It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Secret of Freemasonry Seen in the Reflection of a Mirror - What do you see?

page: 26
21
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kyobosha
She did attempt to.


My point being that what relevance does it have on the immortal sould of Eleanor Roosevelt if Hillary Clintion is trying to contact her? Answer: nothing. The question was a red herring to begin with. You can not vilify Franklin Roosevelt and claim (as the other poster did) that the Great Seal is on the Dollar Bill because Hillary Clinton claims to have contacted the former First Lady.


Respectfully, I disagree. We are falsely led to believe it is a Christian Symbol. Yes, symbols are reused all the time. Yes, some Christians used the symbol and truly believed it reflected the Holy Trinity.


The fact the 'some' Christians use the symbol is not that point. The fact that they were Christians is the point. It was not used to represent Horus or any other Egyptian diety. It was meant to represent the Trinity.



I understand and agree Christians have used the symbol, I'm not arguing that. Even though it is used in a Christian context doesn't mean the origins can be forgotten or nullified; if you consider the origin, it is not a symbol that respects God. In that respect, it is not a Christian symbol.


I am not arguing the origins. I am well aware they predate, by millenia, the use by Christians in the Renaissance to the modern time. The point is the symbol meant, and still means, something different to them. It mean God.

The crucifix meant nothing as a religious symbol prior to its adoption by the Catholic Church. One could argue it was an image of death from a pagan culture. Does this mean that Christians should stop using this icon because of its pagan-culture origin? Of course not.


In the picture you see a large gold circle with a red circle inside that. There is also a cross and small red circle at the center of the cross. Finally, there is an open Bible below that. There is no eye or triangle (however it does appear to look like one).


If you do not think that the image is an eye then we have a serious occular misunderstanding to be cleared up. It is clearly and unequivocally an eye. This can be verified by searching for other images of this church where it is more prominent or, if you really need to know, call them. You may be surprised (or disappointed) what they tell you if you do.


One question for you though, are you now arguing that these symbols combined reflects the true meaning of the eye of providence? In other words, you say the eye of providence doesn't mean what the Egyptian symbols meant because they are combined for a new meaning, but because the circles, cross and Bible combined looks like the eye of providence its meaning is as such?


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Its connotation has changed. For the Christian, the pagan ancestry of the symbol is not relevant as its meaning is completely different (as my cross example shows).


That's great! So do I! Don't forget the other teachings in the New Testament though. I find those to be helpful too


To what specifically are you refering to?




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Hi all, I have to apologize for my spelling and punctuation! (not my strong point).

This is my first post ever on forums, so go easy
! been lurking for years! I have not read all the post's, but wanted to share my feelings on a few issues, and in advance I mean no disrespect to anyone!

I'm religious, I found my Father on my own! not through Church goer's or preachers, or even the bible.
What I'm trying to say is, at some stage people will find him in their own time and if they do not want to find him, that's "their" choice! Just like Freemasonry, the people "chose" to be Freemason's.
who am I or anyone else for that matter to judge! I leave that to my Father! after all he did give us "freewill", Most Christians forget this!
I don't go to Church because i feel the Church is within me, i also have a very good friend who is Muslim and feels the same way.
The things that do concern me are Churches that have tremendous wealth aka "Vatican" while we still have human beings starving in this world. (Sell the Vatican, feed the world)
To many times i have heard Christians hating on Freemasons, without looking at their own Religious organizations and leaders, is it not evil that we have people that are homeless and starving and the Vatican with all it's wealth turning a blind eye.
I don't care whether this building's pointed in some direction, to get some number which adds up to 666, i care about people!
I really don't know to much about Freemasonry, and there's nothing evil about finding out, if someone could point me in the right direction, explaining what freemasonry is about it would be greatly appreciated!

In summing up my first post, no one has the right to judge another, all priests etc give "their" interpretation of what the bible means, people have always manipulated things for their own agenda.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged
Sorry for the rambling.

Cheers,
Pinger.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Hi there, i'm new on here, but not new to research on this topic, many people i know are masons and my family has been involved in it but i don't aggree with it,

1 question i want to ask is has anyone made the link between this article in 'The Enchanted World : Witches and Wizards' book? Check this book out and look at pages 72 & 73.

let me know what people think.. i fully believe this could be the origin of Freemasonry,

Cheers

Jah Bless

i have scanned these pages and have them on my computer, ask if anyone would like to see these pages as i dont know how to upload things from my computer



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinger
 


Pinger, you sound like a good thinker.
Very impressive.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

My point being that what relevance does it have on the immortal sould of Eleanor Roosevelt if Hillary Clintion is trying to contact her? Answer: nothing. The question was a red herring to begin with. You can not vilify Franklin Roosevelt and claim (as the other poster did) that the Great Seal is on the Dollar Bill because Hillary Clinton claims to have contacted the former First Lady.


Wow you took what I said way off base. I NEVER said the Great Seal was on the Dollar because of Clinton trying to contact Roosevelt. Would be nice if you didn't claim I made such comments. If you read them again, I said that if the Roosevelt's were truly Christian, then there is now way Mrs. Roosevelt's spirit would have communicated with Clinton. Which is relevant to the soul/spirit of Roosevelt. I never once mentioned the Great Seal. So I ask the next time you claim I said something, check it first.


The fact the 'some' Christians use the symbol is not that point. The fact that they were Christians is the point. It was not used to represent Horus or any other Egyptian diety. It was meant to represent the Trinity.


Again, since you seem to be stuck on this. I agree Christian's have used it and that it represented the eye of God and the Trinity (though the earliest symbol to represent the trinity was the triune not the eye of providence). This doesn't mean that the symbols didn't have other meanings before this particular use; and it certainly doesn't mean that the eye truly glorifies God.


I am not arguing the origins. I am well aware they predate, by millenia, the use by Christians in the Renaissance to the modern time. The point is the symbol meant, and still means, something different to them. It mean God.


I'm not arguing the meaning to some Christian's. I am arguing that the origins can't be ignored and that the symbol doesn't glorify God.


If you do not think that the image is an eye then we have a serious occular misunderstanding to be cleared up. It is clearly and unequivocally an eye. This can be verified by searching for other images of this church where it is more prominent or, if you really need to know, call them. You may be surprised (or disappointed) what they tell you if you do.


If you email them you will get this resposnse along with a higher resolution picture.

"The image you see behind Pastor Jeremiah’s pulpit is a stained glass art piece above the baptistry. It includes a large gold circle, with a red circle inside that with a cross and small red circle at the center of the cross. Just below the cross is an open Bible and the words just below that are: “The Entrance of thy words giveth light.” Psalm 119:130."

Nothing about using those to represent an eye, not really surprised or disappointed by it. That's what I expected.


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Its connotation has changed. For the Christian, the pagan ancestry of the symbol is not relevant as its meaning is completely different (as my cross example shows).


Let me clarify my question. The eye in the eye of providence isn't the eye of horus even though there is a resemblance. Yet the bible, circle, and cross are the eye of providence because there is a resemblance? Just seems to me you arent using the same standards of analysis for both symbols.


To what specifically are you refering to?


To expound upon the Golden rule, we are more specifically called to:

“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” Galatians 6:2

Jesus goes on further stating that the greatest commandments within the Law is:

"’Which commandment is the more important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.’" Mark 12:28-31

These are just a few Jesus taught. I would encourage you to read through the New Testament again to get a fuller understanding of how we can fulfill the Law.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Aleister Crowley was NOT a Freemason regardless of what he may have claimed. Further even in his claims, he admits to having not actually gone through the degrees, but rather to have supposedly been made one on sight by a Grand Master....I will never understand why so many bafoons care a hair what he had to say, the man was a total fraud, without virtue or character, and I find his supposed genius intellect to be no greater then the memory of any good actor.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Certainly, if it will placate you at all. (Somehow I suspect it won't…)

Haha! you know me better than before
I enjoy these things myself, just wish I had more time to contribute and debate than I do.


First: NEITHER Reagan nor Disney were Masons. Only 14 US Presidents have been Freemasons, and the last was Gerald Ford. Walt was not a member either.

As far as Walt is concerned, he was at least involved in Demolay, at this moment I can’t show you any kind of evidence you prefer to see that he was officially a freemason due to my time constraints…perhaps I’ll fish around to see if I can placate you next round
However, Disney’s history in producing movies containing praise for the occult, witchcraft, and mystic symbolism, suggests if not a freemason connection, suggests at least a pagan connection. It is said that Walt Disney teamed up with/took advice from Werner von Braun to work on putting mind control tactics through movies for children.

You are right in that Reagan wasn’t technically a Freemason; however, he was a Shriner - nearly the same thing, if not better since only high level (32+) Scottish Rites can join a Shrine, or be given some kinda pass into it; if Reagan wasn’t important to freemasonry nor a friend to the fraternity, he wouldn’t have participated in Masonic functions or have been given a certificate of honor, or had been made an honorary Scottish Rite mason just like that - he was definitely open and supportive of their interests.


Ronald Reagan has often been referred to as a Freemason. President Reagan is not a Freemason although he is an honorary member of the Imperial Council of the Shrine. President Reagan has on numerous occasions been involved in Shrine and masonic functions throughout his career.
The confusion as to his membership arises from a ceremony held in the Oval Office of the White House on February 11th, 1988, when a group of Freemasons presented President Reagan with a certificate of honor from the Grand Lodge of Washington, D.C., then he was made an Honourary Scottish Rite mason. The title of Freemason can only be conferred by a Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons. In Reagan's case this was not done, probably because the ceremonies would have taken a full day to confer and the president's time was limited; therefore,President Reagan should only be referred to as a Shriner or Scottish Rite mason. The Shrine and Scottish Rite are concordant bodies and cannot confer the title Freemason on any person.

www.mastermason.com...
www.apfn.net...


As to the bit “Reagan did political favors for Walt as Gov. of California” that would be real tough considering Walt died December 15th 1966 and Reagan wasn't inaugurated as governor of California until January 2nd, 1967, 18 days later.

So all of Reagan’s political maneuvering, and legislation in support of Walt Disney’s proposed plan for Mineral King never happened? Even though Disney passed in late 1966 his plans to develop the area continued (carried on by his successors). The project was debated through 1976, ten years after Disney’s death. Throughout this whole time (save 1975/1976) Reagan fully supported the project and devoted his powers as governor to helping the project succeed.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
My LASIK was doing so good too!

Guess ya need a touch up soon



As I said, the origin of Freemasonry is not completely known. There is only speculation and theories.

That and the putting together of the puzzle pieces using the involved symbolism as well as the writings of important masons throughout history.

From these reports and declarations of Masons of the highest order in the institution, we see that Masonry, without publicly declaring so, lays claim to some divine communication from the creator, in a manner different from, and unconnected with, the book which the christians call the bible; and the natural result from this is, that Masonry is derived from some very ancient religion, wholly independent of and unconnected with that book.
To come then at once to the point, Masonry (as I shall show from the customs, ceremonies, hieroglyphics, and chronology of Masonry) is derived and is the remains of the religion of the ancient Druids; who, like the Magi of Persia and the Priests of Heliopolis in Egypt, were Priests of the Sun

"The Druids, when they committed any thing to writing, used the Greek alphabet, and I am bold to assert that the most perfect remains of the Druids' rites and ceremonies are preserved in the customs and ceremonies of the Masons that are to be found existing among mankind." "My brethren" says he, "may be able to trace them with greater exactness than I am at liberty to explain to the public."

The book says later: “The religion of the Druids, as before said, was the same as the religion of the ancient Egyptians.”

Egypt," says Smith, "from whence we derive many of our mysteries
, has always borne a distinguished rank in history, and was once celebrated above all others for its antiquities, learning, opulence, and fertility. In their system, their principal hero- gods, Osiris and Isis, theologically represented the Supreme Being and universal Nature;

…Osiris and Isis, theologically represented the Supreme Being and universal Nature; and physically the two great celestial luminaries, the Sun and the Moon, by whose influence all nature was actuated."
"The experienced brethren of the society, [says Smith in a note to this passage] are well informed what affinity these symbols bear to Masonry, and why they are used in all Masonic Lodges.

"The Egyptians," continues Smith, "in the earliest ages constituted a great number of Lodges, but with assiduous care kept their secrets of Masonry from all strangers. These secrets have been imperfectly handed down to us by oral tradition only, and ought to be kept undiscovered to the laborers, craftsmen, and apprentices, till by good behavior and long study they become better acquainted in geometry and the liberal arts, and thereby qualified for Masters and Wardens, which is seldom or never the case with English Masons.


From Origins of Freemasonry by Thomas Paine, quoting Captain George Smith, Provincial Grand Master Mason of the British county of Kent, 1783.
www.infidels.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
I'm sure Pike said a lot of things, but to say all of Freemasonry can be summed up using the numbered degree system of the Scottish Rite is not really accurate.

Right, to which I never said. Though man, I do appreciate how you can discuss without being condescending, no sarcasm here



What do I know as a 32nd? Nothing that I really didn't already know. Going through the Reunion I was shocked to know just as much as the Venerable Master, and in some instances more than some of the members about the history of the Scottish Rite (somewhat due to the other ATS Masons here).

As Master Masons we are all equal. These other bodies and orders are not superior, but each impart their own lessons and usually stem from a theory of the founding of Masonry (damn that Chevalier Ramsay!). I know a lot of people won't join other bodies simply because they see the appendant bodies as too dividing.

I joined the York Rite because I was Christian and I was highly interested in the Chivalric Orders.

Hmm, well thanks for a few peaceful paragraphs of your experience, nothing to throw at ya here either haha


Bill Schnoebelen is a hypocritical liar; this can be proven by his own words. I go by sources that use rational thinking as well as what I've seen in my travels and experiences. Many anti-Masonic sites are based on hoaxes (such as Leo Taxil), religious bigotry, paranoid beliefs, and fascist tendencies.

So what are some of the things he has said that snags in your mind?
99% of my research is not even online but through books; I have not even visited an anti-Masonic website - any website related to masonry I have visited were pro-Masonic websites. To be honest I haven’t even read any of Schnoebelen’s books, just that his quote on Satanic human sacrifice was included in a giant book on the subject that I own; I have stepped up to advocating him because all I have seen against his credentials is that timeline everyone is complaining about; if you have examples of these lies feel free to post so I can compare and contrast data, otherwise I shall continue in this game of devil’s advocate



Bill is a con artist who fabricates information to give himself credentials to bad mouth the very organizations he is said to have belonged to, but its too bad he can't actually back up anything he's said. Many of those things he said he belonged to would conflict each other and shows that he is not a very trustworthy man.

Do you have any examples of this fabricated information? As someone else asked me to explain how his organizations don’t conflict with each other, I will talk about that in a later post. I personally don’t know what he says about other things, but as for the purpose I used Bill’s quote for on satanic human sacrifice, it is verified by many other SRA survivors, research by David Icke on the subject who has interviewed Satanists on the matter, as well as a testimony from a former Mother Goddess. (On a side note, I know you all have issues with David Icke too as he was on the list, aside from his ridiculous notion that the world is run by lizard men, he is a very intelligent man, his research is astounding…completely biblically accurate? I say no since he believes in theocracy.)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh....no. Because any man who claims to be a simultaneous adherent of so many organisations with contradictory and/or mutually exclusive goals is lying about something. How then is one supposed to take anything he says with anything other than a grain (or three) of salt?

Yes, but that is your own speculation, as a man without conviction can be all of those things at the same time. Did you know that Satanists will go to their Satanic church on Saturdays, yet still go to a Christian church on Sunday?



If he said anything that was remotely true and wasn't in diametric opposition to everything I personally have experienced, I'd cut him slack even then because I have an open mind. But my mind's not so open that my brains fall out either.

Hahah! Well good, I myself don’t prefer to see brains on the floor. SO what are these things that he said that aren’t remotely true? Any examples of all these experiences you are talking about?


But then the usual response is that I obviously can't be so highly-placed as to be trusted with the 'true' secrets of Freemasonry as known so thoroughly by non-Masons.


That is actually something found even on one of your highly rated Masonic websites my friend.


Sorry to disappoint you then. But in my book, when you lead with a source that the most generous description of that comes to mind is "extremely questionable", can you in all honesty gainsay anyone doubting the rest of what you post?

Being that he was only a source concerning how Satanic human sacrifice is conducted, I wouldn’t categorize that as my 'leading' with that source by far. Have I based everything I have said on him? No, most are based on your own Masonic sources to which you can say nothing about, or other sources that have much more ground.

Have you been involved in Satanic human sacrifice btw? That was the only reason for bringing the man up, to which matter I would hope and assume none of you have witnessed. What he stated as far as human sacrifice is concerned, is fully verified by other SRA (satanic ritual abuse) victims and the research by David Icke, as well as by a former Mother Goddess.


For a man whose word is supposed to be taken as Gospel? Not on this plane of existence.

Who said his word is to be taken as Gospel? If you’re referring to me, using one quote to expand upon Satanic human sacrifice, which can, again, be verified by others? Hardly!

Now, aside from this human sacrifice quote I had seen no information from or on Mr. Bill - have I researched him thoroughly? To my standards, no. However, based on what everyone here is saying about him, the puddle of mud is his timeline there, as no one has stepped up with any other information or examples on this bundle of lies he is acclaimed to throw out on a habitual basis.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Explain to me how in your eyes, one can simultaneously be involved with:
1) Roman Catholicism
2) Old Catholicism
3) Freemasonry
4) Wicca
5) Spiritism
6) Satanism
7) Hard Core Satanism
8) Vampirism
AND
9) Momonism?

Common sense on this plane of existence says that honest simultaneous adherence to the above (as claimed by Schnoebelen in '79-'80) isn't possible and is in fact the hallmark of an attention-seeking liar and/or someone with an agenda against the above-mentioned.

Pardon any rudeness, but common sense according to the common uneducated man? Perhaps.

Now are you claiming Mr. Bill SAID that in ‘79-’80 or that he WAS all those within that year? Assuming you have that chart memorized too it’s probably the latter.

Roman Catholicism, Old Catholicism - similar belief structure to each other, yet still mainly practicing the same type of rituals as those in the occult would, more so the Roman Catholicism than the Old. The Roman Catholic Church has been holding hands with Satanism for a long time (since Pope Miltiades and Constantine in agreement to mix paganism into the Church), thus the symbolism in their architecture at the Vatican, as well as attire and accessories of the Pope are suggestive of ancient Babylonian priest-wear as well as indicative of ties with secret societies. The Catholic’s habit in basically elevating the priest to become a bridge between the sinner and God is also unbiblical - now I’m sure there are good Catholics out there that have their souls saved by reading the bible on their own as well as priests that function more in a pastoral sense in just teaching than being some sort of mediator, but kneeling in front of the priest and all such should be unnecessary. Recent allowance of homosexual/pedophilic activity by ordained priests to go unpunished is a furthering inconsistency with the Bible. Roman Catholicism is likely more close to a cult nowadays, the cult of the Black Madonna in the guise of Jesus‘ mother Mary. Biblically correct? No.

Mormonism - started by Joseph Smith, acclaimed to be a freemason - which would be no surprise, as the rituals within the Mormon church are greatly similar to ritual structure in freemason fraternities, and if I remember correctly, degree structures as well. Either the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers pump a ton of money into the well-being of this cult every year. Testimonies of having to take oaths to partner with a demon are common. The basic teaching in Mormonism that Jesus, Lucifer, and Michael were brothers furthers Satan’s agenda in trying to make the sheeple believe he is equal to God, as well as furthering the lie “Ye shall be as gods” that Satan told to Adam and Eve in the garden - the same basic principle taught in mysticism and new age religions, AND Mormonism, as they teach that God was once a man who was awarded for His ACTIONS he fulfilled in a separate planet as a human, thus He was awarded His own planet to rule. Biblically correct? No.

Spiritism (def: a loose corpus of religious faiths having in common the general belief in the survival of a spirit after death.) Thus, spiritism wouldn’t conflict, by that definition, to the rest of the organizations as they all basically believe in a spirit after death. Fits in well with mysticism, which would include Wicca, Vampirism, at least, as it includes “spirit tapping,” psychography, and learning through the means of mediums. Biblically correct? No.

Wicca, is a modern pagan religion started by a member of the freemasons, and claims to be a “soft” version of witchcraft, though all witchcraft whether “white or black” is considered a transgression in the Bible. Another no here.

Satanism/Hard Core Satanism: “Hard Core Satanism” isn’t even an organization, this just means that he advanced considerably in the satanic circle. Obvious no.
Vampirism, fits in well with pagan religion (I say it‘d be more of a fetish myself), recent infatuation into vampires is brought about on purpose. According to Leviticus 17v10-12
and Acts 15v29 blood drinking is not biblically in line.

So what do all of these organizations have in common? It is biblical inaccuracy or transgression against it.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Ah! So the overlap doesn't smack of agenda to you because everything else is lumped into one big ol' bag o' evil? Gotcha!

It’s kinda funny, but finally here you’re basically right
Ever heard of the phrase: “Out of many, one”?


So if he didn't have any conviction then, why are you so sure that the leopard's changed his spots THIS time?

Because (according to the chart) for over 20 years his record has been clear, he has found his true conviction - which would make sense, once you know you got the truth why would you change your spots again? Know how anything related to religion/spirituality is kind of a jumbled mess when you don’t know what you’re looking for? Same thing he was likely struggling with (on a side note, as far as those who say any path can lead to heaven goes, he‘s actually being kinda smart….if they all lead to heaven, why not try to be involved in everything?) Furthermore, the Bible states that the common man can’t even understand what the Bible says because it’s words and concepts are “spiritually discerned;” once one’s saved, the scriptures continue to say that the Holy Spirit will make him able to understand spiritual things.


That presupposes that he was any one of them at all let alone in the timeframe he claims. Or that he's really born again.

What are you saying, that he WASN’T any one of them? You’re assuming a lot of things by that general thought. Notice he hasn’t changed again after being born again.


The Vatican might see things differently. But they're part of the Big Ol' Bag O' Evil© so they don't count, right? Gotcha!

You know, initially you appeared different than some of your friends here as far as attitude goes, but you are all the same (actually, JoshNorton does quite nicely in trying to leave unnecessary comments aside, most of the time
) . Do some research into the history of the Vatican sometime - I understand most of what I say ruffles your feathers the wrong way, however I am in no means trying to demean you in any way purposefully man. I would appreciate less of your derogatory comments,
Mr. “Be Nice!”


Originally posted by Conspirus
Listen man, if you are so sure about yourself and your organization then you wouldn’t be afraid to dive into the information they have to the fullest instead of just grazing around for stuff YOU don’t like or brushing them aside just cuz your organization doesn‘t like them or give them a thumbs down.



According to you. Thanks for sharing

Nope, that’s according to being educated in general. With as much meat you put out there with the bones you make it look as if you just do what your told, much like many sheep follow the religions they were born in or organizations they cherish without really knowing what it’s all about or where they came from.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
It is your perogative to ignore the facts.

On the contrary, it is your prerogative to ignore what’s really being said in a post.


Stop being cryptic, if you have a point to make, make it.

It was made in that previous post, since you can’t seem to handle yourself very well, here is my old post that I am referring to:
“Only reason I brought up FDR putting it on the dollar is because he was not a Christian and the fact that it’s on a monetary note that says “In God we Trust” has nothing to with it being Christian. Because other than that, any staunch instance where one might remotely call it as being a Christian symbol is on a painting whose author isn’t even proven to be Christian, OR in churches/cathedrals that can either be traced back to sacred geometry architecture or to the Vatican‘s history. Again, never did I say FDR created it or that that was the first instance it was used, he WAS the first to put it on the dollar though but created it? Far from it - it is a symbol that has been treasured by secret societies since ancient times”

And no, no star for you.


So in reality, you have no clue.

More clue than you, you are the one calling them Christian man! Just cuz they can draw pictures of Jesus really well.
If you knew ANYTHING about the Renaissance you would know that that’s when secular humanism started, not anything good from any biblical standpoint. It was from Martin Luther’s work the real good came about as a result of, such as the Industrial Revolution, not the Renaissance.


Being a lapsed Roman Catholic I can say that I see little to no correlaries beetween Masonic ritual and Catholic dogma so I fail to see what this particular Mason is basing his opinion upon regarding ritual.

Hmm, well judging from all you’ve said so far combined with that wonderful attitude of yours, I’d take what he’s saying over yours in a heartbeat.


I do understand the point of Speculative Masonry's origins in Operative Masonry, which would have found its members actively invloved in the creation of cathederals throughout Europe. However, Operative and Speculative Masonry are very dissimilar and have been for centuries.

Thus you imply yourself that at one point they likely had similar origins.


It is not just me who considers them to be Christian.

In your own words, there are plenty who don’t.


I address your points on a post-by-post basis. If something is relevant than inlcude it and stop assuming that people are reading your mind.

It is all there man, “you have a serious comprehension issue.” Nice way to randomly nit pick at what you want to complain about, especially when your method of quoting others totally sucks; and how bout dropping the derogatory comments and focusing on just discussion.


This refers to Egyptian mysteries and is not relevant.

What is or isn’t relevant doesn’t seem to matter to you very much.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Your big mistake is assuming that the Great Seal is Masonic, which it is not.

Oh yeah? As you like to say, that is your own personal interpretation. Both the front and back side of the Great Seal is described below.

While referring to the number 13’s relevance on the Great Seal, Manley P. Hall wrote:

It was a marker for those who understood it as a Masonic “power number,” sacred to the moon and representative of the head of Isis, while the eagle, Hall wrote, was a shrew masquerade for the mythical phoenix so important to Masonic Mysticism.

“Its selection would of course be appropriate…the Phoenix is one sign of the secret orders of the ancient world and of the initiate of those orders, for it was common to refer one who had been accepted into the temples as a man twice-born, or re-born.”
“The Phoenix symbol is important in another way, as an emblem among nearly all civilized nations of royalty, power, superiority, and immortality. The Phoenix of China is identical in meaning with the Phoenix of Egypt; and the Phoenix of the Greeks is the same as the Thunder Bird of the American Indians…It is immediately evident that the bird on the original seal is not an eagle…but the Phoenix…The beak is of a different shape, the neck is much longer, and the small tuft of hair at the back of the head leaves no doubt as to the artist’s intention.”
The Secret Destiny of America, chapter 18.

Hall goes on to acknowledge the design “on the obverse side of the seal is stamped with the signature” of the Masons and even more related to the “mysteries.”
Hall continues:


Here is represented the great pyramid of Gizah, composed of thirteen rows of masonry, showing seventy-two stones. The pyramid is without a cap stone, and above its upper platform floats a triangle containing the all-seeing eye surrounded by rays of light…The Pyramid of Gizah was believed by the ancient Egyptians to be the shrine tomb of the god of Hermes, or Thot, the personification of universal wisdom….No trace has ever been found of the cap of the great pyramid. A flat platform about thirty feet square gives no indication that this part of the structure was ever otherwise finished; and this is appropriate, as the Pyramid represents human society itself, imperfect and incomplete. The structure’s ascending converging angles and faces represent the common aspiration of humankind; above floats the symbol of the esoteric orders, the radiant triangle with its all-seeing eye…
There is a legend that in the lost Atlantis stood a great university in which originated most of the arts and sciences of the present race. The University was in the form of an immense pyramid with many galleries and corridors, and on the top was an observatory for the study of the stars. This temple to the sciences in the old Atlantis is shadowed forth in the seal of the new Atlantis. Was it the society of the unknown philosophers who scaled the new nation with the eternal emblems, that all the nations might know the purpose for which the new country had been founded?…The combination of the Phoenix, the pyramid, and the all-seeing eye is more than chance or coincidence. There is nothing about the early struggles of the colonists to suggest such a selection to farmers, shopkeepers, and country gentlemen. There is only one possible origin for these symbols, and that is the secret societies which came to this country 150 years before the Revolutionary War. Most of the patriots who achieved American independence belonged to these societies, and derived their inspiration, courage, and high purpose from the ancient teaching.
There can be no question that the great seal was directly inspired by these orders of the human quest, and that it set forth the purpose for this nation as that purpose was seen and known to the Founding Fathers.
The monogram of the new Atlantis reveals this continent as set apart for the accomplishment of the great work--here is to arise the pyramid of human aspiration, the school of the secret sciences.
Ibid.

James D. Carter, 33rd degree freemason, admitted the Masonic symbolism is clearly known whenever “an informed Mason examines the Great Seal.”

Henry Wallace, 32nd degree freemason, Vice-President under FDR. It was Wallace’s great knowledge of the mystic occult who showed FDR the significance of the great seal. Wallace describes the meeting with Roosevelt:

Roosevelt…was first struck with the representation of the all-seeing eye - a Masonic representation of the Great Architect of the Universe. Next, he was impressed with the idea that the foundation of the new order of the ages had been laid in 1776 but that it would be completed only under the eye of the Great Architect. Roosevelt, like myself, was a 32nd-Degree Mason. He suggested that the Seal be put on the dollar bill…
Wallace’s Letters 1951, 1955.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Yes, it is a widely used symbol in the Renaissance to depict diety and there are numerous examples available by searching. As I pointed out earlier there is a thread which I linked several sources.

Those who were artists during the Renaissance can in no way be confirmed Christian - this being the case, if they weren’t Christian and were using it to depict deity, what does that tell you? And by deity who are you referring to? Deity implies possibility of referring to gods other than God.

How long you wish to continue this eye in a triangle issue is amazing - As I have stated before a long time ago, EVEN IF it were Christian at some point in its history, right NOW it is very much a PAGAN symbol. How much you want to ignore that fact is quite obvious with your poor examples to Kyobosha of biblically fallen away church buildings.


It seems to be that you have a serious comprehension issue. I continue to discuss the eye in a triangle. Which specifically refers to the Trinity. I am aware that the usage of an eye dates back to much older times. The interpretation at the time it is framed in a triangle make it purely a Christian symbol.

It’s ridiculous how you think I have a comprehension issue when how many times did you bring up the Renaissance? The eye coupled with the concept of a triangle has been used since ancient times. Do you have biblical evidence the eye in a triangle refers to the Trinity?

If it were such a "purely" Christian symbol, why do we see pure Satan lovers such as the late Aleister Crowley wearing it?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Koine Greek or Medieval Greek?

Koine Greek.


And there are plenty who do.

Yeah, but are they biblically correct as a whole? No.


No, the judicicary can practice the law but still not personally abide by the law. This is the hypocritical part. 'Do as I say and not as I do."

Good, finally a point you’re not off on. Now go study on the difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
This is like equating Jim Jones to a Supreme Being. Just because someone, or something, says they are does not make it so. There is only one creator of the Universe.

Haha, yeah, except Lucifer being a former arch angel would still be infinitely stronger and on a whole nother level than Jim Jones, but he would still not be equal to God nonetheless. You should perhaps say that to the foremost of your fraternity.

Wow, a point we agree on, yes there is only one creator of the universe. However, have you learned how freemasons call their deity the GAOTU? Now it’s easy to see how some people might confuse “architect” with “creator.” If they wanted to use the term “creator” they could have, but no they used the word “architect.” An architect cannot create things out of nothing, an architect needs materials to create with, they design based upon available technologies. Architects use books and education to ensure their design is feasible. God (the Creator) designed the universe ex nihilo. This super close terminology yet differing where it counts is likely Satan trying to be like God, yet again.

Isaiah 14:13-14 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

So like Kyobosha said, Satan will take his best shot at beating God in His own game. According to Pike, he equates Lucifer as being equal to “Adonay” (the name they use for the original God when they have no allegiance to him,) by stating “Lucifer is God, but unfortunately, Adonay is also God” there can be no light without shadow, etc. something like that. These people really believe that Lucifer is the true God and that the true God is the evil one for being selfish.


Pike never said that and you are falling for a very common misperception about his writings.

Yes he did say that, or do you not know of that either? He said a bit more than that. That’s an easy one to find so you can do that yourself….maybe. Here’s an extra quote for you from Manly P. Hall:
"When the Mason ... has learned the mystery of his Craft, the seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands. ..." (Manly Palmer Hall, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, p. 48).



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
Plus, if he was so spread out how would he be able to dedicate himself to each organization to truly gain a strong understanding and actually progress through them?

Good question. As I did not see this till just now, I will give you a quick poor example

An analogy I might throw out there would be, when one attends college how many classes must he take simultaneously till the point of being considered a qualified professional? Often times it is 5 to 6 classes a semester, and JUST doing so for 4 years gets him the initial qualification.

Considering a few of the groups could be grouped together and he was involved in each for a minimum of 5 (save for Vampirism) years up to looks like almost 20 years, it's possible he may have developed a thorough understanding.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Wow you took what I said way off base. I NEVER said the Great Seal was on the Dollar because of Clinton trying to contact Roosevelt. Would be nice if you didn't claim I made such comments.


Calm down there sweetheart, my use of brackets was to show the other poster claimed this (that is what brackets are for, an aside, an additional thought (kind of like this one)).


If you read them again, I said that if the Roosevelt's were truly Christian, then there is now way Mrs. Roosevelt's spirit would have communicated with Clinton. Which is relevant to the soul/spirit of Roosevelt.


No, it is irrelevant. Just because Hillary Clinton claims to have contacted Eleanor Roosevelt does not make the Roosevelts non-Christian or have anything to do with Franklin Roosevelt putting the Great Seal on the Dollar Bill (as the other poster claimed). Reminder: the bracketed portion indicates that the preceding sentence does not refer to your stance.



Again, since you seem to be stuck on this. I agree Christian's have used it and that it represented the eye of God and the Trinity (though the earliest symbol to represent the trinity was the triune not the eye of providence). This doesn't mean that the symbols didn't have other meanings before this particular use; and it certainly doesn't mean that the eye truly glorifies God.


Again, I am not disputing the fact that it evolved from somewhere else. It was, and is, used as a symbol to denote the Trintiy.


I'm not arguing the meaning to some Christian's. I am arguing that the origins can't be ignored and that the symbol doesn't glorify God.


Obviously quite a few other Christians disagree with you and feel it does glorify God. Otherwise why would they incorporate it into artwork, architecture and literature?


Nothing about using those to represent an eye, not really surprised or disappointed by it. That's what I expected.


I conceed that if the email is correct. My opinion is that it looks like an eye. Perception is reality.


Let me clarify my question. The eye in the eye of providence isn't the eye of horus even though there is a resemblance. Yet the bible, circle, and cross are the eye of providence because there is a resemblance? Just seems to me you arent using the same standards of analysis for both symbols.


My answer would be another question. What would be the reason to use a symbol of Horus in a Christian church? None. It did (or still may) represent Horus, but only when used in that enviornment.


To what specifically are you refering to?

"’Which commandment is the more important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.’" Mark 12:28-31

This lesson is taught in Masonry. The candidate is reminded in every degree of this tenet.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspirus
According to Pike, he equates Lucifer as being equal to “Adonay” (the name they use for the original God when they have no allegiance to him,) by stating “Lucifer is God, but unfortunately, Adonay is also God” there can be no light without shadow, etc. something like that. These people really believe that Lucifer is the true God and that the true God is the evil one for being selfish.


Pike never said that and you are falling for a very common misperception about his writings.

Yes he did say that, or do you not know of that either? He said a bit more than that.
You're obviously not familiar with the Taxil hoax...







 
21
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join