Notice use of the plural word "theories." You might consider being more clear in your comments in the future.
I WAS clear:
this was said in reference to theories which far more people than just Oliver gave credence to, the idea that Masonry originated in ancient times, even before Christianity.
Notice that the singular is used; "the IDEA that Masonry originated in ancient times."
Is English a second language for you?
You identified the Research Lodge and the magazine title, but neither specific edition nor page, all of which is needed for a proper cite.
I DID give proper citation:
(John S. Nagy, "The Ashlar Unfolded," Pillars of the Portico Masonic blogsite)
This was my source. You seem to forget, the Florida piece was simply mentioned, not cited. Mentions do not require citations, quotes do.
Maybe, but it is the most specific.
And I couldn't agree more. But in a system which is avowedly symbolic, and "alludes to" rather than states, in order to entice the reader to investigate further rather than spoon-feed, it's quite natural for it not to appear. It's also quite natural in such a system, when they want to get the point across that it IS Jesus being referred to, to use other terms instead, like "the sepulchre of our Lord" (AR), or to refer interpretation of LOTTOJ to the "Christian Dispensation" (Michigan ritual), or to refer to Him "who brought life and immorality to light" (various monitors), or to "the lamb that taketh away the sins of the world" (Texas Monitor), or any of an abundance of equally unmistakable references.
Others are very context-related.
And as I've so often pointed out, C.I.E.
For example, I mean Jesus when talking about the Messiah; masonry means any mediator you might name, as we've abundently seen in GL documentation.
But you're talking about "Masonry," not MICHIGAN MASONRY.
Problem is, you've tried to apply that "GL documentation" in a way that (1) imposes upon one GL's RITUAL (in the specific instance, Michigan GL) that which is stated by ANOTHER GL's LSME--an assertion which no GL in its right mind would permit you or anyone else to do, ever; and (2) violates the "pecking order" that you yourself chose to impose upon this discussion some months ago, and to which no one offered a challenge. That's why, given the current circumstances and your past insistences, I extend to you the same courtesy and likewise refuse to allow you to violate the general understanding of that "pecking order" of Masonic materials.
Therefore, your remarks are duly noted, but dismissed by your own standards.
With GL views in mind, I'll have to see Jesus being specifically identified as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in Masonic documents before being convinced that is who they are referring to.
You already have. Since you don't seem to believe so:
Is "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" a reference to Jesus Christ from Rev. 5:5, or is it not? (And don't go ducking the question with stated opinions by other people, on who they SAY it is, or "could be." For once, man up and either say yes it is, or no it's not.)
Is "the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world" a reference to Jesus, or is it not?
Is a reference to "Him who brought life and immortality to light" a reference to Jesus, or is it not?
Is "sepulchre of our Lord" a reference to Jesus, or is it not?
Remember, Michael's assumptions about you guys being "biblically knowledgeable" are on the line here.
To date, you've shown some proof that the connection exists in PH Masonry, but not in what I'd call mainstream Masonry.
Wow, I'm speechless. I'll let you and Michael talk on this one, I'm sure he probably has some choice words for you on this one
.
Since the MI GL has outsourced such things to the MSA publication, it's authority transfers as well.
Already agreed. Maybe you missed what I stated. So I'll thank you kindly to refrain from continuing to try to establish points with which I am not in disagreement any longer. As I pointed out to you, the inherent authority for the site still resides with Michigan.
That's why, by the order of GL materials which you have labored so endlessly to establish, the MSA material is subordinate to the material found in the Michigan ritual. There's just no other way anyone can take it, because that's the only way that YOU YOURSELF HAVE
DEMANDED in past discussions that it be.
All I can do is hold you to an equitable standard, and insist in like manner that you abide by the same standards yourself.
Which prompts the natural question: how do you like your crow?
I believe the MI GL also financially supports the MSA, which again conveys a certain amount of authority to its publications.
"You believe?" You also believe in concordances over lexicons, and apparently you believe in marrying prostitutes.
A "certain amount," sure; but certainly not enough for MSA to begin superseding Michigan ritual, and even to the audacious point of doing so on their own webpage!
The definition does not supersede the ritual, it expands upon it. As we've seen in Masonry, Christian terms and phrases are often reinterpreted, so only a spiritually blind Mason (excuse me for the repetition) would take those terms on face value.
That's why I DON'T take it at "face value," but let MICHIGAN be the arbiter of the meaning. And they CLEARLY express it from a Christian standpoint.
We'
ve shown ample evidence that it CAN be expressive of other meanings.
Sure. But what you have NOT shown, is that Michigan DOES make it "expressive of other meanings." They made it clear which one they've settled on.
you are entitled to you own opinions, but not your own facts.
Nor are you entitled to YOUR own facts--especially since you have so few facts to begin with. And even though you TRIED to use the MSA material to REFUTE what Michigan clearly declares in their ritual, you unwittingly provided the key link in the chain that establishes it beyond any doubt: the DIRECT mention of Jesus Christ as the Lion of Judah, described as the "Christian interpretation," further cemented by directly referencing the one place from whence the phrase originates, Rev. 5:5.
And once again, thanks for your help in providing the information from their website that clinches this one beyond any possible doubt.
Having gotten the Masonic definition of the Messiah out of the way, the article goes on to discuss the symbology of the lion in various societies and religions.
Yes, including the Christian--the one MICHIGAN declares.
The article is clear that Jesus is not the only Messiah, but only one of many messiahs.
Wrong. It does not say any such thing, only speaks of INTERPRETATIONS, not "messiahs."
Well, don't forget to include that statement in your next sermon on the meaning of the Messiah and Jesus' role as such.
Oh, I'm very clear on who Messiah IS. I don't preach Masonry, after all, I preach the gospel. And I'm also clear on who Lion of the Tribe of Judah IS, NOT who someone ELSE "interprets" Him to be, which the two of you seem to prefer.
Notice the three choices of interpretion, none of them specifically identifying Jesus.
Well, I've seen biblical illiteracy of deplorable proportions from antimasons before, but never at this level. How do you miss things like this:
. . .or symbolizing the Christ . . .
What strange denomination did you transfer your membership to, which has adherents who do not recognize that "Christ" refers to Jesus?????
It's bizarre enough that you don't recognize a verse which has only one specific referent, being Jesus Christ in Revelation 5:5, and keep siding with those who wish to interpret it otherwise; but how in the WORLD do you dismiss a reference to "the Christ," declaring it not to be a reference to Jesus, despite all the ABUNDANCE of references in the NT to "Christ Jesus," "Jesus Christ," and like expressions????
I mean, some of you guys' errors are pretty innocuous: a staircase in place of a ladder is not a particularly devastating error of interpretation, though an error, nonetheless; and a view that the veil of the temple was not rent, and the temple area still to be considered inviolate, certainly exhibits a propriety of intent, even though the claim itself is physically impossible; but of all the totally blind and bizarre statements I've ever seen either of you make, I've never seen the like of this one.