A Word of the Lord For His Bride in This Hour...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Caution Advised---following this thread marries Jesus to the anti-Christ and the Babylon Trinity. imho

Only Sinners proceed.

*Caution Explained*

The above member in many other threads sings praises to Masonic Luciferianism.

Obviously, this is the time when the "tricksters" will come among the masses. For the "Tricksters", Faith is the method by which they fudge-factor when the truth doesn't support their claims.

Religion is seeking the truths, and the truth seeking always runs well beyond looking at only one book that demands faith when things don't line up or "square up" as truth.

The Masons are those intelligent people that wrote the US Constitution and included the broader knowledge known as highly intelligent. Their studies of religion far exceeded what one might gain from one book, one church, or one religion. The Tricksters try, with evil intent, to tell these more intelligent Founders of America were against the country and the study of Jesus. It doesn't show up as being truthful, but only of evil intentions because such tricksters can't handle the truth that comes out with reading beyond the one book.

The Masons discovered the Essene, the Therapute, and the Master Jesus, and from this greater search for truth came their Magnum Opus for truth seeking. Unlike most churches and the one book, they knew Jesus, the Essene, and the Therapute were those that studied in the Mystery School's methods and became Masters of their special higher knowledge and the sciences of those times.

There is nothing evil about seeking the truth and the light of knowledge, but for those intent on controlling you with limited knowledge, it is called evil. Going beyond the one book's knowledge literally unravels them and the best they can try to do is pull you down into the levels of four legged beasts and fail to allow you to walk upright.

One doesn't have to look very far to take note that the One Book fails to teach people about the Essene, but the Mason studies both discovered that connection and took the time to study all the details of what were the Essene and what as their Master School that made Master Jesus.

From the Mason's Encyclopedia one finds they study beyond the one book in search of the truth of religion:

=========

www.phoenixmasonry.org...

association of men resembling Freemasons in the nature, ceremonies, and object of their institution (see his page 33). The association to which he here alludes is that of the Essenes, whom he subsequently describes as an ancient Fraternity originating from an association of architects who were connected with the building of Solomon's Temple.

Lawrie evidently seeks to connect historically the Essenes with the Freemasons, and to impress his readers with the identity of the two Institutions. Brother Mackey was not prepared to go so far; but there is such a similarity between the two, and such remarkable coincidences in many of their usages, as to render this Jewish sect an interesting study to every Freemason, to whom therefore some account of the usages and doctrines of this holy brotherhood will not, perhaps, be unacceptable.

At the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, there were three religious sects in Judea—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; and to one of these seets every Jew was compelled to unite himself. The Savior has been supposed by many writers to have been an Essene, because, while repeatedly denouncing the errors of the two other sects, he has nowhere uttered a word of censure against the Essenes; and because, also, many of the precepts of the New Testament are to be found among the laws of this sect.

==========

Reading beyond the one Book shows you what was Jesus, and there are collections of information that go way beyond any one preacher's studies or one churches knowledge.

Those seeking all the truths read well beyond the one book to discover the better enlightments for religion. The Tricksters attempt to tell that reading beyond the one book is Lucifer, but almost all the world reads beyond the one book except for cattle herded into reading just one book. imho

I think everyone will find it fun to read some of the defintions in the Encyclopedia of Masons, especially all the rest of the definition of the Essene. You will find out much of what became Christianity and sprang from the Essene's teachings and the Therapute.


Beware, those that hate the whole truth will attempt to call you a Satan for wanting the whole story.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That's like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, we aren't that team. lol

Do you have a habit of addressing yourself in the second person?

How else should I refer to the body of Christ? Suggestions?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How else should I refer to the body of Christ? Suggestions?

Who made you the official spokesman for Christ?

reply to post by MagnumOpus

"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!"

Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry", p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff

"The day has come when Fellow Craftsman must know and apply their knowledge. The lost key to their grade is the mastery of emotion , which places the energy of the universe at their disposal. Man can only expect to be entrusted with great power by proving his ability to use it constructively and selflessly. 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. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare."

Manley P. Hall, "The Lost Keys of Freemasonry or The Secret of Hiram Abiff", Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, p. 48


Like I said, Masonic Luciferianism.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How else should I refer to the body of Christ? Suggestions?

Who made you the official spokesman for Christ?

That's not what I asked. I asked how I should refer to the body of Christ since you say the 2nd person is erroneous language usage.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Read some quotes.

I have, and unlike you, I don't just automatically take all of it at face value. We have none of the original documents and I have brought this up in two other threads that you were in and you have yet to produce any sort of proof for your claim.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by cloudyday

 

Here is a good description of the problems created by the ideas of Arius. This was written by Eusebius of Nicomedia to Emperor Constantine.

Eusebius was what you could call a "suck-up" to people in position of power and did what was right and profitable to himself.
Do you actually understand what he is saying in the quote?
What he is saying is that if Jesus was actually a literal "son" then that would mean that he was begotten. And if Jesus (or rather the pre-incarnate Jesus, who Eusebius is calling The Son) was begotten, then that means that God, the Father, had changed. Meaning that God was not a father, then God was a father. This would mean that God was capable of change, something that according to their definition of God, was not allowable.
The insanity of it is that they therefore make the son and the father equal so that one always existed along with the other (contradicting the very terms, father and son), while obviously the one was fully capable of change, coming to earth as a baby, born of a woman.
Arguing by use of actual logic back then could, and frequently did, result in being burnt at the stake or some other form of execution. Proper argumentation back then was to quote someone who had previously been given the seal of approval by some later authority. This is the same principle which got Galileo in hot water with the church, later on.

edit on 25-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

This is just my opinion, but I think the mistake is to use logic in religion. Science stagnated for centuries because we used "natural philosophy" instead of experiment. Christianity has turned into a mess because there is too much philosophy and logic and theology and not enough experiment.

Anyway, I think the quote from Eusebius is interesting, because he himself was very sympathetic to the ideas of Arius, but he does a good job describing why people found them so heretical.

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
Define is.....peace

Do what?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, you're maintaining that God sacrificed Himself to Himself.

That is correct.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Instead of saying the Father sent the Son to atone for the sins of His children.

Yes, sacrificial atonement, just as they sacrificed animals before Jesus came.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The sacrifice was not his death, but His birth.

Ah, so if Jesus's blood wasn't spilled on the cross, we could still be forgiven because he was born here? I've had it wrong all these years, because the sacrifice was actually him being born here, not his blood being shed at the cross.

reply to post by Hydroman

Yes, sacrificial atonement

No, our faith is in penalsubstitutionary atonement.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I have, and unlike you, I don't just automatically take all of it at face value.

Your choice. I myself consider it relevant to read what the people who were there have to say about what happened there.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, our faith is in penalsubstitutionary atonement.

What?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, our faith is in penalsubstitutionary atonement.

What?

Here

to Hydroman:
NuT is speaking of himself using the plural pronoun again.

No, our faith is in penalsubstitutionary atonement.

There are several different versions of the theory of Jesus' crucifixion, where the one he mentioned is only one of them. It happens to be the one his cult has chosen to go with, so he has deluded himself into believing that all "real" Christians (who he believes is the prophet for) also believe in it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Your choice. I myself consider it relevant to read what the people who were there have to say about what happened there.

OK, then describe what it was that you read.

reply to post by Hydroman

Ah, so if Jesus's blood wasn't spilled on the cross, we could still be forgiven because he was born here? I've had it wrong all these years, because the sacrifice was actually him being born here, not his blood being shed at the cross

His blood being shed at the cross was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the first passover where the passover lamb was sacrificed and it's blood painted on the wooden posts and lintel of the doors on the hebrew homes. Yeshua did have the ability to forgive your sins and save you before he was crucified and he did this on many occasions to those who believed in him. The only God sanctioned sacrifice in jewish history was the passover sacrifice and then the covenant he was trying to establish where the Israelites would obey his voice and commandments, but they broke the 10 commandments before Moses even came down from the mountain when they worshipped the golden calf dedicated to the Queen of Heaven Ashtoreth (or Hathor in Egyptian).

Him being born here was only part of what saved us, him being our passover lamb is what caused God's wrath to pass over us. The next step was to confirm the covenant by believing in him. The crucifixtion parallels the jewish passover and the covenant made on Mt. Sinai, but diverges where the israelites broke that covenant before it was made, with the second covenant he establishes it with each individual as opposed to a nation of people.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

The only God sanctioned sacrifice in jewish history was the passover sacrifice . . .

The word, sacrifice, is not in the description of the Passover in Exodus 12.

btw: the Bible says that Jesus forgave sins, not your substitute anti-christ.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Here

So Matt Slick agrees with me? "Notice that the ram was offered in place of Isaac. This was a substitutionary sacrifice which is exactly what "vicarious" means. Further, we see a prophecy of the atoning work of Christ in Isaiah."