-
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.
What is a free mason?? /need advice?
- Thread starter eliseb
- Start date
- Status
Plan 9
I don't believe I'm saying anything different. Baalism was in the title for that article. Baal ism is the practice or worshiping Baal where all those pagans fall under that name along with many different baals.
I'm not obsessed with Baal, but my God says he is a jealous God. He doesn't like us praying to pagan gods.
I don't believe I'm saying anything different. Baalism was in the title for that article. Baal ism is the practice or worshiping Baal where all those pagans fall under that name along with many different baals.
I'm not obsessed with Baal, but my God says he is a jealous God. He doesn't like us praying to pagan gods.
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Thaddeus,
You said:
Do you have any knowledge of Hebrew, or any facility with it? I mean, you do make the claim:
If you know Hebrew, you can check this out with no trouble at all. I got the information from Wigram's New Englishman's Hebrew Concordance. But you need not even know Hebrew to find it, Strong's Concordance will work just as well, check out entries 1167 and 1168. They are the same--in fact my Strong's for 1168 even says, "same as 1167"--even though the definition you insist on is listed totally under 1168 (which has Ba'al with the capital), and the alternate meaning is all under 1167. I assume Strong simply separated them for the convenience of the person searching for one or the other.
I'm afraid your quote about the Hebrew month "bul" adds nothing to the discussion at all. "Bel" or "bal" or "ba'al" is clearly the intent of the ritual--or did you ignore the entire post? It just seems strange that you make no comment on the portion of the ritual that got posted, as though you are willfully ignoring what should be the primary source under consideration--the ritual, after all, being the original source you referred to in your critical comment. The author of the ritual certainly made his own meaning clear even as he wrote it. Kinda hard to miss that without simply skimming past it.
Wayne
You said:
Begging your pardon, but I fail to see how limiting the range of a word clarifies anything at all. I have no argument with the meaning you have "clarified" for us, you have been right on target with all you have said about it.
Do you have any knowledge of Hebrew, or any facility with it? I mean, you do make the claim:
But for someone who makes that claim, you don't exhibit any true knowledge of Hebrew--unless, that is, you simply choose to ignore the fact that the Hebrew word ba'al has a wider range than you allow for it. And if it comes down to "boiling it down" or whatever you want to call it, the word appears, with the meaning you attribute to it, 80 times in the Old Testament. The word also appears, with the Hebrew spelling exactly the same, 84 times in the Old Testament. It appears to have started out meaning simply "husband"; moved from that to "lord," which has the feudal definition of lord as the male head of the household; from there it began to be translated as "owner" or "master," the husband being considered in that culture the "owner" of his wife; from there it developed into the meaning which you just covered, since the attributes were a natural fit ("lord and master").
If you know Hebrew, you can check this out with no trouble at all. I got the information from Wigram's New Englishman's Hebrew Concordance. But you need not even know Hebrew to find it, Strong's Concordance will work just as well, check out entries 1167 and 1168. They are the same--in fact my Strong's for 1168 even says, "same as 1167"--even though the definition you insist on is listed totally under 1168 (which has Ba'al with the capital), and the alternate meaning is all under 1167. I assume Strong simply separated them for the convenience of the person searching for one or the other.
I'm afraid your quote about the Hebrew month "bul" adds nothing to the discussion at all. "Bel" or "bal" or "ba'al" is clearly the intent of the ritual--or did you ignore the entire post? It just seems strange that you make no comment on the portion of the ritual that got posted, as though you are willfully ignoring what should be the primary source under consideration--the ritual, after all, being the original source you referred to in your critical comment. The author of the ritual certainly made his own meaning clear even as he wrote it. Kinda hard to miss that without simply skimming past it.
Wayne
Upvote
0
billmcelligott
The Sojourner
Thats another easy one Thad, NOTHING.Thaddeus said:
If you go to the Amazon link you can find they have 80 sample pages of the BiBle they sell. So you can check for yourself. Its strts with genesis then goes on. I am not so sure I would buy a Bible that mixes ritual with the Holy Book. Thats a matter of personel choice.
I just purchased one for my Sons initiation. It was the king James Version. Standard edition.
Now I tell a lie, I did not purchase it Thad. I hope you will find this interesting it was sent to me as agift from one of my very best pals. An Ex Mason who left ther Craft on Religious grounds. He lives in Teenesee I live in England. It arrived by parcel post out of the Blue. I will ever think of this man when my son is beside me in my Lodge.
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Eliseb,
Well, I see I'm not the only one you've PM'ed--although I don't understand why, your post here says about the same. I must, after reading your comments about this man who was your manager, make a couple of observations:
(1) This was one man, he was not all of Freemasonry, nor was he the sum total of the Shriners organization. My mom made a cake years ago, in which she accidentally substituted cornstarch for the powdered sugar it called for. I have to say, that was one raunchy-tasting cake! But I still eat cake.....
(2) This was one portion of this man's life and not the sum total of who he ever was before that point, or who he was ever to become afterward--or even the sum total of who he is/was at that point. I too had some negative feelings about a co-worker who one day told me he was a Mason and Shriner. Don was a big, burly, gruff-looking guy, ex-Marine with tattoos and such, about 6-foot-2. And he talked quite a bit about the church and the Lord. But I held it very much against his witness that half the time I heard him speak of God, it was in combination with God's "last name." But one day he was telling me about a visit he had made to the Shriners' hospital. He had a little friend there about 8 or 9 years old, who thought he was the greatest thing in the world. When he came in the room, she lit up and said, "Don! Don! I want to show you something!" And she went over to the piano and sat down and played "Jesus Loves Me." That may have been no big deal for any other little girl, but it certainly was for her. She was born without any arms, and had to play it with her toes. I don't know whose face was wetter, Don's in telling me the story, or mine in hearing it. But I knew one thing for sure: no matter what I had seen of Don up until that point, that was the first real glimpse I got of his heart.
I think you jump to far too many conclusions about things of which perhaps you have no personal knowledge. And you give up far too easy on there being anything redemptive about a person when you have no way of knowing their heart. But at least I can understand you, I started out with similar opinions about Freemasonry, at least until I began to realize it was all just an echo of what I'd been told. Personal investigation has shown a far different story.
Wayne
Well, I see I'm not the only one you've PM'ed--although I don't understand why, your post here says about the same. I must, after reading your comments about this man who was your manager, make a couple of observations:
(1) This was one man, he was not all of Freemasonry, nor was he the sum total of the Shriners organization. My mom made a cake years ago, in which she accidentally substituted cornstarch for the powdered sugar it called for. I have to say, that was one raunchy-tasting cake! But I still eat cake.....
(2) This was one portion of this man's life and not the sum total of who he ever was before that point, or who he was ever to become afterward--or even the sum total of who he is/was at that point. I too had some negative feelings about a co-worker who one day told me he was a Mason and Shriner. Don was a big, burly, gruff-looking guy, ex-Marine with tattoos and such, about 6-foot-2. And he talked quite a bit about the church and the Lord. But I held it very much against his witness that half the time I heard him speak of God, it was in combination with God's "last name." But one day he was telling me about a visit he had made to the Shriners' hospital. He had a little friend there about 8 or 9 years old, who thought he was the greatest thing in the world. When he came in the room, she lit up and said, "Don! Don! I want to show you something!" And she went over to the piano and sat down and played "Jesus Loves Me." That may have been no big deal for any other little girl, but it certainly was for her. She was born without any arms, and had to play it with her toes. I don't know whose face was wetter, Don's in telling me the story, or mine in hearing it. But I knew one thing for sure: no matter what I had seen of Don up until that point, that was the first real glimpse I got of his heart.
I think you jump to far too many conclusions about things of which perhaps you have no personal knowledge. And you give up far too easy on there being anything redemptive about a person when you have no way of knowing their heart. But at least I can understand you, I started out with similar opinions about Freemasonry, at least until I began to realize it was all just an echo of what I'd been told. Personal investigation has shown a far different story.
Wayne
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
I can't help but notice:
Folks in here have called Freemasonry a religion, quoting especially from Pike's comment as "proof."
----Yet, Pike was quoted as saying just the opposite, and the other quote that was cited was shown to be taken out of context.
END RESULT: Ignored wtihout further comment.
Folks in here have made the accusation that Freemasonry is rather tame in the lower degrees, and shows its true satanic colors in the "higher degrees," citing the Royal Arch degree as an example.
-----Yet, ample quotes were provided from the ritual, showing that not only was it not demonic, it had a decidedly trinitarian Christian flavor to it.
END RESULT: Ignored without further comment.
Folks in here have made the accusation that the Royal Arch "name for God" is demonic or polytheistic.
-----Yet, once again, portions of the ritual pretty well tell a different story. And since ritual content is the subject of the attack, then ritual content should be the primary source to be dealing with.
END RESULT: Remains to be seen, but I must say, it's getting awful quiet in here.
And even though it is very true that "You have not converted your opponent because you have silenced him(her)," I would certainly hope that the silence in here indicates that they have been given something to think about, and are taking the time to do so.
Wayne
Folks in here have called Freemasonry a religion, quoting especially from Pike's comment as "proof."
----Yet, Pike was quoted as saying just the opposite, and the other quote that was cited was shown to be taken out of context.
END RESULT: Ignored wtihout further comment.
Folks in here have made the accusation that Freemasonry is rather tame in the lower degrees, and shows its true satanic colors in the "higher degrees," citing the Royal Arch degree as an example.
-----Yet, ample quotes were provided from the ritual, showing that not only was it not demonic, it had a decidedly trinitarian Christian flavor to it.
END RESULT: Ignored without further comment.
Folks in here have made the accusation that the Royal Arch "name for God" is demonic or polytheistic.
-----Yet, once again, portions of the ritual pretty well tell a different story. And since ritual content is the subject of the attack, then ritual content should be the primary source to be dealing with.
END RESULT: Remains to be seen, but I must say, it's getting awful quiet in here.
And even though it is very true that "You have not converted your opponent because you have silenced him(her)," I would certainly hope that the silence in here indicates that they have been given something to think about, and are taking the time to do so.
Wayne
Upvote
0
Plan 9
Absolutely Elsewhere
- Jul 7, 2002
- 9,028
- 686
- 72
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Private
Since Masons belong to OES, I know quite a few, Thad, as well as having numerous Mason family members.Thaddeus said:
However, since you don't want me to reply to your posts, I'll cease to do so.
You shouldn't post "thanks for sharing" and then tell me what I can or cannot post on an open thread; you don't speak for everyone posting here.
Once again, your post shows that you have already made up your mind.
By your reasoning, it's wrong for you to belong to CF.
Upvote
0
billmcelligott
The Sojourner
Thad,
Plan 9 has come up with the same answers as i have . Does that not suggest we are talking off the same Hymn sheet.
Im in the UK she in the States yet we have the same basic interpretation of what Masonry is about. Does taht on its own make you pause and think.
Either we are both part of a satanic cult, bent on corrupting the world. Or we are just telling the truth. Ther you have to take a leap of faith, like most things in life.
Who sounds the most reasonble, those Anti Masonic web sites quoted previously or me, Wayne and Plan 9. An English common man, a UMC Minister and a drone from the year 2300. No contest.
Plan 9 has come up with the same answers as i have . Does that not suggest we are talking off the same Hymn sheet.
Im in the UK she in the States yet we have the same basic interpretation of what Masonry is about. Does taht on its own make you pause and think.
Either we are both part of a satanic cult, bent on corrupting the world. Or we are just telling the truth. Ther you have to take a leap of faith, like most things in life.
Who sounds the most reasonble, those Anti Masonic web sites quoted previously or me, Wayne and Plan 9. An English common man, a UMC Minister and a drone from the year 2300. No contest.
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne If i understand you correctly I'll say this. I don't believe Bul and Baal are entirely the same word. In the context where Bul and Baal become the same meaning it MUST be the pagan god of rain. That is where the two words meet. Bul, to my knowledge, has never carried the definition of Lord or Master, or husband. Do you have a source for a more open definition for Bul, not baal? The Bible seems to draw a distinction between the two words.
Upvote
0
billmcelligott
The Sojourner
Thad reference material: NoN masonic
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/mythobaal.htm
The Myth of Baal
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02175a.htm
Baal as defined by the catholic dictionary
http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T660
Month of the year
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/mythobaal.htm
The Myth of Baal
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02175a.htm
Baal as defined by the catholic dictionary
http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T660
Month of the year
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Thaddeus,
Give the man a cigar! You're absolutely right, except that you quibble a bit. Actually, they are not the same word at all. But there is a general understanding among Masonic authorities and anti-masonic critics alike, that whether it is bel, bal, bul, or bol, makes not one iota of difference. The fact is, the word took on various forms, was present in all the Mesopotamian languages, and was basically a generic word meaning "lord" which was used in reference to a variety of gods. And there is a simple reason for that:
Since the ritual mentions the Assyrian, it would be well to take a look at that one in particular. In the oldest texts, the name began as Belum, but later became associated with Marduk, the national Babylonian god, and became shortened. But it is clearly bel and not bul. But you are correct with the idea of rain, as this word in practically all the languages around Israel referred to the storm-god. (The word bul, which appears in my Hebrew concordance and lexicon, appears only 3 times in the entire Old Testament, once as a Hebrew month, twice meaning "food.")
The Amarna letters give strong evidence that by the 14th century B.C., the word b'al and derivatives was in widespread use all over Syria and Palestine. The Ba'al-Peor mentioned in the source you quoted was one distinctive ba'al among many. But other than the place-names, there is little to be learned from the words.
So much for the divine name usage, now for its origins and how it came to speak of deity.
The common Semitic word ba'lu means "lord," and with the following genitive frequently "owner." A few examples may be mentioned: Akkadian beli, "my lord," Ugaritic b'ly, "my lord"; Akkadian bel biti, "owner of the house," bel eqli, "owner of the field," bel seni, "owner of sheep"; Phoenician, b'l bqr, "owner of a herd of cattle," b'l s'n, "owner of sheep"; Aramaic b'ly rkb, "owner of a war-chariot," b'l ksp, "owner of silver"; Hebrew ba'al hashshor, "owner of the ox" (Ex. 21:28), ba'al habbor, "owner of the pit" (Ex. 21:34), and ba'al habbayith, "owner of the house" (Ex. 22:8). In this sense ba'al is also used in the plural of respect, of an individual owner (Ex. 21:29); Isa. 1:3).
The husband is "owner" of his wife, and therefore b'l also means "husband." Moreover, he is "lord of the house," "head of the family," and the king is "lord" over lands, cities, and subjects. In another sense, b'l can indicate that a person participates in a community. Thus b'l is used of a member of the city aristocracy (Jgs. 9:2, 20:5, 1 Sam. 23:11f., 2 Sam. 21:12, etc.) and of a partner in a covenant, Akk. bel ade or Heb. ba'al berith (Gen. 14:13). (Botterweck & Ringgren, TDOT, p. 181-182).
The word also takes on the idea of "master" in idiomatic expressions: ba'al chitstsim, "archer" ("master of arrows"), ba'al kanaph, "bird" ("master of wings"), and ba'al haqqeranayim, "having two horns" ("master of horns").
(On a side note, the only difference between ba'al and Ba'al, common noun versus proper name, is that Ba'al as a name takes the article in the Hebrew; thus Ba'al is "the Ba'al).
Whew! What say, Thad, shall we now lay this word to rest?
Wayne
P.S. The only other source for this post, besides Wigram's concordance and Botterweck & Ringgren's dictionary, was Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Give the man a cigar! You're absolutely right, except that you quibble a bit. Actually, they are not the same word at all. But there is a general understanding among Masonic authorities and anti-masonic critics alike, that whether it is bel, bal, bul, or bol, makes not one iota of difference. The fact is, the word took on various forms, was present in all the Mesopotamian languages, and was basically a generic word meaning "lord" which was used in reference to a variety of gods. And there is a simple reason for that:
Since the ritual mentions the Assyrian, it would be well to take a look at that one in particular. In the oldest texts, the name began as Belum, but later became associated with Marduk, the national Babylonian god, and became shortened. But it is clearly bel and not bul. But you are correct with the idea of rain, as this word in practically all the languages around Israel referred to the storm-god. (The word bul, which appears in my Hebrew concordance and lexicon, appears only 3 times in the entire Old Testament, once as a Hebrew month, twice meaning "food.")
The Amarna letters give strong evidence that by the 14th century B.C., the word b'al and derivatives was in widespread use all over Syria and Palestine. The Ba'al-Peor mentioned in the source you quoted was one distinctive ba'al among many. But other than the place-names, there is little to be learned from the words.
So much for the divine name usage, now for its origins and how it came to speak of deity.
The common Semitic word ba'lu means "lord," and with the following genitive frequently "owner." A few examples may be mentioned: Akkadian beli, "my lord," Ugaritic b'ly, "my lord"; Akkadian bel biti, "owner of the house," bel eqli, "owner of the field," bel seni, "owner of sheep"; Phoenician, b'l bqr, "owner of a herd of cattle," b'l s'n, "owner of sheep"; Aramaic b'ly rkb, "owner of a war-chariot," b'l ksp, "owner of silver"; Hebrew ba'al hashshor, "owner of the ox" (Ex. 21:28), ba'al habbor, "owner of the pit" (Ex. 21:34), and ba'al habbayith, "owner of the house" (Ex. 22:8). In this sense ba'al is also used in the plural of respect, of an individual owner (Ex. 21:29); Isa. 1:3).
The husband is "owner" of his wife, and therefore b'l also means "husband." Moreover, he is "lord of the house," "head of the family," and the king is "lord" over lands, cities, and subjects. In another sense, b'l can indicate that a person participates in a community. Thus b'l is used of a member of the city aristocracy (Jgs. 9:2, 20:5, 1 Sam. 23:11f., 2 Sam. 21:12, etc.) and of a partner in a covenant, Akk. bel ade or Heb. ba'al berith (Gen. 14:13). (Botterweck & Ringgren, TDOT, p. 181-182).
The word also takes on the idea of "master" in idiomatic expressions: ba'al chitstsim, "archer" ("master of arrows"), ba'al kanaph, "bird" ("master of wings"), and ba'al haqqeranayim, "having two horns" ("master of horns").
(On a side note, the only difference between ba'al and Ba'al, common noun versus proper name, is that Ba'al as a name takes the article in the Hebrew; thus Ba'al is "the Ba'al).
Whew! What say, Thad, shall we now lay this word to rest?
Wayne
P.S. The only other source for this post, besides Wigram's concordance and Botterweck & Ringgren's dictionary, was Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne The first two paragraphs deal with the issue while the rest simply defines baal again. I conceed baal and bel were originally meant as "lord, master." Most sources consider bel and baal to be synonymous. http://www.awmach.org/cgi-bin/tr/RED?t=513~b=BAV
I don't believe that bul took on any such meaning until the people wanted to make rain a lord or a god.
You are trying to say the base "bl" can be understood to be the same, but I don't think so. The Bible does make the distinction. It's not the month baal, it's bul.
The Bible gives the context for bul as a month, not lordship. You conceeded bul means rain, so then bul becomes the rain month.
I still don't see a connection to baal other than considering the rain as a god.
I don't believe that bul took on any such meaning until the people wanted to make rain a lord or a god.
You are trying to say the base "bl" can be understood to be the same, but I don't think so. The Bible does make the distinction. It's not the month baal, it's bul.
The Bible gives the context for bul as a month, not lordship. You conceeded bul means rain, so then bul becomes the rain month.
I still don't see a connection to baal other than considering the rain as a god.
Upvote
0
Plan 9 I'm not saying don't post anything. I'm just saying that if I ask a mason a question. I would hope a mason could answer it. I'd like to ask a mason why they have their own version of the Bible.
Upvote
0
Plan 9
Absolutely Elsewhere
- Jul 7, 2002
- 9,028
- 686
- 72
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Private
You did ask that question and no post I made prevented it from being answered by a Mason. However, if you to only hear from Masons, I won't reply to your posts. If you aren't interested in what I have to say, I won't bother you.Thaddeus said:
I'm not going to ask you any more questions, either, okay?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
