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.
Originally posted by KingPanzergrenadier
Freemasons are evil Satan worshipers! They are the enemy! Down with Freemasonry! Down with the Beast!
Ksig you need not respond to this because your on your journey and I can do nothing but respect that, which I do.
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
No one cheapened the conversation but yourself. Very simple - Don't make derogatory comments. Fair is fair.
Here is what the Jewish Sages have to say about this passage:
"As is apparent from the rest of the narrative, these three men were actually angels in the "guise" of men. The Hebrew word for angel, malach, means "agent"." (Stone Edition Chumash, p. 24).
Read that again - 3 men in the guise of angels. Agents of G-d. Good grief. What exactly are your academic credentials again?
I already explained the Orthodox Jewish interpretation of the term, Israel. Do you actually have a different interpretation, or are you going to just blindly keep repeating the term Israel to yourself in this thread for kicks and giggles?
I don't recall you ever stating that you were a theologian by training, or even Jewish for that matter. Obviously, our interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures are vastly different. I side with the Jewish Sages, and you side with yourself.
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
So, in your opinion, angels are just figments of one's imagination. If that is what you believe, so be it. You don't need Josephus to justify your opinion.
The real question is whether you believe that Jacob/Israel is an adversary of G-d, or not an adversary.
Yes, but to you, this manifestation cannot be physical. It can be mental - as in a dream or vision - but not physical. I think you made that pretty clear.
Yes, this is the rationalist approach. Maimonides wasn't big on mysticism.
Originally posted by Egyptia
The truth will be revealed and that is inevitable.
Derogatory is a whole different ball park to accusations of anti-semitism. And you know it. Cheap is cheap.
I'm sorry you and your sages can't understand the spiritual significance of that. I'm sorry that you and your sages didn't learn from your patriarch, because you and they can't understand the fact that even Jacob tells you this himself.
I am a Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. I'm guessing I'm more qualified than you.
Now, "good grief," Cookie, can you not read the transliterated Hebrew in front of you? What word sticks out like a sore thumb? Don't quote me a sage, quote me the actual passage from Genesis 18 as I have done. Can you manage that? Or do you need a sage to quote it for you?
I'm beginning to worry about you, now. Don't you remember arguing vehemently with my professional interpretation just a page back?
So yes, I side with my own qualified opinion, which has obviously been seen fit to promote to Professor.
No, I am not Jewish in any way. I follow a Sumerian cthonic tradition predating Judaism by a long, long time. I am a "Satanist" to use some terminology you might understand. But not in any way that you might understand Him.
I do not believe in angels, however, that is not the discussion.
Why do I need to believe that he is an adversary of God as that word was not used in Genesis?
I find the rationalist approach to be much more palatable then fighting with a fallen angel that did not even exist in the Jewish theology of the time.
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The question is directed at you, personally - your personal belief system, not the Bible.
Do you personally believe that Jacob is an adversary of G-d? It's a pretty simple yes or no answer. Or maybe you want to qualify your answer, and that's fine, too.
Originally posted by King Seesar
Sorry i'm just jumping in here towards the end of your debate with CookieMonster09 but i have a question for you CodyOutlaw are you a Freemason????
Source
Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
That's great, dude.
But, I'm not a freemason.
I'm just a humble professor.
But he's not, so you didn't.
Because if you are we found one Mason who worships Satan.....
Source
I'm not a Crowleyite; I serve Ningishzidda, a Cthonic deity of the Sumerian tradition (or as the Egyptians called Him, Anpu/Anubis). So, there's no "Do as thou wilt" in my religion. In fact, it's much more like, "Don't even think about doing as thou wilt, and make sure you behave impeccably." It's completely anti-hedonism. I use the term theistic Satanist, because Satan is what He became known as much later on, and it gives people a recognizable reference.when they're talking to me about it. For the faith, it was a long and personal journey, so no - I've always known where my love and loyalties lie, without doubt.
The Biblical Lucifer was elevated above the other angles and was cast down for making merchandise of his knowledge and attempting to become God.
Many of which can be identified in Masonic ritual.
Freemasonic literature often speaking of the new age (aeon)...
and the sun does not need much expounding upon as the temples are situated east to west with the worshipful master residing in the position of the rising sun.
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
The Biblical Lucifer was elevated above the other angles and was cast down for making merchandise of his knowledge and attempting to become God.
Hebrew Leviticus
Main article: scapegoat
Leviticus 16:8–10 reads:
"8and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. 9And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; 10while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel."
The ESV provides the footnote "16:8 The meaning of Azazel is uncertain; possibly the name of a place or a demon, traditionally a scapegoat; also verses 10, 26". Most scholars accept the indication of some kind of demon or deity,[6] however Judit M. Blair notes that this is an argument without supporting contemporary text evidence.[7]
Ida Zatelli (1998)[8] has suggested that the Hebrew ritual parallels pagan practice of sending a scapegoat into the desert on the occasion of a royal wedding found in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla (24th C. BC). A she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck was driven forth into the wasteland of 'Alini' by the community.[9] There is no mention of an "Azazel".[10]
According to The Expositior's Bible Commentary, Azazel is the Hebrew word for scapegoat. This is the only place that the Hebrew word is found in the whole Hebrew Old Testament. It says that the Book of Enoch, (extra-biblical Jewish theological literature, dated around 200 B.C.) is full of demonology and reference to fallen angels. The EBC (Vol 2) says that this text uses late Aramaic forms for these names which indicates that The Book of Enoch most likely relies upon the Hebrew Leviticus text rather than the Leviticus text being reliant upon the Book of Enoch.[11] This Hebrew word is simply a term meaning "a goat to go away" - in other words a "scapegoat" - in verse 20-22 it describes what this accomplished by symbolically placing the sins of Israel upon the goat and then sending it to the desert and releasing it.
In Greek and later translations
The translators of the Greek Septuagint understood the Hebrew term as meaning the sent away, and read:"8and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat (Greek apompaios dat.).
9And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; 10but the goat on which the lot of the sent away one fell shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away (Greek eis ten apompen acc.) into the wilderness."
Following the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate,[12] Martin Luther[13] and the King James Bible also give readings such as Young's Literal Translation: 'And Aaron hath given lots over the two goats, one lot for Jehovah, and one lot for a goat of departure;'
This is rendered Za-za-e'il (the strong one against/of God), according to the Syriac Pe#ta Version, as in Qumran fragment 4Q180.[14]
I did not say that, but many that I have come across many with fascist thoughts and words. This sub-forum is filled with examples of this. I speak of freedom and your kind speaks of restriction by means of fear and coercion. The only way by which KingPanzergrenadier would get his way would be fascism, cruel, and disgusting means.
Not a noose. If any lodge in my state was caught tying it as a noose, they'd lose their charter pretty damned fast…
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
And in regards to what rituals the masonic initiation of the first degree a noose is placed around the candidates neck.
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Azazel