Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[ALX25]

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

>>Shalom!

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..

 

[Rev Wayne]

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."

 

[ALX25]

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."

Your argument of Biblical content in Masonry is a JOKE.... because Masonry does not practice or follow JESUS...so stop it


What's your point of argueing Biblical content of anything when Masonry itself is made up of JW's Mormons. and Scientologists....

Those false doctrine belief cults do not hold truth... and your Masonic lodge that houses and welcomes them is nothing more than a Spiritual harlot house...that allows them to hide in secret.... the lost leading the Lost... and you the Masonic Reverend now try's to convince some one that the truth of Christianity and the LIE'S of Demons can live and serve the God of the Holy Bible...

 

[Superfast]

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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.

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.

 

[ALX25]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what Masonry is of too even begin to chime in.....

Read about Masonry first... then come back and talk.... don't talk about what you don't understand please Stand Down on this thread and watch on the side lines.....

 

[Rev Wayne]

Personally , I don't know enough about them to make a valid decision as to whether the accusations against them are wrong or right.

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:

80-90% of hollywood worship the beast. Alicia Keys signals the corna Baphomet hand signal used in Satanism

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.

 

[ALX25]

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.

No wonder you turned out this way,...... If masonry helped you your calling or any other man in terms of a GOD "PLAN A" then JESUS would have taught Masonry......

Masonry would cleary be taught in the Bible according to you.

Show scripture that JESUS taught Masonry.....

Prove your argument using the Holy Bible that masonry is a part of God's Divine plan for man...and not by your man made masonic literature.....



IF masonry was of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.... then JESUS God in the Flesh would have taught it....


Prove me wrong...... Masonic Rev. Wayne

 

[Skip Sampson]

the challenge that this phrase does not refer to Jesus Christ has been more than sufficiently countered, since the beginning of the discussion.

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.

This appears quite often in Masonry: take a Biblical veneer and put it over the particleboard of Masonic teachings. Cordially, Skip.

 

[ALX25]

Show scripture that JESUS taught Masonry.....

Prove your argument using the Holy Bible that masonry is a part of God's Divine plan for man...and not by your man made masonic literature.....



IF masonry was of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.... then JESUS God in the Flesh would have taught it....


Prove me wrong...... Masonic Rev. Wayne

 

[Skip Sampson]

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.

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?

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

How was it wrong?

You miss quite a bit in the Virginia piece.

Untrue. I certainly didn't miss this blunt statement:

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, Mentor’s Manual, 2002, pg. 50)

Now, if you think "Lord of Life" is not a specific reference to Christ,

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.

To try to say these things are "not defined" in the Ky. Monitor, is completely absurd.

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.

That's just plain nonsense.

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.

Debatable.

Again untrue. It is not issued by a GL authority. Thus, it is neither a GL source nor monitorial.

Missouri Lodge of Research's website is a direct page link from the GL website, and is an arm of the Missouri GL.

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.

The Heirloom Bible

And is neither GL source nor monitorial.

Phoenix Masonry

Speaking of a blind hog... Good to see that you've realized that it's neither GL source nor monitorial.

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.

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.

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.

You may object all you wish, but you remain incorrect. "If Wayne says something....."

Where did I make any claim that they WERE??

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.

But the point remains: you are unable to show a GL source that equates the phrase directly and solely to Jesus Christ. You've found a PH GL that does so, but since you identified it as a glossary in your post 361, I guess that makes it "neither GL source nor monitorial."

No claim that they were monitorial; otherwise, how could they be "added to" the monitorial?

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.

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.

Your post 328 lumped the AC under GL sources. You really need to...., oh, never mind.

And you really need to have a talk with Michael.

That's probably true. I always like talking to fellow Christians, especially those willing to take unpopular stands for the Lord.

you'd think you'd at least manage a position more consistent with one another.

We are consistent: Masonry is an unChristian organization and one with a false plan of salvation.

Monitorial materials take precedence over training materials.

Only where they contradict. Show me where either monitor or ritual define the phrase specifically as Jesus.

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.

Untrue. The training documentation defines the term while the monitor does not.

You seem to forget that you established this very thing yourself in the earlier discussion.

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.

Ah, time to leave Wayne's World. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

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. Cordially, Skip.

 

[ALX25]

Wayne where's your source and Proof
Show scripture that JESUS taught Masonry.....

Prove your argument using the Holy Bible that masonry is a part of God's Divine plan for man...and not by your man made masonic literature.....



IF masonry was of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.... then JESUS God in the Flesh would have taught it....


Again you make statments you no are not true....


And thats exactly the work of the Enemy to lead a man into masonry to confuse others.

 

[Rev Wayne]

An invalid assumption, as Ms. Keys' hand signal is not the same as your daughter's. Check the placement of the thumb.

It wasn't an "assumption." You're acting like that's the key to understanding it, when it's actually the fingers that are the sign? What's up with that? Your usual "logical argument" again? We know, of course, where that convoluted route has taken you. So unless you happen to know sign language, and thus have information that it means one thing with the thumb in one position, and something else with it in another, this looks more like the Skip Sampson variety of assumption--you know, staircases vs ladders, assertions from your picture collection, the whole nine yards.

Besides, the same kind of idiots that come up with that accusation, obviously are blissfully unaware of the "difference" you've tried to claim, as evidenced by this picture accusing McDonald's CEO's of the same thing, in a picture where one has the thumb out and one doesn't:

I'd also suggest caution in posting childrens' pictures on websites. I think it very unwise.

I did hesitate before posting it, and considered the reasons why it probably wasn't an issue in this particular case: No information posted with it. And besides, she's 15. I'd hardly think you could look at her now and even connect her with the picture if you didn't know her. No, this is just more Skip Sampson smoke, creating accusations when he's out of them.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It doesn't matter what I think

There's one point says it all.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne where's your source and proof

Good question, after all he did say:

Always check people's information and their sources.

Yet without citing a source he posts this:

I'm sure Ms. Keys was signalling the same message to her audience as well.

Without proof, what makes him so 'sure' what Alicia's hand signal meant?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Good question, after all he did say:

Always check people's information and their sources.

Have you checked your alter ego Alex's information? Oh, that's right, I forgot, he never has any--which is one good reason I choose to ignore his posts.

Without proof, what makes him so 'sure' what Alicia's hand signal meant?

Without proof, what makes you so sure I'm wrong--which is obviously what you are claiming?

Not that I'm surprised that first Skip, and now you, post as if you really wish to give credence to the stupid Baphomet line of accusations against Masonry. Guess I was giving you guys too much credit when I figured you were at least ONE notch above that level. Given the level of your most recent "discussion," though, I suppose I really should have seen this coming.

And since you seem to think there is at least a shot of credibility in the accusation about Ms. Keys' imagined "Baphomet sign," maybe you can share with us, where does that come from? I've tried before, but could locate no source other than more conspiracy sites saying the same thing. And we don't need any sign to know what THAT'S worth.

 

[heterodoxical]

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.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! Everyfan of university of texas is a satanist! You are so wize to show me this. I thought it was hook'em horns! George bush made that signal, and i thiught he was a good methodist boy that was a fan of UT.

your wisdom is blinding.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Yes, there are pix of Bush where he gives the Go 'Horns Texas sign to either a fellow Texan or someone familiar with the signal, and people go conspiratorial over it.

Turns out, too, that there actually is a sort of symbol, too, that rock stars use, and it's more of a "rock on" signal, used by them or by their fans. But it's not limited to just the "thumb in" mode, I've seen it both ways. And admittedly, the sign language symbol WOULD have to be "thumb out," since the "I love you" message is actually being portrayed by acronym, combining the sign language letters of i, l, and y, which together wind up involving the extension of those three digits.

So I stand corrected that the message was "I love you"--although Ms. Keys was certainly expressing an affinity with her fans with the gesture. But the overall point is, it most certainly was not any "Baphometic symbol." Nor was it any such thing when Michelle Obama gave the same gesture in a shot taken at an airport, as claimed.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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.

If you truly believed that what matters is "what Masonry teaches," you would have no problem with this as you still do. The overwhelming Masonic teaching on the matter is, that the term Lion of the Tribe of Judah is a reference to Christ. You've been trying to assert the minority report ever since you first responded to this.

Problem is, too, the "Lord of Life" reference is from Kentucky Monitor. I don't recall you posting a single statement from any Kentucky source that says what you just stated in reply. You got that from other jurisdictions, so there's not a single one of them that refutes Kentucky's position. The one guilty of "misdirection" is you, for trying to assert something from another jurisdiction over Kentucky's monitor, which is authoritative for their jurisdiction. Not that it would matter anyway, since the Monitor supersedes the LSME's, and thus it would supersede what you posted anyway.

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.

Don't know where you got that idea, since I have consistently pointed out to you that the "definition" in the sources you quoted, is not a definition at all, but a hodgepodge of misinformation. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the claim that "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" was used in reference to Jewish kings is UNSUPPORTABLE; and I have likewise pointed out to you that the claim that someone of Jewish faith could take a reference to "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" as a reference to his own idea of Messiah, even when the context shows that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah effects a "resurrection of the body," is a claim that would be totally REPUGNANT to one of Jewish faith. The whole piece, which is pretty much of the same pattern in every place you have found it, is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE in what it claims.

The bizarre thing is, that you have the audacity to try to come back and claim, after I have REPEATEDLY made the above points to you, with some kind of notion that I don't find the material you cited to be o.f.f.ensive. You obviously haven't been paying any attention.

And you are incorrect to call it a "definition," for the Masonic definition of it is established all over the place. What you post to try to counter it is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the huge volume of Masonic opinion to the contrary. You were more correct earlier in the discussion, when you were describing it as an attempted "re-definition," for that's what the attempt is, an effort to try to change Masonic opinion. So far it carries little if any weight in Masonry, though.

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.

Wrong again, as you have been all along. The following phrases all appear in the KY monitor, and all of them are specifically Christian:

Be ye careful to perform your allotted task while it is yet day (John 9:4--I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.)

ye know not when the Master cometh--at even, at midnight, or in the morning. (John 24:36-25:13)

FAITH in the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5)

holy confidence that the Lord of Life will enable us to trample the king of terrors beneath our feet (John 11:25)

we doubt not that on the glorious morn of the Resurrection our bodies will rise and become as incorruptible as our souls. (1 Corinthians 15)

Get busy if you wish, and show some other religion which can even POSSIBLY have anything within it to point to as a direct reference, in the same manner that these can easily be shown to have direct reference to biblical and Christian references. It simply can't be done--which is probably why you have consistently ignored the challenge and have instead tried to reframe the discussion to fit your arguments.