• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Neither ritual nor monitor defines the term, just uses it.

Amazing: after all that has been posted, after the many times your claim has been refuted, after it has been shown more than once that you violate the very standards you yourself have declared over and over on threads on this forum--you STILL somehow manage to convince yourself you can come here and get away with this ill-conceived dismissal with this sleight-of-hand?

This is still the blatantly false comment that it was the first time you stated it. You seem to be blissfully unaware that the phrase in question comes from a section of the monitor that is AN EXPLANATION OF THE EMBLEMS of that degree. Several of the citations, as a matter of fact, STATE THIS DIRECTLY:


Here is one of the surest examples illustrating that the comments are INSTRUCTIVE and EXPLANATORY:

This one is explanatory too:


Anytime we find being discussed, that which "reminds," or which "stands for," or "represents," or "typifies," or "symbolizes," "bears witness," or any of a host of similar action verbs, we know by the very terms used, that these are things that are being EXPLAINED. But we know even MORE SO that something is being "explained," when the closing paragraph of the section begins with "thus we close the explanations. . . "

And a couple of the sources which have been the MOST direct, but which you STILL choose to ignore--to your detriment:

Lion of the Tribe of Judah: Jesus Christ (Masonic Glossary, Acimnos Ceihpr, 1946, p. 243)

The training documentation shows where the redefinition occurs.

Sorry, but since you won't hold yourself to your own standards, someone else will have to, and I am more than happy to oblige. In a prior discussion on this thread, you were asserting the preeminence of code and constitution over LSME training booklets, insisting that the code and constitution "superseded" the LSME material. With the hefty weight you have also accorded rituals and monitors, and your scoffing at LSME booklets in preference for "rituals and monitors," you have set the bar for the matter by your own hand. So by the standard that you yourself have declared not once, but NUMEROUS times throughout this and other threads on the forum, you now have to take a dose of your own medicine, wake up and smell the coffee, and recognize that ritual SUPERSEDES training materials.

Add to the monitorial sources above, the following glossaries, which by their very NATURE are intended as "explanations" as well:



 
Upvote 0

Skip Sampson

Veteran
Apr 18, 2010
1,067
6
Fayetteville, NC
✟24,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
after the many times your claim has been refuted,
Only in your own mind, Wayne. You continue to miss the obvious.

Let's look at your references:
WI Monitor: uses the term but does not define it.
VA Funeral Service: uses the term but does not directly define it. Refer to my post #300 to see how the term is actually defined in Va.
KY Monitor: uses the term but does not define it.
MI Ritual: uses the term but does not define it.
Acimnos Ceihpr, Heirloom Masonic Bible, MO Lodge of Research, Phoenix Masonry: neither GL source nor monitorial. You are not above using non-monitorial sources, but object to my use of them. Totally consistent with your normal practices.
WA GL PH: the only one you've found that supports your argument. It is rich that you have to try to prove your views by looking outside regular Masonry. Just out of curiosity, does your GL recognize that PH GL?

Your understanding, surprise, surprise, is faulty. The training material is not superceding the monitorial; rather, it is filling it out and explaining it. You don't like the explanations, which is why your are promoting that strawman.
Good luck with it all, because your are only killing your own arguments and making yourself look petty. Cordially, Skip.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
WI Monitor: uses the term but does not define it.

Actually, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is the explanation, not the term being defined. "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" needs no explanation, it's a decidedly and distinctly Christian reference. It is part of the explanation of the term "sprig of acacia." Or didn't you catch the metaphor by which the sprig of acacia suddenly became the "sprig of faith in the merits of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah?" Not surprised you'd miss it though, you've missed just about everything else about the phrase so far.

The acacia is first described as symbolic of resurrection and/or immortality; no surprise, then, that the "sprig of Acacia" gives way to the One whose resurrection makes possible our own. And it is that faith in His merits which has the result of "strengthening us with confidence and composure, to look forward to a blessed immortality."

VA Funeral Service: uses the term but does not directly define it. Refer to my post #300 to see how the term is actually defined in Va.

No need to refer to your post. Since it was wrong the first time around, we can safely assume it's still wrong.

You miss quite a bit in the Virginia piece.

(1) For one, the Lamb-skin is said to be a reminder of "He that taketh away the sins of the whole world."
(2) The section cited has a direct quote of Revelation 5:5, which is WHERE THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH COMES FROM.
(3) The sprig of acacia, once again, reminds us of that immortal part of man which survives the grave THROUGH THE MERITS OF THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. Since the passage has already identified who that is for us, by citing the ONLY REFERENCE WHERE THE PHRASE IS USED IN SCRIPTURE, there is no doubt to whom the reference is made.
(4) It references, as do most of the monitorial quotes cited, "resurrection of the body." That is an EXTREMELY limited reference, having only one religion to which it could even POSSIBLY have reference, Christianity. Naturally, I invite you to try to show otherwise, if you think differently.

KY Monitor: uses the term but does not define it

Wrong again. It specifically states:

". . .the sprig of Acacia, that ever-green and ever-living FAITH in the merits of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. . ."

Not only that, this "faith in the merits of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah," it says:

. . .inspires a holy confidence that the Lord of Life will enable us to trample the king of terrors beneath our feet. . .

Now, if you think "Lord of Life" is not a specific reference to Christ, I invite you to google it, where you may find, as I did, that you have to go three pages before you come to a reference that does not lead to the webpage of a church by that name. Do the same thing with "king of terrors," and you will find consistent references to death. Sure, Masonry uses indirect allusions quite a bit; but what Masonry does by allusion, you mistake for "Masonry doesn't do it at all." YOU claim it doesn't define these terms; the fact is, it doesn't have to, the use of allusion has a double purpose, (1) to cause you to have to engage your brain in the process of learning, and (2) to make use of the element of discovery. For those who are not already aware of the specifics of "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," or "Lord of Life," or "King of terrors," or "brought life and immortality to light," it is a learning experience to find that they all have SPECIFIC reference to SPECIFIC usages in SPECIFIC places. But Christians in the lodge who are familiar with the the Bible and the theological beliefs of Christianity, will instantly recognize them.

Now, I realize, to the antimason, this might not seem to mean anything; but to the Christian Mason, instant recognition of "Lord of Life" will mean, Jesus Christ. To try to say these things are "not defined" in the Ky. Monitor, is completely absurd.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just a followup to Mike. I never really clarified this point, nor was a link posted to it:

For simpler opportunity for comparison, it would have been much better to place them side by side, which I now do:


Of course, the errors in the two of them have already been noted. I post them here to reiterate the point that material found on a subordinate lodge webpage, even if it boldly declares "The Grand Lodge of California" and "Candidate Education" as this page from this particular subordinate lodge does, cannot be construed to mean that the material is replicated from the same or similar materials issued by their Grand Lodge. Nor can it be implied that Grand Lodge gives it their blessing, when the California Grand Lodge posts a disclaimer to the contrary, on the site where they provide subordinate lodges with web space.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wayne said:
... Nor can it be implied that Grand Lodge gives it their blessing, when the California Grand Lodge posts a disclaimer to the contrary, on the site where they provide subordinate lodges with web space.

I trust that the "disclaimer" you are referring to is the one that said, in part, "We have no intention of dictating to Lodges what to say or how to express themselves online." That statement, which you posted earlier, is in the context of their web hosting policies, which is where you got it from. It has nothing to do with any and everything their subordinate lodge put on their respective websites, which is what you are falsely implying. In full context the readers can see your error for themselves:


But nevertheless, thanks for showing us yet another Grand Lodge where the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" DOES NOT represent Jesus Christ in Freemasonry.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It has nothing to do with any and everything their subordinate lodge put on their respective websites, which is what you are falsely implying. In full context the readers can see your error for themselves

What "error?" Did you even READ what you just posted?

(1) They are entitled to one directory;
(2) No banner ads of any kind on the site;
(3) No immoral, unethical, or "adult" links or content;
(4) As a protection for their members, no personal address or phone information;
(5) Rights reserved to refuse or cancel service for those not adhering to the above guidelines;
(6) Policies are subject to change without notice, but efforts will be made to notify lodges if SIGNIFICANT changes are made.

Exactly WHAT do you see in that, which "DICTATES to Lodges what to put on their websites?" And exactly why do you highlight "within the parameters of these guidelines," as though you thought it actually meant something? Heck, there aren't but FOUR of them, the last two are not even guidelines or policies at all, just general notices about the status of the guidelines. Given the innocuous nature of these policies as regards the point at hand, he MOST that can be shown by these policies, is a few common sense directions about what they CANNOT do: they can't have more than one directory; they can't have banner ads; they can't have anything immoral or unethical; and they are "strongly discouraged," though not prohibited, from posting personal information of members.

In other words, those policies have exactly nothing to do with the content of what they posted under the heading of "Masonic Education."

Which means your response has exactly nothing to do with what I just stated. The San Diego Lodge #35 is perfectly free to post what they wished under that heading, and they chose to post something that does not reflect their own Grand Lodge publications on the matter of "Lion of the Tribe of Judah."

Apparently the same thing is true of the Grand Lodge of Michigan--which was the GL originally being addressed concerning the matter of whether subordinate lodges are "dictated to" on the matter of website content.

So your attempt to try to suggest that the content on a subordinate website in Michigan, can somehow "supersede" what is found in their ritual, does not hold water--ESPECIALLY when that content is from ANOTHER subordinate lodge of ANOTHER jurisdiction, and the content found there REPRESENTS NO GRAND LODGE'S EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL.

That claim was convoluted from the start, and you have done nothing to rescue it with THIS response.

But nevertheless, thanks for showing us yet another Grand Lodge where the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" DOES NOT represent Jesus Christ in Freemasonry.

Wrong again. You apparently missed the earlier post:

As already noted, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" has only one referent, and that is found in Rev. 5:5, and it is Jesus Christ. All the Masonic glossaries cited confirm this, as well as confirming that the "lion's paw" reference also refers to Christ. Also, the "raising" that takes place in the described action is interpreted in most of Masonry as a teaching on "resurrection of the body," a distinctly Christian doctrine; and the five points of fellowship are interpreted in some Masonic documents as representing five aspects of Christ's incarnational ministry: birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension (this is taught in Royal Arch as well).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wayne, you are still wrong! Apparently YOU missed Skip's earlier post:

Skip said:
To repeat: it's all bait & switch. The phrase gets used in ritual and then redefined in training materials. One view for the candidate, another for the Master Mason.

BAIT:


SWITCH:


Notice that they are both from the Grand Lodge of California; post by you. Neither specifically defines the phrase to mean Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, there is one description for the candidate, another for the Master Mason. Thank you for helping to make our point, while refuting your own.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One description for the candidate, another for the Master Mason. Thank you for helping to make our point, while refuting your own.
Valiant effort, Michael, at least you're trying. But next time try sticking to factual information, and quit trying to impress people with bold print and large font, which really accomplishes nothing.

There was no "bait," and no "switch." And you'd do well to start minding your own posts, and quit looking to Skip for your points. With the way he's been all over the map with bizarre claims from the moment he started posting here, that's obviously not a very good idea for you.

In the two citations you just posted, in BOTH instances, they came from the Master Mason degree. One is from ritual, the other is from the Master Mason booklet.

But you're being facetious anyway, since the discussion was not about California anyway, it was about a quote I posted from Michigan ritual, and your response trying to claim that their Grand Lodge says differently than what I posted. You lost that argument, and have been trying ever since then, to substitute the whole issue about California, in which case the only thing they were cited for originally was the subordinate San Diego lodge's use of non-GL material, and the California GL statement which allows for it, as an illustration substantiating that the subordinate Michigan lodge apparently has the same freedom with their own webpage.

Try to stay on point, will you, all this straw man stuff is getting you way o.f.f. track. Talk about bait and switch!

But you don't really seem to have a handle on the old "bait and switch" claims of antimasons. The way I always saw the claim, Masons tell Christians something that sounds like it's okay, and only later does the Christian find out he's been "duped" by something outrageous.

But you are trying to tell us just the opposite, that Masonry says something outrageous to begin with, and only later does the Mason find out it really refers to Jesus Christ. It's a strange claim, yes, but that's basically what you're trying to tell us, since the ritual connects "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" with resurrection of the body.

The problem is in the information being introduced into the LSME system, which is false. Jewish Kings were not referred to by that title, nor can the title be applied to "messiah-figures of other religions." For one, the phrase is biblical, and refers to only one person; for another, those attempts to open it up for "other interpretations" are misguided, and ignore the context, which speaks of "resurrection of the body," which cannot refer to any religion but Christianity. Two phrases, both very specific and limited in their scope, make those suggestions offered in LSME sources impossible.

Neither specifically defines the phrase to mean Jesus Christ.
The ritual I cited doesn't have to, since it contains the reference to Lion of the Tribe of Judah, which we already know is a singular reference to Jesus Christ, and is also defined as such in every Masonic source we can locate which DOES define it specifically--including glossaries on Grand Lodge website pages.

And once again, the California education piece you cited contains false information, as pointed out to you umpteen times already. The kings of Judah were NEVER referred to by that title, and I defy you or anyone else who wishes to try to make that case, to show something in support of it. You simply will not find any such support for it, because none exists. The accounts we have for what took place in regard to Israel's kings and Israel's tribes, are biblical. And there is NOTHING you will find in the Bible that supports any such notion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

It is utterly amazing to see you point out how Freemasonry makes FALSE CLAIMS, yet you still remain a member of the Masonic Order.

Since the fraternity makes such false claims, why don't you demit and start a new Grand Lodge system called "The United Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Christian Masons" (F&ACM). Make it thoroughly Christian in its ritual, symbolism, LSME and definitions, etc. Make belief in the God of the Bible and being an active Christian in an orthodox church, requirements for membership. And have an affidavit stating this signed by ones pastor as part of the application packet. In your charter, declare that ALL other Masonic bodies are heretofore considered "clandestine" (except for the Swedish Rite) since they are not exclusively Christian in their membership requirements, ritual, monitors or symbolism.

Ever thought about doing this? Who knows, maybe you'd find some former Masons who are Christians to want to join too. Just a thought.

Meanwhile, as you ponder that thought, ponder this. In your ritual of South Carolina, and in every Masonic ritual in the U.S., when the lodge is opened in the third degree, the Senior Warden (SW) is asked by the Worshipful Master (WM) the following:

WM: Where were you made a Master Mason?

SW: Within the body of a just and duly constituted Lodge of Master Masons, assembled in a place representing the Sanctum Sanctorum of King Solomon’s Temple.

The Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies, was NEVER entered into by those operative Masons who built the Temple of God. But that is precisely what Freemasonry teaches its candidate for the third degree. Yet I defy you or anyone else who wishes to try to make that case, to show something in support of it. You simply will not find any such support for it, because none exists.

This was the most Holy place in God's temple and only the High Priest could enter it once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It is one of the holiest days of the year for the Jewish people. The accounts we have for what took place in regard to the Sanctum Sanctorum, are biblical, NOT Masonic. And anyone trying to enter it was immediate put to death by God Himself. There is NOTHING you will find in the Bible that supports any such absurd, unscriptural, and ridiculous mockery of the biblical record that Freemasonry tries to claim to its adherents regarding King Solomon's Temple.

If as a Christian pastor, you are going to be so adamant about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, then you should do the same for the Sanctum Sanctorum, which is just as Holy as He. Come out from among them who make a mockery of it; and share it with worshippers of falses gods, like many of the disobedient kings of Israel did in the Old Testament. To remain a Mason, as is, makes you no better than they were.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is utterly amazing to see you point out how Freemasonry makes FALSE CLAIMS, yet you still remain a member of the Masonic Order.

Gee, Mike, it's a wonder you still belong to the Christian Church, there are many who make false claims in the name of the church. But if that does not involve YOUR church, then naturally, you will not allow some minority opinion elsewhere to cause you to give up on your Christianity, correct? Well, the same is true in Masonry, a minority of sources have this false information, but that does not affect the huge majority who have it right. So no, a couple of erroneous statements here and there, non-representative of the larger picture in so many other places in Masonry--including some rituals and monitors, unlike the claims made by the two of you--will not be the determining factor in this.

Ever thought about doing this? Who knows, maybe you'd find some former Masons who are Christians to want to join too.

Tsk, tsk. Maybe YOU have the time, have you ever thought of doing this? Given your reluctance to relinquish Masonry, evidenced by your personal creation incorporating their (copyrighted, by the way) logo of square and compasses, this might be right up your alley--especially since you seem to think that the target for it should be "former" Masons. From what I've seen, generally speaking, of former Masons and their companions, they certainly could use some help, but I have to go where I'm led, and you're not my leader.


Actually, what you'll have trouble finding support for, is this ridiculous claim you just made. Where on earth do you get nonsense like this----Skip Sampson??? I have to admit, something like this sure is right up his alley.

Where your attempt at an accusation fails is, you totally ignored at least ONE word that renders this accusation null and void:

WM: Where were you made a Master Mason?

SW: Within the body of a just and duly constituted Lodge of Master Masons, assembled in a place representing the Sanctum Sanctorum of King Solomon’s Temple.

Nothing is stated, implied, or even remotely hinted about anybody ACTUALLY assembling in the Sanctum Sanctorum. They are said to meet in a place that REPRESENTS it. Lodges were built east to west to model the temple; the dimensions of the meeting space are proportional to the dimensions of the sanctum sanctorum; the degree work is centered around the building of the temple, etc. etc. So sure, there's plenty of focus given to it. But nobody, to my knowledge, has ever tried to claim that Masons ever literally met there.

Man, your accusation account must be bankrupt for you to be grabbing at straws like you are with this one.

If as a Christian pastor, you are going to be so adamant about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, then you should do the same for the Sanctum Sanctorum, which is just as Holy as He.

Gee, Mike, where to start? You miss so MUCH of this, it's hard to know where to begin showing you what's wrong with your accusations. The big one you miss, of course, is the symbolism of both Christianity and Masonry regarding the Temple. And the HUGE one in that regard is how you totally don't seem to get it regarding what Christ did on the cross. Do you just not pay any attention to it when your Bible tells you that as Jesus hung on the cross, the veil of the Temple was "rent in twain from top to bottom?" Do you totally forget what that signifies? Man, I sure don't. It tells me Christ as Mediator has torn down the barrier preventing entry, and I need none other but Christ who has torn the veil allowing me to have access to the Father. The fact that it was top to bottom and not the other way around symbolizes to me that it was initiated by God and not by human effort, it's a provision of God through Christ, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah who has prevailed to loose the seven seals and open the Book. I can go into that holy place in prayer at any moment of any day because of what Christ has done.

In fact, in one of the singing groups I used to belong, to, I sang the lead part of a song made popular by the Christian group Truth:

In the Holy of Holies, behind the heavy veil
Sat the Ark of the Covenant where the Most High dwelt;
And only the High Priest could enter therein
To offer up the sacrifice for atonement of sin.

But the veil was rent in an instant, revealing that holy place,
For on a hill nearby on a rugged cross, justice met grace.

Now I can go into the Holy of Holies;
I can kneel and make my petition known.
I can go into the Holy of Holies and although I'm just a common man,
Because of God's redemption plan, I can boldly approach the throne.

I'm sorry you don't feel you enjoy the same privileges--or do not recognize what Christ has done in regard to the veil of the temple and access to the holy place, or what that symbolically represents to the Christian and his/her faith. You seem to be stuck back in an OT understanding of God, and still have to fear any close relationship with Him. I pray that will change, and somewhere you will get a better theological grip on Christian understanding of it.

Come out from among them who make a mockery of it; and share it with worshippers of falses gods, like many of the disobedient kings of Israel did in the Old Testament.

Gee, Mike, the Lord was the one who led me to join, and you wish to call me "disobedient" because I don't obey you instead of Him? Sorry, He knows what He's doing. You give many indications that you don't know what you're doing, especially with your concept that the veil of the temple is still intact and all.

So I think I'll stick with Him.

To remain a Mason, as is, makes you no better than they were.
There's only one person that Masonry teaches me to try to be better than and that's me. I thank God that I am not what I once was, through the grace of Jesus Christ. And I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for His Spirit who guides me in life, and anything He chooses for me which helps me along that road I seek to walk, of trying to decrease that He may increase, is a welcome companion for the Way.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wayne said:
Gee, Mike, the Lord was the one who led me to join

If I've said it once, since the first time you made this claim, I've said it a thousand times; this is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit! God will NEVER lead anyone to even come close to idolatry which, at the very least, is precisely what Freemasonry does to ALL who join its ranks. Therefore, I am done with you and this discussion.

Rebellion is as sinful as witchcraft, and stubbornness as bad as worshiping idols.

1 Samuel 15:23

So because you have rejected the counsel of the Lord through his saints for nearly a decade now, we will one day see if He rejects you. Until then, I'll be O.F.F. from communicating with you from now on.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So because you have rejected the counsel of the Lord through his saints for nearly a decade now
Mainly because those "saints" keep advising me to pay no attention to the Holy Spirit, and to submit to them instead. And since you say "saints," plural, I have to figure you're including your partner in your claim as well. I hardly think there would be any "counsel of the Lord" that would lead to the more o.f.f.beat conclusions he's made over the course of his tenure here.

But since you wish to conclude your discourse with me, might as well go out on a positive note, and at least try to get back to point. To sum up, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is a reference to Christ, and Masons and Christians alike affirm it to be.

Here is a collection of sources that all affirm Christ as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, some Grand Lodge sources, some not:

The phrase, "Lion of the tribe of Judah," therefore, when used in the Masonic ritual, referred in its original interpretation to Christ, him who "brought life and immortality to light." (E.R. Johnston, Masonry Defined, 2002, p. 533)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah: Jesus Christ (Masonic Glossary, Acimnos Ceihpr, 1946, p. 243)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
AND SEVERAL MORE:

On mention of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Christian immediately traces the lineage of Jesus, and interprets such reference as pertaining to him. (George Steinmetz, Freemasonry: Its Hidden Meaning)
The phrase in the Masonic ritual, "The lion of the tribe of Judah," is Messianic and refers to Christ, the anointed of God and royal head of God's Kingdom. (Prince Hall-Washington, GL Website)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah - Emblematically of strength. Refers to Christ, the anointed of God and royal head of God's Kingdom. ("A Dictionary of Masonic Words and Phrases," Waller Masonic Lodge #808, Texas)
The phrase, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah, " therefore, when used in the Masonic instructions, referred in its original interpretation to Christ, Him who "brought life and immortality to light. (Mackey, Encyclopedia)


Lion of the Tribe of Judah - Emblematically of strength. Refers to Christ, the anointed of God and royal head of God's Kingdom. (Masonic Dictionary, NewJerseyFreemason.net)
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you a poor widow's. Son on a recruiting binge?

Let me first say, welcome to the forum! But to answer your question from my perspective, I say he is not recruiting, though that might be a tiny by-product for maybe a small number of naive among us.

After dealing with him for nearly a decade now, I'd say it's more like rationalization and self-deception in order to soothe his conscience from what he knows deep down, as a seminary-trained pastor, to be a heterodoxical fraternity. No pun intended.

It is his way of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, and the importance of opposing evidence and logical argument regarding the biblical incompatibility of Freemasonry.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you a poor widow's. Son on a recruiting binge?
No one needs to recruit with Mike & Skip around. Antimasons-gone-Rambo have an inherent gift for pushing people the opposite way of the direction they profess to want them to go.

As for what was posted, it's simply a reminder to all who may actually read the posts here, that the challenge that this phrase does not refer to Jesus Christ has been more than sufficiently countered, since the beginning of the discussion. As for Mike, it's sometimes best to try to pay him no attention, and right now is one of those times. When he's out of arguments, he goes double-down on the ad hominem, and when that doesn't work, starts making empty promises about how he's gonna leave o.f.f. talking to me--only, the way it plays out is, although he leaves o.f.f. talking to me directly, he still carries on conversations with me through third-person third-party dialogues. I'm afraid his obsession with Freemasonry is outgunned only by his obsession with me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is his way of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, and the importance of opposing evidence and logical argument regarding the biblical incompatibility of Freemasonry.

Hmmmmm......"opposing evidence" and "logical argument," eh? Let's unpack those just a bit.

"Opposing evidence"

As regards the current discussion, the gist of the "opposing evidence" that has been presented here, consists of, a single statement (or variations of it) that appear in a handful of LSME booklets. At last count, you and Skip together had managed a grand total of less than ten.

The evidence to the contrary, by contrast, is simply overwhelming. Several monitors and rituals have been cited, showing the phrase in a context which must be taken as Christian in bearing, speaking of the "merits of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah" being efficacious for eternal life, and speaking of the Christian doctrine of "resurrection of the body." To this the objection has been raised, that it isn't direct enough to suit antimasons (despite the fact that no other religion would have either of these in its belief system). As a result, the above double post was offered, of ONLY those sources which do contain DIRECT mention of Christ. Objections to much of that material are still raised, though, whining about it not being "monitorial"--despite the fact that that very consideration alone, would wipe out the entirety of the materials the anti's have posted as countering claims.

The evidence speaks for itself. Throughout the Masonic system, there is a general understanding of "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" as a Messianic reference to Christ.

"logical argument"

This, you claim, I have been "rationalizing away." I have so much to say to that irresponsible claim, it's difficult to even know where to start. So, in no particular structured order, here are some points that come to mind showing this for the bizarre claim it truly is:

(1) "Logical argument" would require that we take the evidence for what it represents, and not for what your idealized fantasy world would try to have it to be. So when the sheer volume of sources show a general concurrence with the idea that "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" as found in Masonry, is a Messianic reference to Christ, and only a handful of sources that suggest otherwise, "logical argument" would require that we take the evidence for what it shows, and accept the fact that the generally accepted Masonic opinion is, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" refers to Jesus Christ.

(2) "Logical argument" would also suggest that in trying to criticize Masonry from a Christian perspective, one must not deny one's own belief system simply because one has an overzealous desire to vilify Masonry. Therefore, since "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is. indisputably and unmistakably a Christian and biblical phrase from Revelation 5:5 that indisputably and unmistakably refers to Jesus Christ, it is ILLOGICAL argument to try to set that aside as if it didn't matter, when one finds that Masonry affirms the same thing about the phrase.

(3) "Logical argument" would also require that if a set of parameters for a discussion have been set in place, as a general guide to help keep all posters at least in the same ballpark; and that if all involved in the discussion express general agreement with the parameters that have been negotiated; then it becomes ILLOGICAL to then try to abandon those parameters, in a puerile attempt by someone who refuses to concede even the least point in ANY discussion, simply because they can't bear to be shown wrong. And it is even MORE illogical to do so, when the parameters that have generally been followed, were created by that very same person.

(4) LAST BUT NOT LEAST--and a no-brainer--"logical argument" requires that the argument one presents should at least make sense. This is the point at which I find it absolutely incredible that you would even DARE make comments about "logical argument," given your recent comments on this particular point:

That claim, presented only three posts ago by you (#369), is one of the more revealing posts about you and your claims that I have seen in some time, it was "way out there" even for you.

It clearly shows you do not understand Freemasonry, because you couldn't even read what the statement itself says, that the Masonic meeting space is merely designed in a manner which is intended to REPRESENT the Sanctum Sanctorum, and is NOT a claim to actually be meeting there.

It also clearly shows you do not even understand the Christian faith you profess, because it's just plain deficient theology to be addressing the concept of the Holy of Holies in a manner which fails to take into account the rending of the veil, and the significance that event has as a central point in Christian theology.

That being the case, one can only wonder: why are you doing any of this?


And how can you call it "counsel of the Lord," when so many times over the duration of time when we have discussed these matters, your claims run contrary to Christian theological and biblical concepts?


And how can you call it "logical argument" and claim that "I" have been "rationalizing it away," when all the illogic in this particular argument has constantly been exhibited by the two of you? Such as, reversing positions on authoritative documents to try to assert LSME's over monitors and rituals; arguing the primacy of a handful of citations as opposed to the overwhelmingly consistent position presented; and ignoring the unsupported claims that are part and parcel of the very same citations on which you keep depending?


No, sir. If you REALLY want to see some "rationalizing away," take an honest look at the arguments you tried to use as a counter to what was presented from the Michigan ritual: first, it was a claim of a counter from the "Grand Lodge" site; second, when shown that was not true, and that it was a subordinate lodge's webpage, your rationalization was, that even though it was a subordinate lodge, the material was still "educational material distributed to all their lodges"; when it was shown that the material actually was NOT Michigan GL material, THEN it was rationalized that "they operate under the auspices of the Grand Lodge," therefore considering it "Grand Lodge" is in order; when it was shown that the material actually came from another GL, and that they apparently have some degree of freedom in what they choose to put on their webpage, THEN the rationalization became "since it's used by some GL somewhere, and since they all recognize one another, then it can STILL be considered 'Grand Lodge' material, even though it comes from another GL"; by that time, you were so far out on the rationalized limb you had created, that your own absurdity was more than obvious--but I still pointed out for you, that even then, your rationalization didn't work, because the material actually was not a direct representation of material from ANY Grand Lodge.


But thanks for your responses. You and Skip always more than adequately demonstrate for us the spurious nature of antimason arguments, when you go to such great lengths to protect one that was sunk before you even started on it, and by doing so, wind up showing everyone by your floundering, that nothing you do can rescue your point.


It must be a truly difficult house of cards that is so delicate that it cannot endure even one argument being defeated, without its builders frantically seeking to rescue it, as if its failing at one point signals its complete collapse.
 
Upvote 0

Johan Henze

Newbie
Jun 8, 2011
145
0
✟22,766.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

>>Yes ,I share with your burden ! He reminds me of the Scientologist who sells the line of you can still be a Christian ,but you can be a Scientoligist to! Though Im an expert in dealing with JW and Mormons but not Freemasonry it, not hard to read from your responses he does what JW , Mormons and Scientology does all the time !

>>DENY - DENY - DENY!

>>So we can only pray that the Lord will open his eyes to the deception!
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Thanks for your comments Johan, and you are so right! And guess what, since JWs, Mormons and Scientologists all believe in a Supreme Being (albeit a false one) they would be welcomed to join the Masonic Lodge and Wayne (a "Christian" pastor) would accept these believers in false gods as fellow brothers; who worship with him Freemasonry's Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU).
 
Upvote 0

Johan Henze

Newbie
Jun 8, 2011
145
0
✟22,766.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

>>Interestingly JW believe God to be the Architect and his Son the Master builder!

>>Shalom!
 
Upvote 0