Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[Albion]

Where does the Church gets its blood and body from to form the Eucharist - the local store?

The rest of your post is really the sort of assembly line of grand conspiracy theories that make good fiction. Do yourself a favour and stop reading pulp fiction.

Well, the church doesn't use any actual blood, but the accusation made about blood and Masonry is, as you and I understand, just a claim. Nothing was given to substantiate anything about the use of blood.

 

[huldah153]

Then too, Washington was a lifelong Mason and even took his oath of office on a Masonic edition of the Bible. I doubt that anyone can make that fact into a renunciation of Freemasonry.

Washington was a Mason during the time that the Lodges were not completely infiltrated. But in this letter, he was confirming the opinion of Professor John Robison that the infiltration by the Illuminati was spreading like wildfire.

The only "conspiracy theory" is the claim that the Illuminati has no influence, or that Masonry promotes noble ideals.

 

[Albion]

Washington was a Mason during the time that the Lodges were not completely infiltrated. But in this letter, he was confirming the opinion of Professor John Robison that the infiltration by the Illuminati was spreading like wildfire.

But he doesn't say that. He doesn't allege that the Illuminati controlled either European or American Masonry. He clearly denies that it has any control over the latter. All that he speaks to are the "Doctrines" of Illuminism, NOT anything about the Illuminati having "control," and he says that even the spread of Illumist doctrine is not evident, even going so far as to explain why he thinks it cannot spread here.

 

[huldah153]

But he doesn't say that. He doesn't allege that the Illuminati controlled either European or American Masonry. He clearly denies that it has any control over the latter. All that he speaks to are the "Doctrines" of Illuminism, NOT anything about the Illuminati having "control," and he says that even the spread of Illumist doctrine is not evident, even going so far as to explain why he thinks it cannot spread here.

No, what was "evident" to Washington was the fact that individual Masons were involved in attempts to maintain an elitist form of government that wasn't controlled by the people, and would fulfill the hostile objectives of the two organizations.

 

[Albion]

No, what was "evident" to Washington was the fact that individual Masons were involved in attempts to maintain an elitist form of government that wasn't controlled by the people, and would fulfill the hostile objectives of the two organizations.

Washington neither says that individuals were involved in 1) promoting Illuminist ideals nor that they were 2) attempting to maintain an elitist form of government nor that 3) Masonry itself was.

What I read is Washington denying that Masonry is involved with the Illuminati or Jacobinism. He wrote: The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter

That's a denial of the charge, not a confirmation of it.

And he allowed in that paragraph that "Individuals of them (lodges) MAY have done it (meaning promote those organizations' ideas, not "maintain an Elitist" form of government)" but he can't confirm it.

That is far, far from your interpretation of his words. He rejects the idea that Masonry promoted Illuminism and has no knowledge of individuals even attempting to do so on their own. It's not as you said, that individuals were involved. He says he has no knowledge of any being involved.

And as for any suggestion that the Illuminati "control" Masonry or did--which is what you also claimed Washington had said--that is obviously not to be found anywhere in his words.

I do appreciate all the information that anyone wants to give, but this note from Washington says the opposite of what you thought it did.

And since the leaders of the American Revolution (key ones of which were Masons as Washington was) were fighting against the "elitist" English monarchy, this particular charge doesn't even pass the history test. The US Constitution is their product, not some "elitist" form of government.

But anyway, the thread is about Freemasonry and Christianity, not this.

 

[huldah153]

To the best of my knowledge, not once did the NT apostles use the name "Jahbulon" for the Father in their writings.

 

[Albion]

To the best of my knowledge, not once did the NT apostles use the name "Jahbulon" for the Father in their writings.

It isn't used in the any of the degrees leading to becoming a Master Mason, either.

I have learned enough about Freemasonry to be certain of that. And, in fact, so can anyone. There's no need to rely on hearsay or anti-Masonic internet sites; hardly anything in the Masonic rituals is actually secret, although people think it all is.

That doesn't mean that I don't want to find reliable and accurate information that shows the fraternity to be Satanic or whatever, if it's available. I do. So I thank you for your posts and for whatever else you can offer in the way of evidence.

 

[Rev Wayne]

To the best of my knowledge, not once did the NT apostles use the name "Jahbulon" for the Father in their writings

And to the best of my knowledge, having been through the Royal Arch Degree from which that misunderstanding arises, nobody there uses this in any way that could be construed as a "name." As a matter of fact, in that degree, those are three separate words and are not ever joined at all, it is the accusers who have joined them together in order to create the accusation. The only name identified as "God" in Royal Arch is Jehovah.

 

[GuardianShua]

To free one's self of deception, a person needs to be honest with themselves. It also helps to be well studied. For example, Yahshua gave us three words, through which deceptions would come to deceive the very Elect of God. Those words are "Father," "Master," and "Rabbi." These are like three frogs going throughout the world to deceive.

Jude 1:4. Because you are unaware that certain men have sneeked in, who are of a ancient order to their condemnation, these ungodly men turn the grace of our God into immorality, and deny that the only God is Yahwah, or that our lord Yahshua is the Messiah.
5. I will remined you although you once knew this, how Yahwah, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that did not believe.
6. Those messengers did not keep their first estate, and they were removed from their place, and He has reserved for them everlasting chains of darkness for that great day of judgment.

 

[Albion]

From my scant knowledge, Rev. Wayne is right about that. "Jahbulon" is not a name of anything or anyone, but actually three different names, nor is "Jahbulon" ever mentioned as an divine entity, prayed to, or anything of the sort. I also strongly think that Rev. Wayne, an ordained Methodist minister, would have noticed if it were otherwise.

 

[Rev Wayne]

From my scant knowledge, Rev. Wayne is right about that. "Jahbulon" is not a name of anything or anyone, but actually three different names, nor is "Jahbulon" ever mentioned as an divine entity, prayed to, or anything of the sort. I also strongly think that Rev. Wayne, an ordained Methodist minister, would have noticed if it were otherwise.

The very first version of Royal Arch I ever saw, I received by email, a version which was then (circa 5 years ago) in current use in Canada. Not only were things contained in that one just as I have described them of ours, theirs also had two verses of the Christian Trinitarian Hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy," which were sung by the participants during the ritual. And in that particular version, which being derived from the UGLE, I took to be closer perhaps than some versions, to what Royal Arch was at its origination.

A significant difference was, the writer of their ritual described each of these words not only as Egyptian and Assyrian names for deity, but stated that they were ALSO Hebrew words, and gave a meaning for each. Of these three words, it says:

The first, JAH, is the Chaldaic name of God, signifying His essence of majesty, incomprehensible; it is also a Hebrew word, signifying I am and shall be, thereby expressing the actual, future and eternal existence of the Most High. When the Almighty commanded Moses to go into Egypt to deliver his brethren, Moses said; Behold when I come unto the children of Israel and shall say unto them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you and they shall say unto me, what is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM, that is I am from eternity to eternity. The second, BUL, is an Assyrian word, signifying, Lord or Powerful; it is also a compound Hebrew word from the preposition Beth, in Heaven, or on high; therefore this word means, Lord in Heaven or on High. The third, ON, is an Egyptian word, signifying, Father of all; it is also a Hebrew word, signifying strength or power, and is expressive of the omnipotence of the Father of all; taken together they will read thus: I am and shall be, Lord in Heaven or on High, Father of all, the all powerful Jehovah.

The first Hebrew word poses no problem, as most Christians understand the "Jah" or "Yah" from which we derive "Jahveh" or "Jehovah." The second is more difficult, because some people can't quite get their heads around it, the word being ba'al and thus appearing to be identical to the name of a false deity whose influence plagued the Hebrews through a significant part of their history. But there are actually two Hebrew words of identical spelling, the only difference (in English) being, that Strong's Concordance capitalizes the one referring the Ba'al gods, and leaves in lower-case the other. The lower-case is the one intended here, and corresponds to Strong's #1167, carrying a meaning of "lord" or "master" (Ba'al the Phoenician deity is #1168). The third gave me the most trouble when I did my research, and for some time I had no luck. Then a friend advised me on it and pointed me to the word, which in Hebrew has a silent initial consonant (the aleph as I recall) and thus eluded my search. The word is from Strong's Hebrew #202 and is transliterated exactly as the ritual author has it, "on," although with a long "o" pronunciation it more properly would be written as "own."

So I have always found this word and its derivation to be as this ritual author has stated, three Hebrew words which (whether coincidence or not I don't know) just happen to also be names for deity in other languages of the region, and which are identifiable attributes of the God we serve. There is also a direct acknowledgment that it speaks of Jehovah, and there are accompanying strong affirmations of God as Triune.

 

[Albion]

That accords with everything I have read about this. The pronunciation used is also "OH nn" or "Own," I believe, and not "On"--which would further establish what you wrote. It has been argued that this third word refers to Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld and eternal life, but I haven't been able to find anything specific that would support this theory. Additionally, Osiris was never the only god in that system or even the chief deity. Pairing this name with Jah, therefore, would seem to me to be illogical and counter to Masonry's view of God.