Originally posted by OLMGITNHFTWS
These quotes are very straightforward and easy to understand. Any good Christian would not involve themselves in an organization devoted to luciferian
Again, I think the whole issue boils down to terminology. You say Pike's quotes are "straightforward" and "easy to understand", but I'm not
convinced you've understood them, much less have explained to us exactly what "luciferian principles" are.
What Pike says about Lucifer is not unique; the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious historians of all brands say pretty much the same thing.
What Pike obviously means, by reading him in context, is fairly simple to determine, but only
when reading him in context. The following facts
sum up Pike's position, as given in the quote you gave:
1. The word "Lucifer" does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible. It appears once in the King James Version of Isaiah, and
refers to Tiglath-Pilaser, king of Babylon.
2. The word Lucifer, which is Latin for "light bearer", was inserted in the Vulgate version of this verse by St. Jerome to replace the Hebrew word
"hekel", which literally means "shining one", and is how the Babylonian kings were addressed.
3. A sort of practical joke was involved in this, as a fellow monk and contemporary of Jerome's, whose name was Lucifer, taught a different
theological doctrine than Jerome concerning free will. The Luciferians believed in free will, while the Jeromians did not. Therefore, identifying a
fallen, pompous king with St. Lucifer was a method for St. Jerome to take a jab at his opponent.
4. Beginning in the middle ages, the fall of Tiglath began to be scene as analogous with the story of the devil, and eventually the name "Lucifer"
became synonymous with the evil one.
5. Pike points out the absurdity of all this by reminding his readers that "Lucifer" means "light bearer", and questions the logic of the Church
applying this title to its archdemon, telling us it is a strange and mysterious name to give to the prince of darkness (sort of like calling a
Klansman a "civil rights activist", or calling a Communist a crusader for free enterprise).
Why keep secrets unless you have something to hide?
Masonic secrecy has been addressed and explained a billion times on this forum. Please try a search option before flogging that long dead horse
Seems to me that ATS is completely dominated by masons, and any serious discussion as to the the hidden meanings and true insights are
smothered very quickly.
How so? I've yet to see any opponents of Masonry seriously discussing Freemasonry. I'm sorry if you can't accept this, but constant babble about
the illuminati, new world orders, satanism, etc., is not serious discussion, it's juvenile horror movie stuff. If you have a serious question, ask
And no 20 of u masons quickly grouping together to tell me how good u are wont change my mind.
I don't think we re going to change your mind anymore than you're going to change ours. The point of these discussions, at least IMO, is for the
neutral who may be curious.