What are the freemasons?

'satanic' I will give a general and simple definition. Simply 'adversarial'.
The original word, 'satan' is a common Hebrew noun meaning 'adversary'.
It has neither a good nor evil connotation intrinsically.
In the book of Numbers for instance, it first appears in the mouth of the (UNFALLEN) angel of the Lord, who describes himself thus"
"I have come as a Satan against you (Balaam)."
In the book of Job, again an Angel who has access to the Holy of Holies in heaven,
and who has intimate chats with God Himself, is called the 'adversary' of Job.
(not the 'adversary' of God.).

So in this sense, actually the Freemasons are correct.
There is no 'Satan' as such, i.e., a 'fallen angel' named "Satan" in the Old Testament.

However, that doesn't translate into the erroneous doctrine that 'Satan' or "Lucifer' is the 'true' God. This is an oversimplification of correct doctrine.

Taking the meaning of 'satanic' to be 'adversarial' in a neutral (non-prejorative) sense, the Freemasons are definitely 'satanic' to orthodox Christianity, since they twist, water down, blunt, and nullify basic Christian principles of both behaviour and world view.

The question of whose doctrine is correct, or most correct, or correct on which points, is secondary to the fact that Freemasonry is 'satanic' to Christianity. The viewpoint of ordinary Freemasons is also irrelevant, since it is overridden by the plain facts.

In a similar way, the Hitler Youth might believe they are defending motherhood, and young communists may believe that 'evolution' is the only true science, however, in both cases, they are just naive dupes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IS it not true the 'Devil' is the creation of the Christian religious doctrine?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it is NOT true.

Although as I stated, there is no individual in the Old Testament named 'Satan',
the roots of the idea of an invisible 'evil' angelic being do indeed go back to the Old Testament itself, a thousand years before Christ.

But the evidence is not where you think. The evidence for 'Satan' isn't in mistranslations or interpretations by the Romans concerning the 'King of Tyre' in Isaiah, or even the book of Job, where the mythical being isn't given a moral coloration.

The shocking truth is that the Jews invented the concept of a 'Devil' by actually blaspheming and calling God 'Satan' way back in the 2nd Temple period. This came about because of the failure of God to save them from the Assyrians and the Babylonians, who overran Israel, slaughtered the Israelites, and dragged them off captive. As a result, not every Jew in Babylon remained loyal to Yahweh. In fact the majority adopted the religious practices and beliefs of their captors.

Compare the following shocking evidence:

The Jews had come to perceive Yahweh as their real enemy. The God who failed to defend them and protect them against the Babylonians. The God whose prophecy of victory to the King of Judah fell flat on its face, as the king's sons were slaughtered before his eyes, and then his eyes were put out and he was carried to Babylon as a slave.

That is the true beginning of the doctrine of 'Satan', an invisible evil spirit being who was the 'enemy/adversary' of Israel.

The Jews created 'Satan' out of bitterness over the destruction of Israel and the captivity and slavery of the Babylonians. And the story of 'Satan' and the belief in a 'Satan' was a popular one already in Jesus' time, which is why the New Testament and Jesus Himself was able to refer to 'Satan' freely and be comprehended, even though there is no such person in the oldest Old Testament books.

And Jesus warned the Jews of His time that attributing the works of God to Satan was effectively calling God Satan, and was an unforgivable blasphemy.
The first Satanists were the Jewish Pharisees, and Jesus opposed them and their doctrines. (Luke 11:14-36)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the deeper roots of the black bad brother go furthe back tan Hebrews to Zoroastrinism and to the myth shaed by Hinters of te Two Brothers, metphorically representing dark ligh and dark and light part of te sesonal year and then later dark bro becomes demonized.......

also as you seem to contarict yer self ' Satan' was first seen as advery and it is only much later in Christian history he comes the arch fiend ....."G.R.Taylor has pointed out that a truly sinister and malgnant image of the Devil does not appear in Christian imagery until early in the fourteenth century. Prior to that time the Devil is, in popular reprsentation, somewhat of a buffoon, and in theology, "a pure spirit, dangerous and tempting but not a direct enemy of man" (*This remark must be qualified, for in both New Testament and patristic writings the Devil has become the "adversary" of God and man. But imagination had not yet filled his image with the sinister and horrendous overtones of later times). He goes on to associate the emergence of this abysmally evil image of the Devil with the epidemic of insanity which expressed itself in the persecution of witches and hertics by the holy Inquisition..." The Two Hands of God: The Myths of Polarity, Alan Watts)) also throw in the persecution of drug takers and 'pushers'--andwe see the 'Devil' WAS a busymythical character wasn't he..??

 

You've missed the point again.

Of course Christians had a vague and primitive view of 'Satan', since the myth of Satan was a Jewish doctrine borrowed from Zoroastrianism in the post-captivity period, not a Christian invention at all.

'Satan' is a Jewish creature, not a Christian one, and it took centuries for Christians to even work out where they stood on such matters in the light of new Christian doctrines. One of the most obvious problems was that Jesus freely acknowledged the existance of a belief in 'Satan' or 'Baalzebul' , but clearly DISAGREED with mainstream Judaism about its value. Even Christians have been slow to grasp the true revolutionary nature of Jesus attacks and teachings upon orthodox Judaism of the 1st century A.D.

Most Christians, since they don't engage in even reading the bible carefully, let alone intense historical study of doctrinal matters haven't much of a clue as to the ramafications of Jesus' teaching on certain matters, such as 'Satan'.

 

"As was ppointed out in the Introduction, the Christian oncept of the Devil is unique, making a total break with all polarized ideas of light and darkness, life and death, good and evil, as aspects of a single reality that transcends and yet expresses itself through them. Evil from this point of view has no essential place in the universe. It need not and should not have arisen. It is therefore the diabolical parody of divine grace, the free gift of malice as the latter is the free gift of love. Yet every step that one takes in insisting on the gratuitousness of evil and the sole responsibility of the
Devil for bringing it into the universe is a step in the directoion of the final metaphysical dualism" ((The Two Hands of God: The Myths of Polarity, Alan Watts)...your very beliefs as communicated , at these forums, Einstuk, illustrate, VERY well, what Alan Watts is pointing out!

 

Yeah. I'm going right out now to Chapters, to purchase a copy Alan Watts' latest brilliant diatribe against Christian orthodoxy. Thanks for the tip.

Alan Watts is an incompetant clod.

 

ahah....look and listen. you are a fool. your beliefs are truly sad. i have put up wit as much as i can of you. why the fuk should i or anyone put up with such an arrogant obnoxious ignoramous (made more so by your constant braggin abot how much you know)?.....from now on i have no time for you and your horendous views anymore.

 

As i said in an earlier post. You may be cursed. I have heard it said that the very act of drawing a pentagon allows one to be pentagrams.. Have you ever sought to have the demons cast out? I am serious here this is not a joke.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

http://www.cuttingedge.org/fmcorner.html incredible many major sites on freemasons and lucifer !

 

Looks like you found the cuttingedge then.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Okay Drug-boy.
Go back to your ganga.

 

I received the following email. It appears that this gentleman has not read this thread though he got my email address from it. Very interesting. Now the powerful group can track my email account and will know who I am.
Should I be afraid? Maybe life will get a little more interesting.
I responded in a few words that I was just looking for the truth as I do, and that I was wondering why christian television had become freemason television under the name of christian television (Gospel vs Prosperity doctrine). I told him about my grandfather and that I had a spiritual experience at his house when I was a child.
I won't explain as I will not cast pearls to swine. I also told him that I was trying to find out why my spirit is so much more powerful than that of a man. Wouldn't it be nice if people would quit asking questions and give a truthful answer once in awhile?


From: GovernrCad@aol.com
To: Bawitdaba@netscape.com

Subject: Problem with Freemasons?
Date: Thu 11/24/05 12:16 PM

WitnessJudgeJury ---

What is your problem with Freemasons? How did you learn about them?

Dinosaur

 

As an Illuminati myself, let me say that I'm shocked and appalled at the suggestion that there are any such thing.

The Illuminati do not exist. And if you don't accept that, then we'll throw a bag over your head and beat the hell out of you. Please bring your own electrified nipple-clamps; otherwise we have to charge you 3p50 for them. Sorry, cutbacks.

Beware the Lizard kings.

Lizard Geoff...or not

 

The text IS the evidence. Read the two passages carefully, and understand that God's name (Yahweh) has been replaced by Satan.

God didn't do it.

(edit your post and put a slash / before the second QUOTE.)

 

To the builders:

I have nothing against you personally; however, being posessed by the spirit of my dead grandpappy, I should inform you of some things.

First, He/I am/is immortal and still here. I suppose that makes me your most supreme grand master. My name is Paul William Nippert 2nd. Certainly you would not harm your own Lord !?

I am lost in eternal outer darkness, and I'm sure you know this.

I have need to know what you folks do with spirits and with your own spirits now and after bodily death. Don't feed me bullsht because I will find out anyway.

My concern is for those whom you have chosen to convert from christianity. The God you builders worship is not even a Living God. You have converted the leaders of christianity to masonry in effort to bring the entire world with you into outer darkness and eventually the lake of fire (the chaos from whence you came). This is wrong.
By evidence of his own documented words, Christ is without doubt, the most intelligent and Loving androgynous being to have ever set foot on the planet and he has given access to the Living Father to all who would come to him.

I am your master. Your master mason. Dead, but yet I live. So you who have ears had better listen! You who have no ears had better leave well enough alone.

 

No, where did it come from? Where are the source documents?

Geoff

 

I quoted two passages found in every bible version, (although) the translation of 'satan' has been obscured in some renderings.

So I am not sure exactly what your question is. The texts speak for themselves. The two texts cover the same historical incident. One earlier version of the story was written in early post-captivity times, while the other book (Chronicles) is a very late writing done in Babylonian Hebrew (which is akin to a kind of ancient Yiddish, and is the ancestor of Aramaic.).

In the original story, God sends a command to David to take a census.

In the re-written version, 'Satan' actually sends the command, the clear implication is that while in some sense the action was allowed by God, the instigator/inspiration is Satan, not God.

This is precisely what Jesus condemned as the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy. Attributing to 'Satan' or Baalzebul what are the action or activities of the Spirit of God.

This can hardly be missed, but if you doubt the claim or the translation, get out a Tanakh or an interlinear Hebrew/English bible by any publisher, bible society, or Jewish scholarly edition. For the Hebrew you can use the Massoretic text, or the Biblica Hebraica from Germany, or an interlinear Old Testament from Zondervan. But there really isn't much need to be overly anal about it. You can see the basic textual problem in almost any English bible.

In case you are unaware of it (!) both Samuel and Chronicles are books IN the bible (every version).

 

Einstuck: It might seem strange that an atheist goy once went to lunch time Torah reading & discussion sessions. At the time I had a Jewish friend whom I accompanied to these sessions. I found them very interesting.

At these meetings I discovered that there are many instances of the same story being told more than once. The scholarly types attempted to read meaning into the differences in stories told more than once.

Your interpretation in this thread makes sense.