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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
It isn't used in the any of the degrees leading to becoming a Master Mason, either.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.To the best of my knowledge, not once did the NT apostles use the name "Jahbulon" for the Father in their writings
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.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 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."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.
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?