of ideas, and that through cultural diffusion in the ancient world, many borrowed aspects from each other, creating their own unique myth cycles.


There have been a lot of these claims on other threads such as this one:
Christianity, a copy of Pagan myths?

Though not sure what this has to do with Lucifer and Freemasonry. Is the washer on spin-cycle already?

[edit on 14-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

What lightbring is not an actual being? If this lucifer is not an actual being or entity, why are we bothering at all with it? There are people in this world who need help, we haven't the time to play games mixing fiction with reality.


To answer your first question, the planet Venus, which was referred to as Lucifer by the Romans, may or may not qualify as a "being". The sun is also a light bringer, but it may not be a "being". Regardless, "mixing fiction with reality" seems to be a fundamental trait of human nature. I would recommend that it we at least look into it before completely casting it aside, as it may tell us something important about ourselves.




If he is an entity, then he is capable of indicating a "yes" or a "no" in one form or another. In fact, I think it'd a gross underestimate of a supernatural intelligence to say he cannot.


Nowhere have I claimed that I believe we are speaking about a supernatural intelligence. And that's the reason I wanted to pin down a definition of exactly what we were discussing.


Am I correct in assessing that you consider Lucifer to be a title?


Hmmm....I would probably say "description" rather than "title", but I think you see where I'm coming from.



What I thought was even more interesting is that I posed this question to someone who knows Lucifer and got this reply. So I'm curious, which Lucifer do you know Masonic Light, and to what degree?


I don't know any Lucifers, but I tend to take the theosophic approach toward the word, which is probably one of the bases of the Christian Lucifer/devil belief. I agree with Pike (or, actually with Levi, whom Pike was merely quoting) that what we are speaking of here is not a person, but a force. The Church Fathers who accepted the devil/Lucifer story held that Lucifer was a title, and therefore could no longer describe satan. "Lucifer" was only the title he held before the fall, which he forfeited.

If this is the exoteric covering of some sort of esoteric mysticism, I'm inclined to agree with Tamahu (and Pike and Levi), as well as Freud, who called the subconsciousness (home of the libido) "the devil". This is an important concept in both mysticism and Jungian psychology, but doubt many people on this forum are interested in the entire story. Suffice it say that the occult definition of "the devil" is that force of animalistic instinct which plagues us, which once being a pure force ("Lucifer"), has degraded into materialism. The devil is often pictorially represented as Pan, the goat god of the Greeks, because he represents the animal inside us.

This is also connected to the symbol of the inverted pentagram, which represents spirit being dominated by matter, and has since ancient times been a symbol of the uninitiated.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
To answer your first question, the planet Venus, which was referred to as Lucifer by the Romans, may or may not qualify as a "being". The sun is also a light bringer, but it may not be a "being".


Aight. Rendering these things would make it 'powerless' under spiritual guidance and in relationship to eternity.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Regardless, "mixing fiction with reality" seems to be a fundamental trait of human nature. I would recommend that it we at least look into it before completely casting it aside, as it may tell us something important about ourselves.


Oh yeah, everything is worth looking at it, but when it's unimportant then it needs to be shelved. Being consumed with pretendland is hazardous to your spiritual health. Or, at least it was to mine before knowing God.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Nowhere have I claimed that I believe we are speaking about a supernatural intelligence. And that's the reason I wanted to pin down a definition of exactly what we were discussing.


Didn't say you did, just saying if there is such entity, it wouldn't be dumb.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Hmmm....I would probably say "description" rather than "title", but I think you see where I'm coming from.


Ah. Okay.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't know any Lucifers, but I tend to take the theosophic approach toward the word, which is probably one of the bases of the Christian Lucifer/devil belief. I agree with Pike (or, actually with Levi, whom Pike was merely quoting) that what we are speaking of here is not a person, but a force. The Church Fathers who accepted the devil/Lucifer story held that Lucifer was a title, and therefore could no longer describe satan. "Lucifer" was only the title he held before the fall, which he forfeited.


Help me out please, where's that written?


Originally posted by Masonic Light
If this is the exoteric covering of some sort of esoteric mysticism, I'm inclined to agree with Tamahu (and Pike and Levi), as well as Freud, who called the subconsciousness (home of the libido) "the devil".


And "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", right?



Originally posted by Masonic Light
This is an important concept in both mysticism and Jungian psychology, but doubt many people on this forum are interested in the entire story. Suffice it say that the occult definition of "the devil" is that force of animalistic instinct which plagues us, which once being a pure force ("Lucifer"), has degraded into materialism. The devil is often pictorially represented as Pan, the goat god of the Greeks, because he represents the animal inside us.


This is unsettling because he did appear to me once as Pan but only in a mirror relection (invisible otherwise). I thought he was messing with me because he knew I had previous interest in Greek mythology. No mistaking who he actually was though, it was clear it was a facade to get a specific reaction out of me. Perhaps not merely messing with me, perhaps it is as you say here.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
This is also connected to the symbol of the inverted pentagram, which represents spirit being dominated by matter, and has since ancient times been a symbol of the uninitiated.


Initiated? By whom? Is there a ritual involving taking an inverted pentagram and turning it upwards symbolic of enlightment above animal tendencies?

I take it from your answer (that you don't know any Lucifers) that it is not a part of Masonic teachings, would that be right?

[edit on 14-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Oh yeah, everything is worth looking at it, but when it's unimportant then it needs to be shelved. Being consumed with pretendland is hazardous to your spiritual health. Or, at least it was to mine before knowing God.


But one man's pretendland is another's absolute certainty.


Help me out please, where's that written?


"In the fully-developed Christian interpretation, Jerome's Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 has made Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory as the morning star. This image at last defines the character of Lucifer; where the Church Fathers had maintained that lucifer was not the proper name of the Devil, and that it referred rather to the state from which he had fallen; St. Jerome transformed it into Satan's proper name."

en.wikipedia.org...


Initiated? By whom? Is there a ritual involving taking an inverted pentagram and turning it upwards symbolic of enlightment above animal tendencies?


The symbol was used by the Pythagoreans in this regard, and probably was borrowed from them by the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was also used in this regard in the Academy by the Platonists, although probably not in ritual form as was the case with the Pythagoreans and Mysteries.


I take it from your answer (that you don't know any Lucifers) that it is not a part of Masonic teachings, would that be right?


The word "Lucifer" is not found in Masonic ritual, and there are no Masonic teachings concerning it. The word is found three times in Pike's "Morals and Dogma", once in his Legenda for the 32°, once in Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, and once in Hall's "The Lost Keys of Freemasonry". In all the Masonic books I own or have read (which are many), these are the only times I remember ever coming across the word "Lucifer", and each uses it in the theosophical sense (as each were interested in theosophy as well as Masonry).

But the teachings on "Lucifer" which I mentioned in my last post are purely Theosophical teachings, not Masonic ones.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But one man's pretendland is another's absolute certainty.


Okie-dokey, but don't say I didn't warn ya.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
"In the fully-developed Christian interpretation, Jerome's Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 has made Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory as the morning star. This image at last defines the character of Lucifer; where the Church Fathers had maintained that lucifer was not the proper name of the Devil, and that it referred rather to the state from which he had fallen; St. Jerome transformed it into Satan's proper name."


Ah, so it's not Biblical. Thanks and is what I needed to know.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
en.wikipedia.org...


Yeah, wikipedia has as much weight with me as the paper it's written on. Can I start my own editable encyclopedia too? No offense, but don't like this source as reliable foundation of information.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
The symbol was used by the Pythagoreans in this regard, and probably was borrowed from them by the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was also used in this regard in the Academy by the Platonists, although probably not in ritual form as was the case with the Pythagoreans and Mysteries.


Interesting.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
The word "Lucifer" is not found in Masonic ritual, and there are no Masonic teachings concerning it. The word is found three times in Pike's "Morals and Dogma", once in his Legenda for the 32°, once in Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, and once in Hall's "The Lost Keys of Freemasonry". In all the Masonic books I own or have read (which are many), these are the only times I remember ever coming across the word "Lucifer", and each uses it in the theosophical sense (as each were interested in theosophy as well as Masonry).

But the teachings on "Lucifer" which I mentioned in my last post are purely Theosophical teachings, not Masonic ones.


I don't know if Satan was ever referred to by God as Lucifer, but it does seem to indicate in the New Testament he'd represent himself as a bringer of light falsely. It's then in all of our best interest to keep a sharp eye, test, and pick-up on any characteristics of Satan that we know of already from comparisson.

If I were to ever used the word Lucifer (in ceremony or theosophically), I'd want to know exactly what I meant by it. How difficult would it be to see the world "Lucifer" in a Masonic text and go straight to a dictionary to find the following?

Main Entry: Lu·ci·fer
Pronunciation: 'lü-s&-f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, the Devil, from Old English, from Latin, the morning star, from lucifer light-bearing, from luc-, lux light + -fer -ferous -- more at LIGHT
1 -- used as a name of the devil
2 : the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star
3 not capitalized : a friction match having as active substances antimony sulfide and potassium chlorate
- Lu·ci·fe·ri·an /"lü-s&-'fir-E-&n/ adjective
www.m-w.com...

Looks like the dictionary is the source of a lot of conspiracy


[edit on 14-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Thanx for your imput Saint4God and to ML as well,i`m glad you two can some what understand each other because i gotta say you`ve both lost me
in following whats being discussed,though that happens frequently to me.


So from a simple mind this is my simple answer.

I can only view it that Lucifer/devil/Satan/King Tyre in Isiaiah 14:12 was clearly spoken in a derogitory way that even in this confusion means next to nothing,which is why i said that either way it will not affect my faith or understanding one iota, Christ is and should be our focus and Lucifer/Devil/Satan/FalseLightBearer/FalseProphet/KingofBabylon etc has fallen from God.

Would that make sense or be correct to how i view it in your opinion?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
I can only view it that Lucifer/devil/Satan/King Tyre in Isiaiah 14:12 was clearly spoken in a derogitory way that even in this confusion means next to nothing,which is why i said that either way it will not affect my faith or understanding one iota, Christ is and should be our focus and Lucifer/Devil/Satan/FalseLightBearer/FalseProphet/KingofBabylon etc has fallen from God.

Would that make sense or be correct to how i view it in your opinion?


I'm good for that.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by gps777
I can only view it that Lucifer/devil/Satan/King Tyre in Isiaiah 14:12 was clearly spoken in a derogitory way that even in this confusion means next to nothing,which is why i said that either way it will not affect my faith or understanding one iota, Christ is and should be our focus and Lucifer/Devil/Satan/FalseLightBearer/FalseProphet/KingofBabylon etc has fallen from God.

Would that make sense or be correct to how i view it in your opinion?


I'm good for that.


Me much happyness


Thanx Saint4God for clearing that for me





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join