Freemasonry

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
98% of the population thought the world was flat?
yeah 98% of a town, or a city, or even 1 country but not the world!!!!

Egyptians, Mayans, African Tribes who knew the star formations and knew Earth was a planet would have said otherwise. Japanese Zen Monks too, Tibetian monks etc etc. Clearly not 98% of the world!


I always thought that so called 'fact' was BS in school.




posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LTD602
A nice, roundabout way of calling me a prostitute.


Not ex- act- ly the word, similar in meaning maybe?

Don't know- not being a mind reader I can only - - - -SURMISE (for esther because she LOVES it when I do this)


Masonic Light
. . . quoted a dictionary entry that said the Isaiah verse in the KJV that mentions Lucifer refers to a "Babylonian king", e.g., Tiglath-Pilaser, which I said from the beginning . . .

-and another post-

. . . It appears once in the King James Version of Isaiah, and refers to Tiglath-Pilaser, king of Babylon. . . .


Refering to Lucifer by one of his masonic defenders, Masonic Light

    Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    Barnes (an acknowledged expert) goes on to say:
    Isa 14:12 -
    How art thou fallen from heaven - A new image is presented here. It is that of the bright morning star; and a comparison of the once magnificent monarch with that beautiful star. He is now exhibited as having fallen from his place in the east to the earth. His glory is dimmed; his brightness quenched. Nothing can be more poetic and beautiful than a comparison of a magnificent monarch with the bright morning star! Nothing more striking in representing his death, than the idea of that star falling to the earth!
    Clarke (another acknowledged expert) has a bit of a differenet slant
    And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!)
    Scofield (another acknowledged expert) is more in tune with Barnes (above)
    Isa 14:12 -

    son of the morning

    Verses 12-14 (Isa_14:12-14) evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of this world-system (see "World," (Joh_7:7).

    Jamieson, Fawcett and Brown (more acknowledged experts)
    Isa 14:12 - THE JEWS ADDRESS HIM AGAIN AS A FALLEN ONCE-BRIGHT STAR. (Isa_14:12-15)

    Lucifer--"day star." A title truly belonging to Christ (Rev_22:16), "the bright and morning star," and therefore hereafter to be assumed by Antichrist.

    As to Masonic Light's reference to tiglath-Pilesar let me offer a little thought-

    At 1 Chron. 5:26 Ol Tig is mentioned, - “””God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria”””
    This is in Chronicles-
    Isiah is 14 books in the future!
    2 King mentions Nebuchadnezzar as the overlord of Israel. This is 4 books down the Ol biblical road from Isiah.

    source: This is the 1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible (also known as the Authorized Version). Although the writings known as the Apocrypha are often not included in Protestant Bibles, they were translated and included in the original King James Bible of 1611.


So- what's the deal Masonic Light?
A little masonic tom-foolery, masonic disinformation or - - , or an ERROR? (I have been wrong- )

The closest to a non-satanic persona is the reference to Nebuchadnezzar and this is a long, long way from Tilgathpilneser, and Tig is a long way from Isiah.

Didn't I offer to send you a coupon for a new bulb?

GE has a 5 year guarantee on some of theirs- yours has kind of gone dim?

Your Luciferian/masonic logic may need a tad bit of tweaking?

Chakra YOU have disagreed with the head mu-mou! You are in deep stuff now!

(don't post by me for awhile, O.K.? These pro-masons are so touff)

I was just kidding- about where you post


PS Masonic Light get an ancient geography book (this is what it is- it won't really be old and all), you know- the book with big funny colored pictures and all- not the one with Interstates and such, that's the wrong one- the one I refer to is some times called 'Atlas' (yeah I know, silly word) but anyway- look for Babylon then look for Assyria.

Different places huh? wow- pretty neat!




[edit on 7/9/2004 by PublicGadfly]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Why do you quote the Bible, Gadfly ??



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I would suggest Gadfly do a little more research before making himself look like a fool again. Every Jewish commentator on the Tanakh in the history of the world that I'm aware of agrees that Isaiah's "shining one" is none other than Tiglath-Pilaser III, who did indeed rule Babylonia.


The word appears to have entered the religious lexicon when the Hebrew expression in Isaiah 14:12, "HeYLeL BeN-ShaCHaR." (meaning "bright son of the morning/dawn," "bright [and] morning star," "glowing morning star," or "shining one, son of the dawn.")2. was translated to "Phosphorus" (the Greek word for Venus as the morning star) in the Septuagint, and then translated into "Lucifer" in the Vulgate (from the Greek Septuagint). Isaiah 14, taken as a whole, is a parable, or prophecy of denunciation against the Kings of Babylon, specifically Tiglath-pileser III 3 In verse 12, the prophet characterizes the arrogance of Tiglath-pileser III as if the king had thought himself fit to appear in the sky as the morning star, but has fallen to earth, being brought low by the vengeance of the Lord against those who would exalt themselves and persecute the Lord's people (i.e., the Israelites).


freemasonry.bcy.ca...



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
98% of the population thought the world was flat?
yeah 98% of a town, or a city, or even 1 country but not the world!!!!

Egyptians, Mayans, African Tribes who knew the star formations and knew Earth was a planet would have said otherwise. Japanese Zen Monks too, Tibetian monks etc etc. Clearly not 98% of the world!


I always thought that so called 'fact' was BS in school.


I don't think it can be denied that at one point in time, at least 98% of the world's population believed the earth was flat. Eventually, over the course of time, the people began to see the truth of the matter. Pythagoras, for example, theorized that the earth was spherical, but this knowledge was not held by people in the Paleolithic period.

But all that's rather beside the point, and many other examples could be given to show a fundamental difference between "what most people believe" and "what really is".

Fiat Lvx.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I would suggest Gadfly do a little more research before making himself look like a fool again.


Why?

You quote chapter and verse of "the bible" and "the bible is NOT a Hebrew or Jewish book-

-punt-

Besides, you made a glaring mistake of arrogance, admit it.

You sought to 'bring up short' another poster and instead dimmed your own bulb.

LTD you have become so extremely biased - you defend ML for using "the bible," cry when someone else does-

Is this enlightenment?

The Bible is a Christian creation- ML The Torah is Hebrew

You pro-mason guys astound me.



I am still laughing.

DENY IGNORANCE guys, don't spread it!

PS ML 98% what a joke- you just plucked that from mid-air and won't admit it.
What time frame- Noah?


Oooh, I got it- ALL the jackasses and Baboons thought the world was flat! The non-masons knew better?



[edit on 7/9/2004 by PublicGadfly]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
The Bible is a Christian creation- ML The Torah is Hebrew


No it's not.
The New Testament may be Christian, but the Old is certainly Jewish.
And I don't know if you noticed, but that's where you got your quotes from.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
You quote chapter and verse of "the bible" and "the bible is NOT a Hebrew or Jewish book-


This is nothing but pure ignorance. The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible, and was used as such long before there were any Christians. The Christians then incorporated the Tanakh into their Bible, and called it the "Old Testament".
The Book of Isaiah formed a part of the Tanakh long before that.


Besides, you made a glaring mistake of arrogance, admit it.


I admit that if you knew half as much as you think you do, you'd be dangerous. Everything I've written on the subject is documented; your silly ad hominems do not change the facts.


The Bible is a Christian creation- ML The Torah is Hebrew


Since you are apparently unaware of this, let me enlighten you: the Torah is a part of the Tanakh, which is the Hebrew Bible, and no, it is not a Christian creation, seeing that its existence in its current form predates Christianity by 5 centuries.


I am still laughing.


And so are we. I'd suggest you take a crash course in kindergarten Bible school.




posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think a nerve has been plucked. Satan does his work in all organizations. The question is, Is he embraced by the highest degrees of the masons? This question has not been answered. I do not think it will be. Albert Pike is masonry, masonry is Albert Pike. Understand Pike and you answer the question.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by duncanidaho
Satan does his work in all organizations.


To make this statement, you first must assume that Satan exists. So far, I'm certainly not convinced.


The question is, Is he embraced by the highest degrees of the masons?


Masonry as an organization does not speculate on the existence of Satan. Much of Masonic philosophy is derived from the ancient Greeks (through Pythagoras, Plato, etc.), who had no Satan.
When Masonry became popular in the 18th century, the fraternity became filled filled with Deists such as Voltaire, Goethe, Benjamin Franklin, etc. Deists believe in God, but not in Satan or Christian dogma. As mentioned many times before, the belief in Satan is an adjunct of Christian doctrine, not Freemasonry.

Freemasonry is not Christianity, and admits non-Christian members. Therefore any speculation about Satan (which is a Christian belief) would be absurd in Freemasonry.




This question has not been answered.


It has been answered continuously. If you don't like the answer, fine, but it's there regardless.


Albert Pike is masonry, masonry is Albert Pike. Understand Pike and you answer the question.


Masonry was around long before Pike, and remains long after his death. To say Masonry is Albert Pike is analogous to saying that Christianity is John Calvin. Calvin was a respected Christian leader and scholar, but his work only affected the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists...Episcopalians and Methodists couldn't care less about him.

And so it is with Pike. His work transformed the Scottish Rite in the Southern Jurisdiction of the USA, but had minimal influence on the Rite elsewhere; as a matter of fact, outside the Southern Jurisdiction USA, he is virtually unknown.

He had no influence whatsoever on the York Rite.

Don't get me wrong, I personally am a fan of Pike's. But it would be dishonest to pretend his influence was more than it actually was. His works are far more influential for those who oppose Masonry, than they are for Masons themselves.

Fiat Lvx.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
And so it is with Pike. His work transformed the Scottish Rite in the Southern Jurisdiction of the USA, but had minimal influence on the Rite elsewhere; as a matter of fact, outside the Southern Jurisdiction USA, he is virtually unknown.


I totally agree. Over here in the UK I had never heard of Pike or M&D until I started reading the words of anti-masons on the net.
He just doesn't figure in UK masonry.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Quote: "The Bible is a Christian creation" - is that why it is so Flawed? Honestly who can really say that Jesus’ God of Love & Compassion in the New Testament is the same God of Wrath & Vengeance in the
Old Testament. It is Clearly NOT!!! Either that or somewhere down the road God smoked a Doobie & decided to chill out!

Hey wasn't Jesus an Essene? Lets stop using the word JEW from now on & use "Essene", "Sadducee", "Pharisee" & so on - That might Inject some Reality into the Scenario seeing as there are many diff "Sects" within Judaism too!

Does the word "Luciferian" scare you my friend? You should go crawl back under the Rock from which you came in that case!

P.S. For the Last Time - Lucifer is NOT Satan. Will you Brainwashed Mongrels PLEASE Open up your Eyes & READ what the Bible actually says. Please keep in Mind the Translation back & forth between 4 Languages
(Latin, Hebrew, Greek & English).



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Every Culture has its Satan, Devil, Dagon, Beelzebul, Old Nick, Baphomet, bogey man, Abaddon, Lucifer, diabolos, Seth, Set, Azazel, watchers, The Nephilim, Le Cornu, Leonard.

They may all not be the same but evil exsists big time. This is not really a reply to anyones message, just to the thread really.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Hey wasn't Jesus an Essene? Lets stop using the word JEW from now on & use "Essene", "Sadducee", "Pharisee" & so on - That might Inject some Reality into the Scenario seeing as there are many diff "Sects" within Judaism too!


We don't always refer to Christians as being Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist or whatever. Nor do we always refer to Muslims as being Shia, Sunni or Suffi (you only have to look at the anti-Islam threads to see that).

We don't even know for sure that Jesus was Essene. But we do know that the Essenes were a Judaic sect. It is likely that Jesus belonged to some Judaic organisation though. So I don't see a problem with calling Jesus a Jew. He does fit under the umbrella.

I totally agree with you about Lucifer though. The fact that the Bible mistranslated the story of the Babylonian prince has been mentioned many times here on ATS.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

duncanidaho

I think a nerve has been plucked. Satan does his work in all organizations. The question is, Is he embraced by the highest degrees of the masons? This question has not been answered. I do not think it will be. Albert Pike is masonry, masonry is Albert Pike. Understand Pike and you answer the question.




Masonic Light

To make this statement, you first must assume that Satan exists. So far, I'm certainly not convinced.
.
Masonry as an organization does not speculate on the existence of Satan. Much of Masonic philosophy is derived from the ancient Greeks (through Pythagoras, Plato, etc.), . . .
.
Freemasonry is not Christianity, and admits non-Christian members. Therefore any speculation about Satan (which is a Christian belief) would be absurd in Freemasonry.



Not convinced of Satan?-
Wrong thread and probably wrong forum for that.
Slippery statement at best- knowing what other people portend or pretend to believe is at least the note of an average person, to claim to be “the light” for any group or of any group and remark in a public forum in the 21st century that you don't believe in evil is nothing less than remarkable.

Masons “supposedly” MUST believe in “a supreme being,” yet now we know that even one ML claiming leadership as a 'worshipful master' does not even live up to the oaths he has spewed for months on this board.
If there is no evil then when man is less than righteous and “decent” are we to to ascribe that to insanity?


Masonic Light

Don't get me wrong, I personally am a fan of Pike's. But it would be dishonest to pretend his influence was more than it actually was. His works are far more influential for those who oppose Masonry, than they are for Masons themselves.



A fan of Pike's- no surprise here.
More influential to the opposers- isn't this telling you something? The Opposers must 'think' that masons believe one of their high-priest, while in fact (by your own statement) this is not the case. Why call him priest when he is not?


Leveller

I totally agree. Over here in the UK I had never heard of Pike or M&D until I started reading the words of anti-masons on the net.
He just doesn't figure in UK masonry.



There- oner more 'secret' finally after all this. Revealed that there is proof the pro-masons on this board two (minimum) interpretations of masonry exist, thank you.


Seraphim_Serpente

The Bible is a Christian creation" - is that why it is so Flawed? Honestly who can really say that Jesus’ God of Love & Compassion in the New Testament is the same God of Wrath & Vengeance in the
Old Testament. It is Clearly NOT!!! Either that or somewhere down the road God smoked a doobie & decided to chill out!
.
wasn't Jesus an Essene? Lets stop using the word JEW from now on & use "Essene", "Sadducee", "Pharisee" & so on - That might Inject some Reality into the Scenario seeing as there are many diff "Sects" within Judaism too!
.
For the Last Time - Lucifer is NOT Satan. Will you Brainwashed Mongrels PLEASE Open up your Eyes & READ what the Bible actually says. Please keep in Mind the Translation back & forth between 4 Languages
(Latin, Hebrew, Greek & English).



Don't know about the doobie on the first statement but I have no difference with your 1st paragraph- my addition is that the Old Testament was not written by Christians. Sure it was translated different times but they didn't provide the basic authorship.

All I know of Jesus' birth is that he was born in Judah. Whether he was an Essene or something else has been written and speculated about so often and so widely I have decided the claim of what sect or group Jesus was is not a concern for my religion.

Should Jesus have been born a Hindu or Assyrian would matter less to me than what he taught.

I agree that Lucifer is not Satan- Satan is cited all too often in the New Testament while Lucifer is missing. As far as I know the word -Lucifer- is a transcription creation. The “idea” of Lucifer as the Antichrist and/or chief servant of Satan is certainly not new.

Many Satanists have no problem making the distinction. They know Satan and Lucifer. One of their many web sites extoling the earthly virtues of both, and treats them as different entities entirely.


7th_Chakra

Every Culture has its Satan, Devil, Dagon, Beelzebul, Old Nick, Baphomet, bogey man, Abaddon, Lucifer, diabolos, Seth, Set, Azazel, watchers, The Nephilim, Le Cornu, Leonard.

They may all not be the same but evil exsists big time


Agreed. Some (not by any means a large number in real life) masons, as we see on this board have a difficulty with this concept.

Knowing not if this is a true difficulty or a pretended one it surely exposes a basic flaw in masonry. Denial of something does not make that something less so.

To deny evil exists by whatever name indicates a gross missing element from a grasp on reality. Either this or an intention to deceive.

As I have stated many times before, most masons are good folks (or words to this effect). Some of the pro-mason board-posters go to great lengths to prove me wrong in this.

Not bad progress within the last few days-
    a mason admits that masonry is different in different places
    another admits that in his place there is no evil, (so therefore no supreme being?)
    one admits Pike has a negative influence on masonry (sad thing is that he also admits to admire Pike- but this is the same one that denies evil- so is he sane?)

I call this a definite win of late. I will re-state: “if I were a mason facing some charge as a mason I have yet to find a mason (on this board) that I would choose to defend me”

If I were a dues paying mason reading the pro-masons I would want my money back!


The detractors are not harmful, it is the defenders-



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
No Mason would defend you because your position would likely be indefensible, as is your current one.

By the way, oh where oh where have all the detractors gone?

It seems you're the only one left.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

Not convinced of Satan?-
Wrong thread and probably wrong forum for that.
Slippery statement at best- knowing what other people portend or pretend to believe is at least the note of an average person, to claim to be “the light” for any group or of any group and remark in a public forum in the 21st century that you don't believe in evil is nothing less than remarkable.


Pubic Fly is at his lies again, I see.
I didn't say anything about "not believing in evil", but the existence of evil no more proves the existence of the Christian concept of Satan anymore than the existence of water proves the existence of Poseidon, or the existence of Christmas gifts proves the existence of Santa Clause. I think people can be quite evil all on their on, without having to invoke the existence of some boogeyman as a scapegoat for their actions.


A fan of Pike's- no surprise here.
More influential to the opposers- isn't this telling you something? The Opposers must 'think' that masons believe one of their high-priest, while in fact (by your own statement) this is not the case. Why call him priest when he is not?


Pike was not a "priest", he was a philosopher, writer, and Masonic administrator. Your complete lack of knowledge concerning Masonry is coming full circle, I see.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

another admits that in his place there is no evil, (so therefore no supreme being)


What a total and utter crock. ML said that he's not sure if Satan exists. This isn't denying that evil exists as you so claim. Nowhere does he say that evil doesn't exist.
Even if Satan doesn't exist it still has no impact on the belief of a Supreme Being. There can be a Supreme Being without a biblical Satan and to state otherwise is just pure ignorance.
It's a sign of weakness to take others words and to change them to your own liking. Why don't you actually read what was said? Nowhere does it contain the interpretation that you have given.

You're creating your own little world of lies.




Edit: You got in there before me ML. You don't need to defend yourself on this one. It's plain for everyone to see that he is telling lies.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Quote: "We don't always refer to Christians as being Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist or whatever. Nor do we always refer to Muslims as being Shia, Sunni or Suffi"

Maybe we should from now on - For Accuracy's Sake.

Also - PublicGadfly - I never said that Evil doesn't Exist. I Think of Good & Evil as Positive & Negative Energies. These Energies Work through US (i.e. Humanity). Once again this is all Relative. If we Kill a Deadly Shark & Eat it for Food - That is Natural. But if the Shark Kills Us & Eats us for Dinner - That is also Natural. Humans Perform Negative Actions because of Stimulus which generates Emotions such as Anger or Greed or Jealousy or Ego & So On. This causes us to Receive Negative Karma (Karmic Debt) in Return (Buddhism is so Scientific – I LOVE it). You see saying "The Devil/Satan MADE me do it" is Nothing but a COP OUT - Poor Excuse. As Human Beings we have a Free-Will & Mind. This is what I believe to be True.

Do you believe this Gad-Fly? Or are you of the Opinion that Humans are Nothing more than Puppets - with no Will of their Own - at the Mercy of an Invisible "God" & Invisible "Satan Boogeyman" Puppet-Masters?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
This causes us to Receive Negative Karma (Karmic Debt) in Return (Buddhism is so Scientific – I LOVE it). You see saying "The Devil/Satan MADE me do it" is Nothing but a COP OUT - Poor Excuse. As Human Beings we have a Free-Will & Mind. This is what I believe to be True.


Seraphim, to be fair, arguing Karmic law with an aknowledged Christian makes no more sense than him arguing for his "Devil made me do it" views against you.





 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join