The same way Satan use's JW's to mislead people is the same way Satan use's Masonry to mislead the men who have become Masons...
Same Spiritual Enemy with one common Goal.. to separate man from God..
Upvote
0
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.
>>Interestingly JW believe God to be the Architect and his Son the Master builder!
>>Shalom!
Same ole same ole. When the evidence fails to support your claims, it's deride, insult, slam-dunk, anything but be shown to be wrong in your claims.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).
Same ole same ole. When the evidence fails to support your claims, it's deride, insult, slam-dunk, anything but be shown to be wrong in your claims.
If you wish to start a discussion about other aspects of Masonry, which you are obviously trying to do, by all means, start a thread. This one is about biblical content in Masonry, and most recently, as it regards "Lion of the Tribe of Judah."
Besides, since you still seem to think the veil of the temple is intact, despite there not even being a temple anymore, and despite Christ having rent the veil, you don't really exhibit a keen enough grasp on Christianity to be making snide inferences with your quote marks on "Christian."
All the men who were influential during my formative years in the church in coming to know Christ, were Masons. I thank God for them, and for the fact that I got to know them for their Christian witness alone. If there had existed at the time the kind of antimason spirit that now has become entrenched among well-meaning but highly vindictive, dogmatic accusers; and had I known these men at the time to be Masons; I honestly have to say, since they were the primary influence that brought me to the place where I met Jesus Christ for the first time, that I don't even know whether I would have come to know Christ as I did. It was at the same place where I gave my life to the Lord, that I was later called into the ministry. Granted, God is not limited to any method or means, and I'm sure that He would have had a "plan B" by which these things would have taken place, given that His perfect will for me was the place of service to which He called me. But I find it totally contrary to the claims of self-appointed accusers of Masonry, that God's "Plan A" involved Christian Masons.I had an uncle that was fairly high up mason, and he was a baptist as well. I believe he knew the Lord. Doesn't mean masonry is wrong or right.
I had an uncle that was fairly high up mason, and he was a baptist as well. I believe he knew the Lord. Doesn't mean masonry is wrong or right. Personally , I don't know enough about them to make a valid decision as to whether the accusations against them are wrong or right. And I don't care either.
Some people just like to hear themselves talk, and they spout off all kinds of things about Masonry, without ever citing a source. They make some pretty bizarre claims, too.Personally , I don't know enough about them to make a valid decision as to whether the accusations against them are wrong or right.
80-90% of hollywood worship the beast. Alicia Keys signals the corna Baphomet hand signal used in Satanism
All the men who were influential during my formative years in the church in coming to know Christ, were Masons. I thank God for them, and for the fact that I got to know them for their Christian witness alone. If there had existed at the time the kind of antimason spirit that now has become entrenched among well-meaning but highly vindictive, dogmatic accusers; and had I known these men at the time to be Masons; I honestly have to say, since they were the primary influence that brought me to the place where I met Jesus Christ for the first time, that I don't even know whether I would have come to know Christ as I did. It was at the same place where I gave my life to the Lord, that I was later called into the ministry. Granted, God is not limited to any method or means, and I'm sure that He would have had a "plan B" by which these things would have taken place, given that His perfect will for me was the place of service to which He called me. But I find it totally contrary to the claims of self-appointed accusers of Masonry, that God's "Plan A" involved Christian Masons.
Not hardly. What has been shown is that most, if not all, GL's use the term, but many of them also redefine it to mean something totally different. This is consistent with the Masonic view of 'many Messiahs' which, over time, has allowed them to keep a Christian term but apply a far different meaning to it, which allows them to teach a non-Christian viewpoint.the challenge that this phrase does not refer to Jesus Christ has been more than sufficiently countered, since the beginning of the discussion.
Untrue. The GL's we've quoted are clear that the phrase means far more than just Jesus Christ. BTW, if it "needs no explanation," why do the GL's do so?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.
How was it wrong?No need to refer to your post. Since it was wrong the first time around, we can safely assume it's still wrong.
Untrue. I certainly didn't miss this blunt statement:You miss quite a bit in the Virginia piece.
The expression does not, of necessity, refer to Jesus of Nazareth, though the Christian Mason may so interpret the name if he desires. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah also describes the Messiah of the Jewish Mason or the mediator of some of the ancient religions of the East whose worshippers are Masons. (VA GL, Mentors Manual, 2002, pg. 50)
It doesn't matter what I think; rather, it matters what Masonry teaches, which is why you take this type of misdirection. Had the GL's never bothered to define the phrase, you would have an argument that it can only mean Jesus; however, they do define it and in an entirely offensive way, except to you, of course.Now, if you think "Lord of Life" is not a specific reference to Christ,
I'm not referring to "these things." I'm referring to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, which the KY GL does not define, at least as far as I've been able to determine. More misdirection, Wayne, one of the only tools you have left.To try to say these things are "not defined" in the Ky. Monitor, is completely absurd.
Only to you, as they simply do not define it as "Jesus Christ." They can hint around at it all they wish, but the specific definition, as I originally stated, simply isn't there.That's just plain nonsense.
Again untrue. It is not issued by a GL authority. Thus, it is neither a GL source nor monitorial.Debatable.
But neither GL nor monitorial, as you yourself admitted in your post 332. Incidentally, Twitter has a direct link also, so I guess you consider that a GL source or monitorial, if you are to be consistent.Missouri Lodge of Research's website is a direct page link from the GL website, and is an arm of the Missouri GL.
And is neither GL source nor monitorial.The Heirloom Bible
Speaking of a blind hog... Good to see that you've realized that it's neither GL source nor monitorial.Phoenix Masonry
Yet you insist that the training materials, which in no way contradict the ritual, cannot be used when it expands on the ritual. You can't have it both ways. The training material is authoritative in the jurisdiction in which it is published and, as we have shown, defines the term in a very nonChristian way.I don't object to your "use of them" at all. That's totally preposterous. As we already established way earlier, they have their place as well.
You may object all you wish, but you remain incorrect. "If Wayne says something....."What I DO object to in the current exchange, is (a) your attempt to assert what is NOT monitorial over what IS monitorial; and (b) the fact that in doing so, you violate even your own (claimed, anyway, despite your inconsistent application of it) "pecking order" which you established quite some time ago.
Check your posts 327 and 328, where you included the MO Lodge of research, and AC, as such. In the latter case, you also noted AC was a glossary, which you then lumped under GL sources. Be nice if you remembered day in and day out what you actually wrote. But, I've cautioned you before on the dangers of mega cut & pasting before, with little effect.Where did I make any claim that they WERE??
As noted above, your inclusion of the PHGL of Washington under that category removes the only GL source you had for your argument. Pretty comical to all concerned, but not unexpected, and again for reasons already noted.No claim that they were monitorial; otherwise, how could they be "added to" the monitorial?
Your post 328 lumped the AC under GL sources. You really need to...., oh, never mind.Naturally, not only did you ignore what was stated, you even managed to drag one of them into that group (acimnos), which I did NOT include in that section of my post.
That's probably true. I always like talking to fellow Christians, especially those willing to take unpopular stands for the Lord.And you really need to have a talk with Michael.
We are consistent: Masonry is an unChristian organization and one with a false plan of salvation.you'd think you'd at least manage a position more consistent with one another.
Only where they contradict. Show me where either monitor or ritual define the phrase specifically as Jesus.Monitorial materials take precedence over training materials.
Untrue. The training documentation defines the term while the monitor does not.The monitorial section descriptions where the phrase appears, already ARE "explanations." Therefore, the LSME is only a separate explanation from that, and one which is in disagreement with the monitorial.
I established that long before discussions on this forum. It was made clear on E5-11 as well as on LodgeroomUS. I've been consistent on stating it as well as on following it.You seem to forget that you established this very thing yourself in the earlier discussion.
An invalid assumption, as Ms. Keys' hand signal is not the same as your daughter's. Check the placement of the thumb.Not really, she's just telling daddy, "I love you" in sign language, something she was taught by her piano teacher. Given the beautiful smile, and her obvious knowledge of sign language as well, I'm sure Ms. Keys was signalling the same message to her audience as well.
An invalid assumption, as Ms. Keys' hand signal is not the same as your daughter's. Check the placement of the thumb.
I'd also suggest caution in posting childrens' pictures on websites. I think it very unwise.
Wayne where's your source and proof
Always check people's information and their sources.
I'm sure Ms. Keys was signalling the same message to her audience as well.
Good question, after all he did say:
Always check people's information and their sources.
Without proof, what makes him so 'sure' what Alicia's hand signal meant?
Some people just like to hear themselves talk, and they spout off all kinds of things about Masonry, without ever citing a source. They make some pretty bizarre claims, too.
A good example: I came across a site declaring that Alicia Keys is a "Freemason Puppet." As "evidence," they post a picture, with a caption reading:
To illustrate just how ridiculous their claims can be, here is the picture:
Oh NOOOOOO! Were these vicious, evil people having an influence on my daughter as well, when she did this at age 6?
Not really, she's just telling daddy, "I love you" in sign language, something she was taught by her piano teacher. Given the beautiful smile, and her obvious knowledge of sign language as well, I'm sure Ms. Keys was signalling the same message to her audience as well.
Always check people's information and their sources.
And if they never offer you any, consider it safe to assume they are either ashamed of their sources, or they are their own source.
W: Now, if you think "Lord of Life" is not a specific reference to Christ,
S: It doesn't matter what I think; rather, it matters what Masonry teaches, which is why you take this type of misdirection.
Had the GL's never bothered to define the phrase, you would have an argument that it can only mean Jesus; however, they do define it and in an entirely offensive way, except to you, of course.
I'm referring to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, which the KY GL does not define, at least as far as I've been able to determine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?