Freemason Bible Exposed! Raising of the Dead after Death - Sun Worship

Actually, they do not disagree at all, and yes, I am sure.

I am not referring here to the three scribe priest kings "Hermes Thrice Great". If we employ your Interpretatio Hebraica here, you could perhaps strretch it to mean Enoch, Noah and Moses. However, this was a title, not a reference to the god.

I am referring here to the god Hermes, who, contrary to popular belief, was in fact a pre-Olympian serpent god and carrier of the caduceus. The god of wisdom, cunning, trickery, the night, deceit, knowledge, communication, the underworld, luck and serpents. The earliest incarnation and representation of which we can trace back to the Sumerian god Ningishzidda, and the caduceus on the Libation vase of King Gudea. Dr. Ward's study on this I still consider unparalleled.

Then let us look at Egypt. Thoth and Anubis were one and the same, considered two aspects of the same deity. The god of wisdom, comunication, knowledge, architecture, science, trickery, lord of the underworld, the messenger, the psychopomp, keeper of time and fate, judge, weigher of the heart, and teacher.

Garden of Eden? We have the arch-angel Gabriel, governor of the garden and the lord of serpents, the messenger, the teacher. Why is it that certain ancient coins have Anubis on one side, and Gabriel on the other?
Hmmm...

So, YES. I am certain. He is NOT Enoch.
Hermes/Anubis/Ningishzidda/Hermanubis/Hiram Abiff/John the Baptist/Gabriel/Satan - they are one and the same. And He is my God.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


you are aware that the Gospels were written many years after the "Death of Christ " not 20 years not 50 , i believe 100 or so , also if you read the original text of Mathew , he talks about Christ , in a whole different light ,

so let me ask you , if Jesus is god , and god so loveith the world that he gave his only " BEGOTTEN SON"

begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child" biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"

then who are we? and who was Jesus praying to in the desert ? certainly not him self ?

see it can be simple , and ill tell you how , Jesus was a child of god , just like us , he was created by god like us , however he must have been closer to god then much of the world at that time , and even now , his message was that of love , and worship the father your creator , be pious , ect ect , but somehow he ended up as the dividing force between man and god , in a position that would cause many death's in the world and misdirect mankind away from the real message .

so explain the trinity for me please , and to stay on topic

masons yada yada yada yada

comparing the one true God who reveals himself through the Holy Spirit and through his Word,with the entities masquerading as gods is comparing apples to fish

Whatever in the wide world of sports is the point?

God as he has revealed himself through his Holy Spirit and through Christ Jesus is who he says he is, and I have a feeling that before the year is out everyone will know that. I can wait

oh and Enoch is Enoch so says Enoch

Originally posted by LightningStrikesHere
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

you are aware that the Gospels were written many years after the "Death of Christ " not 20 years not 50 , i believe 100 or so , also if you read the original text of Mathew , he talks about Christ , in a whole different light ,

so let me ask you , if Jesus is god , and god so loveith the world that he gave his only " BEGOTTEN SON"

begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child" biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"

then who are we? and who was Jesus praying to in the desert ? certainly not him self ?

see it can be simple , and ill tell you how , Jesus was a child of god , just like us , he was created by god like us , however he must have been closer to god then much of the world at that time , and even now , his message was that of love , and worship the father your creator , be pious , ect ect , but somehow he ended up as the dividing force between man and god , in a position that would cause many death's in the world and misdirect mankind away from the real message .

so explain the trinity for me please , and to stay on topic

masons yada yada yada yada

edit on 4-6-2012 by LightningStrikesHere because: (no reason given)

First, consider who Christ was before the world was created.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

If you have ever read Genesis 1:27, you will realize that we are all inside an image called reality. The image is a projection of Time, Space, Matter and Energy. Genesis 1:1-3 In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy). Christ is the first image created, perfected man. He is the FIRST Son of God. He is then the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit, a state of being that all men can receive, but not before the set times have passed on the prophetic schedule being told to us in the image. Essentially, this is a movie that we experience as characters in the production. The story is not simply told, it is experienced. Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

The story is designed and expressed to mankind by the WORD. This is LOGOS. Logos is the master storyteller. The use of the term WORD expresses more than we can understand without looking at the linguistics behind the term WORD and WORLD. The Lamed in WorLd connects the two together linguistically and can be seen fully in the root morphology of the two words in story form. You should read the article linked in my signature titled, Interesting Linguistics in Hebrew - Word / WorLd. You can also Google the article. ATS will not allow me to link to my own work as they are censoring religious content but not other users who do the same.

Next, the passage below defines this in detail. You can't fully understand this until you look at the linguistics behind the term WORD creating WORLD.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw


As to your first point, I am in agreement with professor Don Redford, that the "Jews" were, in fact, the Hyksos. The Hyksos practiced sole worship of the god Set, who is now known as Yahweh.

I have to disagree with this hypothesis. Set was the chief deity of the state during the time of the supposed "captivity" of the Hebrews. This was previous to the predominance of the Osirian cult, before Set was demonized by the priests of Osiris. At this point, Set was considered the lord of culture, the arts, etc.

The Hebrews then turned Set into their "Satan" for political purposes.

Furthermore, the Hyksos were conquerors....not tribal nomads.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw


As to your first point, I am in agreement with professor Don Redford, that the "Jews" were, in fact, the Hyksos. The Hyksos practiced sole worship of the god Set, who is now known as Yahweh.

I have to disagree with this hypothesis. Set was the chief deity of the state during the time of the supposed "captivity" of the Hebrews. This was previous to the predominance of the Osirian cult, before Set was demonized by the priests of Osiris. At this point, Set was considered the lord of culture, the arts, etc.

The Hebrews then turned Set into their "Satan" for political purposes.

Furthermore, the Hyksos were conquerors....not tribal nomads.

These are good points.
But, allow me to counter them a little?

If we look at the story of Exodus from a purely historical standpoint, we do find the time period to be more likely much later than claimed - more likely in the 7th century BC. These stories of the expulsion of the Hyksos made their way into the myths of Canaan and subsequently became the story of the Israelites' sojourn and exodus.

Even after thorough archeological study, and despite the fact that the historical record during the time of Ramesses II was very detailed, we find no mention of these tribal nomads. It is likely that what became interpreted as an escape from Eypt, was in fact an expulsion from Egypt, filtered down, mythologized and used as folk-inspiration needed by Judah in the 7th century BC.

Another interesting point to consider is the idea of the powerful kingdom supposedly ruled over by David. Yet, at the time, David's capital Jerusalem, if we look at the archeology, was barely more than a village. Yes, Tel Dan tells us that David was a historical figure, but not much else. If we consider that the biblical authors approriated the culture of the Omrides (who, of course followed another religion entirely), and claimed it as their own, it begins to make much more sense, and it gives us the religious significance of the Mount of Olives.

The god Set of the Hyksos is the god Yahweh of the Jews. Monolotary as opposed to monotheism.

reply to post by CodyOutlaw


I'm not sure of anything that connects the Hyksos to the Israelites though, with the exception of lore from Josephus. It is unlikely that Israelite tribesmen could have conquered a cultural rich Egypt. Also, the worship of Set predates the Hyksos.

Many linguistic scholars view "Set" as the origin of "Satan". Set was worshiped by the Israelites' enemies, and therefore Set became their devil, the antagonist to Yahweh.

Dr. Michael Aquino of the modern Temple of Set has studied this in detail in this fascinating paper, paying particular attention to Chapter Two, on Set and ancient Egyptian religion:

Link

He is the FIRST Son of God

reply to post by EnochWasRight


indeed he is the "SON" of god , not god hims self

also

Dating Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [21]) view as follows: Mark: c. 68–73,[22] c. 65–70[23] Matthew: c. 70–100.[22] c. 80–85.[23] Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[22] c. 80–85[23] John: c. 90–100,[23] c. 90–110,[24] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition. Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64/5 that had such impact on the early church[25]. Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible: Matthew: c. 50 to 70s Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70 Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.

en.wikipedia.org...

also you never replied to my concerns about the gospels, their seems to be peaces , and big holes , plenty of room for a man to make the "son" of god a Messiah , i like to look at "Jesus" as a prophet


oh i almost forgot , masons ! yes them, darn masons ! seem to have their hands in everything i heard they can even tell each other in apart in a pitch black dark room

Originally posted by Masonic Light
reply to post by CodyOutlaw

 

I'm not sure of anything that connects the Hyksos to the Israelites though, with the exception of lore from Josephus. It is unlikely that Israelite tribesmen could have conquered a cultural rich Egypt.

If I may, I'm going to quote prof Redford here, since I think he absolutely nails it:

Whoever supplied the geographical information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overlords: He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramesses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1070 to 725 B.C. (cf. Psalm 78:12, 43), which survives as a metropolis into Roman times; and he mistakenly presses into service the adjacent marshy tract "the reed-(lake)" as the "Reed-sea," the scene of Israel's miraculous passage to safety.

The route he is familiar with is that which traverses the same tract as the canal of Necho II (610-594 B.C.) from Bubastis to the Bitter Lakes; then he moves north in his mind's eye past the famous fort at Migdol to Lake Sirbonis (Ba'al Saphon) where Horus had already in the mythical past thrown Seth out of Egypt. In short, with respect to the geography of the Exodus, the post-Exilic compiler of the present Biblical version had no genuinely ancient details. He felt constrained to supply them from the Egypt of his own day and, significantly perhaps, cited several places where Asiatic elements and especially Judaean mercenaries resided in the sixth and fifth centuries.

One cannot help but conclude that there was an early and persistent memory of a voluntary descent into Egypt by pastoralists in which one Jacob, who was later to achieve a reputation as an ancestral figure, played a leading role. Those who had made the descent the tradition went on to elaborate, had not only prospered and multiplied, but had for a period of four generations grown exceedingly influentlal in Egypt. Subsequently a strong hostility had been evinced by the autochthonous population toward the Asiatic interlopers; and the latter had been forced to retire to the Levanthine littoral whence they had come.

There is only one chain of historical events that can accommodate this late tradition, and that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt (see chapter 5). The memory of this major event in the history of the Levant survived not only in Egyptian sources. It would be strange indeed if the West Semitic speaking population of Palestine, whence the invaders had come in MB IIB, had not also preserved in their folk memory this great moment of (for them) glory. And in fact it is in the Exodus account that we are confronted with the "Canaanite" version of this event, featuring the great ancestral leader Jacob, the four-generation span, the memory of political primacy, the occupation of the eastern fringe of the Delta, and so on. It became part of the origin stories of all the Semitic enclaves of the area, and from there it even spread to the north and west where It became current among the non-Semites.

Since we have next to nothing by way of textual witnesses to the folklore of the Canaanites of the Levant, traces of an "Exodus" tradition apart from the Hebrew version are difficult to find. But they do exist Strabo preserves the memory of an army drowned in the sea, localized on the Palestinian coast north of Acre, and is aware of similar phenon-lena at Mount Caslus "near Egypt." Legend had it that certain communities in Asla and Mesopotamia had originated in Egypt; and in early Roman times the population of Palestine was considered to have originated from "Egyptian, Arabian and Phoenician tribes."

(continued...)

(continued)

But the best-preserved non-Biblical memory of the sojourn and Exodus
was that preserved in "Phoenician" legend, and surviving today in classical sources. From at least as early as the fifth century B.C. and perhaps earlier - the details are already a commonplace in Herodotus - Levantine communities remembered a descent to the Nile of one Io, her marriage to the reigning king and the list of her descendants through her son Epafos (Apophis). Io's line ruled over Egypt for four generations, whereupon her great grandson Agenor retired to Phoenicia, where he became a great king, and his brother Belos (Ba'al) to Mesopotamia. Belos's son Danaos, after a contretemps with his brother Aegyptos, fled to Argos. Both the origin and the ultimate settlement, however, of the main elements of the movement are linked with "Phoenicia": Epaphos's brother is said to be "Phoenix" and Epaphos himself at one stage in his career was in Byblos, while Kadmos, son of Agenor, in concert with Danaos, led the foreigners expelled from Egypt.

In sum, therefore, we may state that the memory of the Hyksos expulsion did indeed live on in the folklore of the Canaanite population of the southern Levant. The exact details were understandably blurred and sub-consciously modified over time, for the purpose of "face-saving." It became not a conquest but a peaceful descent of a group with pastoral associations who rapidly arrived at a position of political control. Their departure came not as a result of ignominious defeat, but either voluntarily or as a flight from a feud, or yet again as salvation from bondage.

I'm quoting from his book: Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1992).

Also: yes, Set predates the Hyksos, of course. I meant merely to state that their practiced monolotry was of Set.

RE: Dr. Aquino: A very intelligent man! But I have never found myself agreeing with him. The oldest god of the Underworld and prototype of Satan we can find is Ningishzidda, or the Egyptian Anpu/Anubis, who predates Osiris as Lord of the Underworld and was so feared as to be referred to as Nameless at times.

I thought Anubis was the guide of the underworld? John van Aucken of ARE has explained the anubis as having the sense to lead souls to where they need to go after they die.

"When one has taken a long journey away from home, one can lose the trail home. If one cannot find or recall the way home, then one needs help. Anubis, the jackal-headed god, is the symbol of that help. The jackal can pick up the scent of the trail traversed to get here, and therefore the way home. At every death scene in ancient Egypt, Anubis is depicted. He is the sixth sense that recalls the way home."

Aucken says that the Anubis is the symbol of the 6th sense.

Is there really a specific entity that is referred to as "Satan" or "Shaitan" or all the other names? My understanding is that the "forces" of the spiritual realms were personified in order to better explain the concepts to people of lesser understanding and knowledge.

Do you guys think that "the devil" is an actual soul or consciousness or entity? I'm very interested in this.

Originally posted by protocolsoflove
I thought Anubis was the guide of the underworld? John van Aucken of ARE has explained the anubis as having the sense to lead souls to where they need to go after they die.

Only relegated to such after the cult of Osiris gained prominence.

Do you guys think that "the devil" is an actual soul or consciousness or entity? I'm very interested in this.

I can only speak for myself, Proto.
And my answer is a resounding yes - but not in any Abrahamic sense of Him.

I find it very convenient that the people who wrote the Bible (Pagans) told us not to worship the Gods they worship because they are evil. Hiding something, much?

I still believe the Bible is a creation of the Roman Empire intended to keep the people to afraid to live their lives and believe that those above them always know whats right and should not be questioned, but most importantly, to not know the truth. What that truth is, I don't know - I'm not part of the club.

I find the writings of Blavatsky, Hall, and Crowley to be fascinating. Theosophy and to an extent Buddhism seem more likely to be true, to me, than Christianity.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Hmmm....I got a different and larger Bible than that one when I became a Master Mason.

You are the only one here trying to twist truth and use God to justify your prejudice and hatred.

When the books are opened, will your oaths be to man or to God?

All of my oaths are to God.

It's a "different" Bible alright. One where every reference to Jesus has been deleted, for starters.

If "all your oaths are to God" then you should know all about twisting the truth, as that is exactly what FreeMasonry did when they decided to take an already existing canon, and form their own document from it, with certain "alterations"

You said all your oaths are to God. You capitalized God so I am going to assume you consider yourself a "christian"

Here are some things you did when joining your "fraternity" that directly contradict what the real Bible (well, the one your "brotherhood" decided to dissect, and reassemble, anyway) says:

1. That salvation can be gained by man’s good works.
2. That Jesus is just one of many equally revered prophets.
3. That they will remain silent in the Lodge and not talk of Christ.
4. That they are approaching the Lodge in spiritual darkness and ignorance, when the Bible says Christians are already in the light, children of the light, and are indwelt by the Light of the World—Jesus Christ.
5. By demanding that Christians take the Masonic oath, Masonry leads Christians into blasphemy and taking the name of the Lord in vain.
6. Masonry teaches that its G.A.O.T.U. [Great Architect of the Universe], whom Masonry believes is the true God of the universe, is representative of all gods in all religions.
7. Masonry makes Christians take a universalist approach in their prayers, demanding a “generic” name be used so as not to offend non-believers who are Masonic “brothers”.
8. By swearing the Masonic oath and participating in the doctrines of the Lodge, Christians are perpetuating a false gospel to other Lodge members, who look only to Masonry’s plan of salvation to get to heaven. By their very membership in such a syncretistic type organization, they have severely compromised their witnessing as Christians.
9. By taking the Masonic obligation, the Christian is agreeing to allow the pollution of his mind, spirit, and body by those who serve false gods and believe false doctrines.

Again, you said your oaths were to God. This leads me to believe you're a christian. If that's the case, you're gonna have some 'splaining to do, Lucy

Originally posted by HIWATT
It's a "different" Bible alright. One where every reference to Jesus has been deleted, for starters.

This is a total fabrication as the Bible we use in our lodge was published in 1915 and is a complete King James version with the Old and New Testaments included with no ommisions.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by HIWATT
It's a "different" Bible alright. One where every reference to Jesus has been deleted, for starters.

This is a total fabrication as the Bible we use in our lodge was published in 1915 and is a complete King James version with the Old and New Testaments included with no ommisions.

Really? Does your "complete King James version" start on page 33 ?

Also I was not only referring to omissions. I said "alterations" which includes any ADDITIONS... such as ... say.... EGYPTION MYTHOLOGY ...



Stop saying your Bible is the same as any off the shelf Bible a normal person would see walking into a CHRISTIAN bookstore... it's not, and if you proclaim it is, you're a liar.

Originally posted by Renegade2283
OK I have officially stayed up a little too late.

Yeah, I agree. Should be in the Religion, Faith, and Theology Forum.

Originally posted by HIWATT
Really? Does your "complete King James version" start on page 33 ?

I will check it tomorrow at lodge and give the page.

Also I was not only referring to omissions. I said "alterations" which includes any ADDITIONS... such as ... say.... EGYPTION MYTHOLOGY ...

There are no additions to it as it was donated by the local Presbyterian Church in 1915.

Stop saying your Bible is the same as any off the shelf Bible a normal person would see walking into a CHRISTIAN bookstore... it's not, and if you proclaim it is, you're a liar.

It is most certainly the same as it was not even purchased but donated. Hell, it is BETTER than the average cheap-o Bible purchased at some roadside book shop as this one has history and is much more finer in its execution.

reply to post by HIWATT

None of the references to Jesus have been deleted. My Bible is a complete Bible.

There was no twisting of Truth, and God knows that.

I am a Christian, yes.

Here are things you know nothing of:

1. Nowhere does Freemasonry say by good works alone will gain you passage into Heaven. Nor is faith alone required, one needs both.
2. Where in our rituals do we say this? Religions are treated neutrally in Lodge, not equally. No one Lodge is held above another, but no one is forced to accept anothers beliefs or ideology.
3. When I pray, I pray to Christ. I've mentioned Christ in Lodge. But the Lodge is not a place for conversion. It is a place for harmony for men of various beliefs.
4. We are in darkness only respecting the mysteries of Freemasonry, not spirituality or God.
5. We don't take the Lord's name in vain and in fact, from the very first degree up, we are charged to give due homage to the Creator, to the God of our faith.
6. GAOTU is a generic term for each individual member to manifest according his personal faith. For me, GAOTU is the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The term doesn't equalize all gods, it just removes any particular favoritism.
7. IMO, it is not universalist.
8. The doctrines of the Lodge contradict nothing of Christian doctrine, only fundamentalism. Unless virtue and morals are looked down on by your lot? None of the rituals, doctrines, or principles of Freemasonry perpetuate any false gospel nor are we forced/tricked into following the beliefs of others. Freemasonry has no plan of salvation. The only thing we've compromised is receiving your approval of our actions, which we never needed nor desired to have.
9. I didn't realize that knowledge was pollution. Our Obligations do not bind us to "false gods" or "false doctrines".

I owe no explanation to you.

reply to post by HIWATT

I'm not sure what page, the Bible starts on, but even if it did start on 33, there is nothing wrong with that. Nor does mine have "Egyptian mythology."

I am currently out in the field working and only carry a pocket sized Holy Bible.

Originally posted by KSigMason

Hmmm....I got a different and larger Bible than that one when I became a Master Mason.

You are the only one here trying to twist truth and use God to justify your prejudice and hatred.

When the books are opened, will your oaths be to man or to God?

All of my oaths are to God.

King James bible Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

clearly since Jesus himself tells you not to swear you shouldn't do it ,and all your oaths are evil to him. .Turn to him he is the way the truth and the light