ATS -> Pro Masons?

OK, let's apply some chilling in this thread.

I just my go the same and say pike's book is not the only book there is the bible but it's not about that.
I just asked for a opinion on that fraze did you see me in this thread sayng
that masonari is luciferian?, NO
It was simple for you to give an answer but in stead you just avoided that
with all you can.
My discusion with you was simply about that fraze, in the end i wanted your opinion, again not what i think of it, i wanted to see what YOU think of it.

You clearly udnerstand but you simply dont want to give out that opinion.

It would be easy
Look how easy it is.
Ex:
A "Yes i think he is describeing lucifer and i think lucifer is satan because.."
B "No i dont think he represents satan because..."

Masonary does not teach religion right? so how can a non religios book teach me what satan is?, unles that book teaches religion.

That book is supose to better you but not in religion because "masonary is not a religion"
If it's so aswer the question.
I supose we can move our discusion some where else on a more apropiate topic so it will have something in commun with this discusion.
It may be off topic that's why it would be good to move the discusion.




[edit on 9-2-2006 by pepsi78]

This has nothing to do with the thread topic...

From a readers point of view...what the hell was all that? No one was better for the discussion...no one. For whatever reason....the off topic debate ended up in the toilet and Good! Thats where it belongs.

Now why don't you create your own thread topic and call it Lucifer/Satan?

Ok? and perhaps discuss it so that you might learn about each others views...

Originally posted by pepsi78


And :
1 A king can not fall from heaven(he is on earth among humans)

The passage is allegorical. It is a prophecy of Babylon being defeated by the Assyrians (which did indeed come to pass).

2 Lucifer is a latin name, i dont know any king in babilonia named in latin this would brake the rule.

That's exactly what I've already said. Isaiah never used the word "Lucifer". He used the Hebrew word "heykel", which means "shining one". St. Jerome omitted this, and inserted "Lucifer" in order to insult St. Lucifer of Cagliari.

3 The morning stars refers to something realy bright, i just dont buy the morning star is a king.

What you personally buy or don't buy is rather irrelevant in the context of biblical scholarship. It has always been known by the Hebrew scholars that the passage refers to Tiglath Pileser, who was the king of Babylon during the time Isaiah lived there.

in Numbers 21:6 and Deut.8:15 we have 'fiery serpents'. These 'fiery serpents' are 'saraph nachash' in the Hebrew, meaning 'shinning, or burning ones' (Strong's nos. 8314 & 5175). They were shinning spirits, not literal snakes as we know in the world of flesh. God doesn't leave us guessing, for He makes it very clear who this 'serpent' of Genesis is.

This is all beside the point, but it is worth noting that there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the fiery serpents were anything other than cobras. The text is clear that the Israelites were plagued by snake bites from them.

Wow after reading the responses on this I'll have to research the Masons and see what I come up with. Oh yeah, so what if this site is pro-Mason as I understand Masonic Lodges they harm no one. Any suggestions on how to proceed with my research? Ya'll do seem to invoke strong emotion.

Masonic Light
This is how you interpret things.
So okay for you 'saraph nachash' are nothing but snakes has for translation they mean something else, in the Hebrew, meaning 'shinning, or burning ones' thats what they mean.



You didint make a decision in comparing things

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Now compare it to the one with the so called babilonain king from isaia and you will see they are the same.




[edit on 10-2-2006 by pepsi78]