Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[O.F.F.]

Can a Christian be a Mason knowing that they teach that there is no such thing as a false god or a false religion?

There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. - Max Müller

Quoted in Louisiana Masonic Monitor - Grand Lodge of Louisiana

In fact, one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site has gone on record as saying something to the effect that, "since Jesus never spoke about false gods in the New Testament, then there must not be any, but rather just simple misconceptions of the One True God."

Can a Christian be a Mason knowing that they teach that all so-called sacred writings of the major world religions contain the inspired revealed Will of God?

Masonic Landmark #21

It is a Landmark, that a "Book of the Law" (or VSL = Volume of Scared Law) shall constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge. I say advisedly, a Book of the Law, because it is not absolutely required that the Bible be used. The "Book of the Law" is that volume which, by the religion of the country, is believed to contain the revealed will of the Grand Architect of the universe.

Hence, in all Lodges in Christian countries, the Book of the Law is composed of the Old and New Testaments; in a country where Judaism was the prevailing faith, the Old Testament alone would be sufficient; and in Mohammedan countries, and among Mohammedan Masons the Koran might be substituted.

Masonry does not attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious faith of its disciples (yes it says disciples of Freemasonry, not of Jesus Christ), except so far as relates to the belief in the existence of God (singular), and what necessarily results from that belief. The Book of the Law is to the speculative Mason his spiritual Trestle board; without this he cannot labor; whatever he believes to be the revealed will of the Grand Architect constitutes for him this spiritual Trestle board, and must ever be before him in his hours of speculative labor, to be the rule and guide of his conduct. The Landmark, therefore, requires that a Book of the Law, a religious code of some kind (of any kind), purporting to be an exemplar of the revealed will of God, shall form an essential part of the furniture of every Lodge.

Jurisprudence of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey a prolific Masonic author from the Grand Lodge of South Carolina (Emphasis added)

As one Scottish Grand Lodge authority puts it:

The Volume of the Sacred Law, no matter though it be our Bible or the Sacred Writings of the Hindu, the Zendavesta of the Parsee, or the Koran of the Mohammedan, typifies the Mind or Will of the GAOTU, the Great First Cause - the Creator and Preserver of the Universe - the Great Life-Giver, that Great Unknown and Unknowable which is manifested in His Universe.

In fact, one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site has gone on record as saying something to the effect that, "since all so-called sacred writings of the major world religions contain the Golden Rule, then they must all be the inspired Word of God."

Can a Christian be a Mason knowing that they teach that all Masons are spiritual brothers regardless of ones religious beliefs?

Freemasonry is devoted to Brotherhood, exists to furnish opportunities to its members to enjoy it, not only for its own sake but as a means to something beyond. Brotherhood rests on a religious basis; we are all Brothers, because God is the Father of us all; therefore, religion is one of the foundations of Masonry.

A Lodge System of Masonic Instruction, p. 42 - Grand Lodge of Nevada (emphasis added)

Yet one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site insists that the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man in Freemasonry is based solely on God's Creation, and not on a religious or spiritual basis. But as you can see, by the words of Freemasonry itself, "Christian" Masons are unequally yoked with believers in false gods "on a religious basis."

These three issues alone ought to be enough to answer the question of this thread for any biblically knowledgable, genuine Christian with an emphatic NO!

 

[Rev Wayne]

In fact, one Masonic "Rev" who frequents this site has gone on record as saying something to the effect that, "since all so-called sacred writings of the major world religions contain the Golden Rule, then they must all be the inspired Word of God."

Before I respond to the statements of the previous post as I said I would, let me take a moment to reveal this claim for exactly what it is, a contentious misrepresentation (that's a euphemism for "lie," for those who may not have caught it)

Never at any time or in any place have I ever said that anything other than the Bible is "the inspired Word of God."

Since you mistakenly think differently, I defy you to provide full citation, and provide a link to any place where you falsely believe it to be so. You will not find it.

Perhaps you might consider sticking to the truth, if you MUST continue this?

And it's quite "telling," by the way, that you have no response to my reply in defense against your previous false accusations. Not that I'm surprised, it'd be pretty difficult to defend the indefensible action of insulting a dead man's grieving family.

 

[O.F.F.]

Readers, I apologize for this thread going off-topic with a couple of posts, but this is the last thing I'll say about Wayne's last post, unless he continues to try to justify his immoral, unethical behavior as a minister. But for the record, although he posted a link to said site, let me show you all exactly what I said:

Hi Wayne,

I don't want to read too much into this, and perhaps its wishful thinking on my part, but does this mean that you had an opportunity to witness to him before he died? I mean when you say he asked "Do you really think so?" concerning some points which he had always adamantly denied," where they points about the veracity of Scripture or that Jesus is the only way to salvation? Because as I recall, these were indeed points he adamantly denied.

My prayer is that the Lord brought him to a point of accepting these facts and embracing them as truth, and in doing so, he is now with the Lord forever.

Mike

Where is the "NON-veiled, comments suggesting the man is in hell?" Where are the "nasty allegations?" Where in this quote have I "disrespected a dead man and his grieving widow?" Where have I "effectively started loudly proclaiming the man is in hell?"

The admin of that forum, being kind enough not to ban him summarily, at least had the decency to do the right thing as a first response, and move the remarks to some other place besides a collection of notices intended as remarks of comfort for his family.

The admin moved the thread, not because of what I said, but because of how you dishonored its intended purpose by cursing at my harmless inquiry, which caused other unnecessary comments from other Masons coming to your defense after I replied to your profanity with:

None of your damn business." Find example and choice of words from someone who puts the title "pastor" before his name. I wonder what your Bishop, Mary Virginia Taylor, would think of such behavior, not to mention what God thinks of it.

What's more, given the positive change you and others saw in Theron before he died, you would think the last thing anyone would want do is dishonor this thread with the use of profanity.

What a crying shame. . .You could have simply said, "what's shared with me in confidence, stays with me in confidence," or words to the effect. The use of profanity is very unbecoming of a "pastor" let alone from one who is suppose to no longer be a "profane," but instead "an upright man and Mason." Seems to me if you will not allow yourself to be controlled by the Holy Spirit like genuine Christians should, you should at least exercise the use of your Masonic Compass and govern yourself accordingly.

Your excuse for using profanity as an attention-getter is weak. Who's attention were you trying to get pastor? The exchange was between you and I, not an entire congregation like your example illustrated. Therefore, your response was both unnecessary and unethical. You were already talking to me, so there was no need to get my attention. The irony of your example is that the pastor you quoted was trying to do the very thing I intended, that is, to get the attention of the listener about the importance of evangelism. But your reaction simply supported the fact that it is unMasonic for Masons to proselytize or engage in evangelism, because it assumes one holds to a wrong or false religious belief system (which is no such thing in Masonry).

After another Mason supported my reply by confirming the definition of "damn" as "profanity" mild or otherwise, I replied to him that my response to the "pastor" who used it was not only on target, it was a BULLS EYE! To this you responded with another comment unbecoming of a "Christian" minister:

That's strange. You've given every impression your comments had more to do with the other end of the bull.

So was that just another "attention-getter" pastor, or blatantly rude sarcasm? Is that how Jesus would respond to anyone?

As for making threats about coming down to your house in person, no such threat was made. You called me a "coward" for sending you a private message, which you admitted deleting without even reading, and insisted that if I had anything to say to you, to say it publically. I simply replied stating that I was not afraid to say anything to you publically, and if I had something to tell you I would gladly come to your location and tell it to your face, if necessary.

Now if you're finished making excuses for using profanity as a pastor, then maybe we can resume the discussion of this thread on topic.

 

[O.F.F.]

Never at any time or in any place have I ever said that anything other than the Bible is "the inspired Word of God."

Since you mistakenly think differently, I defy you to provide full citation, and provide a link to any place where you falsely believe it to be so. You will not find it.

You may have taken the time to go and erase the post(s) for all I know. So I certainly will not take the time to sift through your 2,331 posts here, or the hundreds of others you have posted elsewhere to try to find them.

Perhaps you can clarify what you meant in defense of Masonic teaching when you listed a litany of quotes from various "sacred" writings regarding the Golden Rule, when you made the claim that Freemasonry teaches moral principles common to all religions.

And, I challenged you by saying that it (the Golden Rule) originated in the Bible, the only inspired word of God. You then stated that since many of the world's religions originated before Christianity, and the Golden Rule is inspired by God, then He must of inspired their writings too.

Again, that was my take on what you claimed. If I misunderstood what you said, then please clarify.

 

[izarya]

Can a Freemason be a Christian? Is Christmas Christian in origin? Is the cross? The fish? Is the virgin birth an entirely Christian concept? The Eucharist? The crucifixion? The Resurrection?

All of these sacraments are taken from, were originated in, and have symbolism that can be traced to and are associated with "paganistic" pre-Christian religions and symbols.

I say yes, a Freemason can be just as Christian as any other person claiming affiliation with Christianity, if not more so.

INRI
LVX

 

[Rev Wayne]

Where is the "NON-veiled, comments suggesting the man is in hell?"

Right here:

I don't want to read too much into this, and perhaps its wishful thinking on my part, but does this mean that you had an opportunity to witness to him before he died?

Remember, it’s the family’s perspective as I read this that I’m talking about. And I DID say “suggesting,” though you seem to discount it. If I have a family member die, and I come onto a forum where you are saying that it is “reading too much into it” and “wishful thinking” to entertain any hope that the man went to heaven, what else do you think I would get from it, other than that you thought he went to hell???

Where are the "nasty allegations?"

Ditto. It’s pretty nasty to allege that someone went to hell, when it is done in a place which is obviously intended for his friends and family to see.

Where in this quote have I "disrespected a dead man and his grieving widow?"

Ditto. It’s hardly respectful to make a suggestion to a man’s widow that it’s “reading too much into it” or “wishful thinking” for them to believe he went to heaven.

Where have I "effectively started loudly proclaiming the man is in hell?"

Where did I say you did? What I said was that what you did, considering the place in which you did it, not to mention the timing, amounts to the same thing. Interesting you should preface this with the intent of posting “exactly what I said,” and then turn around and cast MY words any way you wish to twist them. So in the interest of “exactly what I said”:

I’ve never seen anyone at all who would have the audacity to walk into a funeral home and in front of a deceased man’s family, start loudly proclaiming the man is in hell. Granted, that's not what he did, but on a forum thread dedicated to posting kind remarks intended for a grieving widow and family, it amounts to the same thing, because it would have the same effect.

I never said what you just posted. I said that what you did has the same effect, when you post it in a place intended to comfort the widow and family. I hardly agree they would be comforted by you calling it “reading too much into it” and “wishful thinking” that the man went to heaven. And I stand by what I said, not your re-cast of it.

The admin moved the thread, not because of what I said, but because of how you dishonored its intended purpose by cursing at my harmless inquiry, which caused other unnecessary comments from other Masons coming to your defense after I replied to your profanity with:

You really are a riot! So why do you figure they titled it: “A Bit O.F.F.-Center”? The suggestive thread title was directed at YOU, not me. You are totally missing the point even now.

Your excuse for using profanity as an attention-getter is weak. Who's attention where you trying to get pastor?

Yours, layman. But now that I’ve had to explain the method, it sort of loses its effectiveness. That would be like Nathan telling David, “Well, I’ve got a little story to tell you, and it’s designed to make you indignant, but only with the intent that I can then turn the indignation around so that you see what you have done, and that recognition produces the remorseful response that you ought to have in light of what you have done.” Sorta loses its punch when you give away the intent.

All I know is, the Lord knows my heart, and the motivation for responding as I did. I’d hate to think you’re unreachable, and so does He, apparently.

The exchange was between you and I, not an entire congregation like your example illustrated. Therefore, your response was both unnecessary and unethical.

Interesting—so now I’m responsible for your choice to insinuate such things about a dead man, and to do so on a public forum for all his family and friends to see? What you did was your own choice, and it is what it is. My concern was that it not go unmentioned or unchallenged.

You were already talking to me, so there was no need to get my attention.

Not until you made those remarks, I wasn't.

Besides, that’s like saying Nathan did not need to use a parable to get King David’s attention, since he already had it. Give it up, it doesn’t wash.

The irony of your example is that the pastor you quoted was trying to do the very thing I intended, that is, to get the attention of the listener about the importance of evangelism.

And the irony of this comment is, that you don’t likewise condemn the man for use of “profanity.” And the added irony is, that even now, you totally miss the point that your continued expansion upon the incident, only further magnifies the point that I made to you there, and now repeat here: you are far more concerned about this incident and my isolated, one-time use of a word which I’m CERTAIN you’ve never seen me do before, than you are about whether or not this man is with Jesus in heaven. That much, you have made eminently clear.

But your reaction simply supported the fact that it is unMasonic for Masons to proselytize or engage in evangelism, because it assumes one holds to a wrong or false religious belief system (which is no such thing in Masonry).

No, my response was a simple signal to YOU that any engaging in evangelism that I do, I do by the Lord’s direction and not yours, nor am I answerable to YOU for it. Your request to me in the remarks you made was a clear attempt to get me to violate the principles of the pastoral calling in relation to confidentiality, and I wasn’t about to do that in any way.

That's strange. You've given every impression your comments had more to do with the other end of the bull.
So was that just another "attention-getter" pastor, or blatantly rude sarcasm?

I call 'em like I see 'em. Besides, if I had been more graphic or direct in that comment, you would only have used it as cannon fodder anyway. But since I was only interested in making a point with the one word I did use, there was no need for further "profanity."

Is that how Jesus would respond to anyone?

Well, he called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" when it was appropriate. He told them in another place "you are of your father, the devil."

Interesting, though: does this mean you are defending your comments? Does this mean it’s okay to made rude and offensive comments about the dead, in a place where his grieving family undoubtedly will see them? Is THAT how Jesus would respond to anyone? Seems to me Jesus cried at the graveside with the family, in the most outstanding instance we have of him visiting with a grieving family.

As for making threats about coming down to your house in person, no such threat was made.

I'll take your word for it. But you certainly did indicate a possible intent of coming down here, and I simply responded to the comment in the way it was taken. And once again, you fail to see how you come across.

You called me a "coward" for sending you a private message, which you admitted deleting without even reading, and insisted that if I had anything to say to you, to say it publically. I simply replied stating that I was not afraid to say anything to you publically, and if I had something to tell you I would gladly come to your location and tell it to your face, if necessary.

And somehow you fail to see this could be construed as an “in your face” connotation? I really doubt it, and have to figure you are being disingenuous.

Now if you're finished making excuses for using profanity as a pastor, then maybe we can resume the discussion of this thread on topic.

That's exactly what I was doing before you introduced this comic interlude. Who imported this nonsense, Michael? Enough defending the indefensible, I agree, let’s stick to the topic before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I say yes, a Freemason can be just as Christian as any other person claiming affiliation with Christianity, if not more so.

Most Masons are.

 

[izarya]

Greetings Rev. Wayne.

 

[SealedEternal]

Can a Freemason be a Christian? Is Christmas Christian in origin? Is the cross? The fish? Is the virgin birth an entirely Christian concept? The Eucharist? The crucifixion? The Resurrection?

All of these sacraments are taken from, were originated in, and have symbolism that can be traced to and are associated with "paganistic" pre-Christian religions and symbols.

I say yes, a Freemason can be just as Christian as any other person claiming affiliation with Christianity, if not more so.

INRI
LVX

You are correct that these things are associated with what professes to be "Christianity" while they are all of pagan origin. That makes them all ultimately from Satan or who occultists call "Lucifer." Here are some quotes from high level Mason's admitting what "god" they actually serve:



'The Mysteries Of Magic' by Eliphas Levi

"What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism." page 428

'The Book Of Black Magic' by Arthur Edward Waite 33°

"First Conjuration Addressed to Emperor Lucifer. Emperor Lucifer, Master and Prince of Rebellious Spirits, I adjure thee to leave thine abode, in what-ever quarter of the world it may be situated and come hither to communicate with me. I command and I conjure thee in the Name of the Mighty Living God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to appear without noise and without ...." page 244

'The Secret Teaching Of All Ages' by Manly Palmer Hall 33°

"I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifuge, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as as it may please him, and in return Lucifuge promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfil my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed.....
{ Invocant signs pact with his own blood } " page CIV

'The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry' by Manly Palmer Hall 33°

"When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy." page 48

'The Secret Doctrine' by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

"Lucifer represents..Life..Thought..Progress..Civilization..Liberty..Independance..Lucifer is the Logos..the Serpent, the Savior." on pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)

"The Celestial Virgin which thus becomes the Mother of Gods and Devils at one and the same time; for she is the ever-loving beneficent Deity...but in antiquity and reality Lucifer or Luciferius is the name. Lucifer is divine and terrestial Light, 'the Holy Ghost' and "Satan' at one and the same time." page 539 (Volume?)

Albert Pike 33°

"That which we must say to a crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees - The Masonic Religion should be, by alll of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.

If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay whose deeds prove his cruelty, perdify and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him?
Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.

Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil."

Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive in La Femme et l'Enfant dans la FrancMaconnerie Universelle on page 588

"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the son of the morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with it's splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not! Morals and Dogma page 321

Both Freemasonry, and most man made religions (professing Christian or otherwise) are all based largely on paganism which is ultimately the religion of Satan. Often there is a blending of truth and paganism, but Freemasonry is almost pure paganism, with the Bible being used only as one of many esoteric books that only high level adepts supposedly understand.

Sure professing Christians are welcome to join, and in America most members are nominal Christians, but only those who prove themselves to be elite occultists understanding the mysteries of Luciferianism will move to the highest degrees.

True Christianity on the other hand, is a relationship with the true Christ through His word, and is not based on ancient religious rituals or traditions. I don't believe that true Christians would involve themselves in an occult organization with gruesome oaths such as Freemasonry.

SealedEternal

 

[O.F.F.]

If a person (or Mason for that matter) adamently denies the veracity of Scripture and that Jesus is the only way to salvation and they die, will they go to heaven?

A simply yes or no answer based upon Scripture will suffice. To say you don't know would be an admission or denial of knowing what Scripture says on the matter. If a seminary-trained pastor does not know what the Bible says about this, then we should question the veracity of his biblical training.

 

[izarya]

I love when you guys go off and jump to conclusions without understanding what is written in front of you. Firstly I'm sure you are aware that the title "Lucifer" itself means 'light-bearer' light-bringer' or 'morning star' which is actually an antiquitous reference to the planet Venus.

In Revelation 22:15 Jesus is quoted saying, "I am the bright and morning star." Which is to say, Lucifer (not that Jesus was Satan, but that he is the bearer of Light which is in this case symbolic of being the herald for the dawning Kingdom of heaven just like Venus heralds the rising of the sun each morning).

When these men spoke of Lucifer they were speaking on an intellectual level intentionally to lead prying eyes astray.

Also this theory of yours has been debunked for years now, Google Leo Taxil and The Taxil Hoax.

 

[Rev Wayne]

If a person (or Mason for that matter) adamently denies the veracity of Scripture and that Jesus is the only way to salvation and they die, will they go to heaven?

A simply yes or no answer based upon Scripture will suffice. To say you don't know would be an admission or denial of knowing what Scripture says on the matter. If a seminary-trained pastor does not know what the Bible says about this, then we should question the veracity of his biblical training.

Nice try, Mike, but we were not in a theological discussion. There are some things you just don't address to the friends and family of one who has just died, and you did it.

"A simple yes or no" is not the issue, because the answer to the theological question you now ask was not the issue which got the thread moved. All you are doing is making a quick exit from any discussion of what happened, with a slick attempt to re-frame the issue. I don't intend to do you the courtesy of entertaining your re-frame at all.

But as far as I'm concerned, your sin is forgiven, and you may discuss or not discuss the issues already addressed here, which is what I intent to do. You are free to join me in doing so if you like, but experience tells me you will call my answer an evasion and try to pursue the matter to the Nth degree.

As for me, I have a response to your comments on the previous page, which I shall post shortly.

 

[izarya]

Albert Pike 33°

"That which we must say to a crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees - The Masonic Religion should be, by alll of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.

If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay whose deeds prove his cruelty, perdify and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him?
Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.

Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil."

Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive in La Femme et l'Enfant dans la FrancMaconnerie Universelle on page 588

Léo Taxil (1854-1907) originated a perception that Freemasonry was associated with worshipping Lucifer. In what is known as the Taxil hoax, he claimed that leading Freemason Albert Pike had addressed "The 23 Supreme Confederated Councils of the world" (Taxil's invention), instructing them that Lucifer was God, and was in opposition to the evil god Adonai. Taxil also promoted a book by Diana Vaughan (actually written by him) that purported to reveal a highly secret ruling body called the Palladium which controlled the organization and had a Satanic agenda. As described by Freemasonry Disclosed in 1897:
With frightening cynicism, the miserable person we shall not name here [Taxil] declared before an assembly especially convened for him that for twelve years he had prepared and carried out to the end the most sacrilegious of hoaxes. We have always been careful to publish special articles concerning Palladism and Diana Vaughan. We are now giving in this issue a complete list of these articles, which can now be considered as not having existed. Despite the fraud having been revealed for over a century, Pike's spurious address and other details of the hoax continue to be quoted by anti-masonic groups.
Arthur Edward Waite wrote an exposé of this hoax, titled Devil-Worship in France, producing evidence that it was what today we would call a tabloid story, replete with logical and factual inconsistencies.


I'll bet you probably think that Bill Schnoebelen is a reliable source of information.

eh?

 

[SealedEternal]

I love when you guys go off and jump to conclusions without understanding what is written in front of you. Firstly I'm sure you are aware that the title "Lucifer" itself means 'light-bearer' light-bringer' or 'morning star' which is actually an antiquitous reference to the planet Venus.

I fully understood your point which was correct, but you were interpreting it backwards.

I assume you're aware that in the occult everything is esoteric and meant to confuse those who aren't taught the true meanings. Yes Lucifer is described as the things you describe, but the high adepts understand the true meaning that it was the serpent in the Garden of Eden who "enlightened" mankind with the secret knowledge, while the true Light of the world, the God of the Bible, is viewed as evil and oppressive.

In Revelation 22:15 Jesus is quoted saying, "I am the bright and morning star." Which is to say, Lucifer (not that Jesus was Satan, but that he is the bearer of Light which is in this case symbolic of being the herald for the dawning Kingdom of heaven just like Venus heralds the rising of the sun each morning).

When these men spoke of Lucifer they were speaking on an intellectual level intentionally to lead prying eyes astray.

Also this theory of yours has been debunked for years now, Google Leo Taxil and The Taxil Hoax.

I'm not sure what "theory" you're referring to, but I think you're missing the esoteric meaning of it all. Yes Jesus is the true bearer of light, while the god of Freemasonry is a counterfeit who deceives mankind with false light and false religion to lead us into darkness. The occult is the antithesis of true Christianity while attempting to steal many of Christ's attributes and turning them backwards. Satan has always desired to be God, and has tried to convince mankind that he is, and he has always had his own followers and religion throughout history. While he stole many concepts from Christianity, so too false Christianity stole many of its concepts from his religion, so that now it is difficult for many people to discern which is which.

I hope you're not so decieved as to think that Manly Hall, Helena Blavatsky, and Eliphas Levi, are the promoters of true Christianity. Their messages are the antithesis of the true light of the world, Jesus Christ, and are promoting the great deception of Satan.

SealedEternal

 

[izarya]

I'm not decieved on this in the least. You can bet on that. I AM an Esotericist by admission. Have been for years... initiated also.

 

[SealedEternal]

I'm not decieved on this in the least. You can bet on that. I AM an Esotericist by admission. Have been for years... initiated also.

I just noticed your signature quotes which illustrates exactly that. I understand where you're coming from, although we are on opposite sides of the issue.

As far as Bill Schnoebelen, I think a lot of what He says is true, but he discredits himself with outrageous claims as well. I tend to think that guys like him are agent provocateurs sent to derail people who are on the right track. It's always very suspicious when highly trained adepts in the occult suddenly switch sides and want to supposedly give away all of the secrets they've learned, and manage to do so without facing repercussions.

SealedEternal

 

[izarya]

I just noticed your signature quotes which illustrates exactly that. I understand where you're coming from, although we are on opposite sides of the issue.

As far as Bill Schnoebelen, I think a lot of what He says is true, but he discredits himself with outrageous claims as well. I tend to think that guys like him are agent provocateurs sent to derail people who are on the right track. It's always very suspicious when highly trained adepts in the occult suddenly switch sides and want to supposedly give away all of the secrets they've learned, and manage to do so without facing repercussions.

SealedEternal

Bill is not a highly trained adept by any stretch of the imagination. He may be well read on the topic of occultism in general, but we all know that there is a difference between theory and practice. Most theory cannot be fully understood with applying it practically.

My take on Bill (and others like him) is that they could not 'cut-it' in the occult world. Their "peers" did not recognize 'their greatness,' so they turned to a group that would be sure to not only acknowledge but praise them and devour every morsel as it fell from their lips.....the Christian church.

We are not actually on different sides, the way I see it your view of where I'm standing is obstructed, that's all.

Shalom.

 

[SealedEternal]

Bill is not a highly trained adept by any stretch of the imagination. He may be well read on the topic of occultism in general, but we all know that there is a difference between theory and practice. Most theory cannot be fully understood with applying it practically.

So you think he is a total fraud who read about occultism, but never truly practiced it? His claim is that He was a 33° Mason, a leader of a witches coven, a temple Mormon, Catholic priest and a practicing "vampire", among other things. I don't dispute your claim, but do you have any proof?

My take on Bill (and others like him) is that they could not 'cut-it' in the occult world. Their "peers" did not recognize 'their greatness,' so they turned to a group that would be sure to not only acknowledge but praise them and devour every morsel as it fell from their lips.....the Christian church.

Perhaps, although he claims that he excelled in everything occult that he got involved in, and was always quickly moved up the ladder in every occult organization he joined. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's his claim. It appears by his testimony that he could have gone as high as he wanted had he stayed with it, but he chose to change sides due to discovering the truth.

We are not actually on different sides, the way I see it your view of where I'm standing is obstructed, that's all.

I would strongly disagree. We are on opposite sides of a battle that has been going on as long as this world has existed, and are following different light bearers or "lords".

SealedEternal

 

[O.F.F.]

Nice try, Mike, but we were not in a theological discussion. There are some things you just don't address to the friends and family of one who has just died, and you did it.

"A simple yes or no" is not the issue, because the answer to the theological question you now ask was not the issue which got the thread moved. All you are doing is making a quick exit from any discussion of what happened, with a slick attempt to re-frame the issue. I don't intend to do you the courtesy of entertaining your re-frame at all.

Look, there is no re-frame at all. Take the recently deceased Mason out of the picture. I simply asked you a question regarding the belief of anyone who denies the veracity of Scripture and Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation.

You would think that a "Christian" pastor would have "no hesitation or secret evasion of mind in him, whatsoever" to answer the question as stated. Don't read into it, just answer it. If not, so be it. Or as you Masons say, "so mote it be." If you don't have the spiritual conviction to stand by what the Word says, that's fine. I understand your Masonic reputation hangs in the balance, even if you disregard your reputation as a supposed minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, as far as I'm concerned, any further delay or refraining from answering said question duly indicates intellectual and spiritual cowardice on your part.

 

[izarya]

So you think he is a total fraud who read about occultism, but never truly practiced it? His claim is that He was a 33° Mason, a leader of a witches coven, a temple Mormon, Catholic priest and a practicing "vampire", among other things. I don't dispute your claim, but do you have any proof?

No one can 'prove' anything, except those who may have been close to him, which I was not; but based on what I do know, and judging him against similar people who have sprung up in the past (like John Todd), I doubt he is being sincere. The 33rd degree is of the Scottish Rite and is an honorary degree, kind of like a life-time achievement award. As far as his Witch coven goes, he was a member and student of a coven and received a 1 year degree or course completion certificate. He also claims to have joined Palladium Masonry which is nonexistent, he claimed to be a 10th degree Rosicrucian, which is a degree conferred only to initiates who have done much works for the organization and have passed away.

Perhaps, although he claims that he excelled in everything occult that he got involved in, and was always quickly moved up the ladder in every occult organization he joined. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's his claim. It appears by his testimony that he could have gone as high as he wanted had he stayed with it, but he chose to change sides due to discovering the truth.

Yeah, right.

I would strongly disagree. We are on opposite sides of a battle that has been going on as long as this world has existed, and are following different light bearers or "lords".

SealedEternal

First if all, the only war that is going on is happening inside your head. You know nothing about me, my beliefs, or who I follow for that matter. Let's not get besides ourselves. There is but one Lord and that is Yehoshua Ha Mashiach or as you call him, Jesus Christ.

I just believe that there is also an esoteric side to the scriptures, and an understanding of which that is not meant for everyone. That is where the jewels and pearls lie, hidden from common view and that is the area of study that I am interested in. The exoteric and dogmatic aspects of religion are open for one and all, but my lot is not there to be found.

Gratias ago vos Deus