Re: Abiding in Christ
Revelation 2
<bwme...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:i3huv4dfd0097b8mt...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 19:15:00 +1000, "\(�`�.�Spammer Trol Craig
> Chilton�.���\)" <drivels...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Trudie" <rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:i43Ll.4155$9J5....@newsfe13.iad...
>>> Abiding in Christ
>>> Jesus recommended to us his Body and Blood in bread and
>>> wine, elements that are reduced into one out of many constituents. What
>>> is
>>> meant
>>> by eating
>>> that food and taking that drink is this: to remain in Christ and have
>>> him
>>> remaining in us.
>>
>>
>>Who don't eat bread and drink wine is antichrist.
The Bible, Matthew:
26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and
giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from
it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Please note the word COVENANT after commands to eat and drink.
Who do NOT eat and drink as Jeses said is against Him - hence Antichrist -
and belong to religious cult with some resemblance to Christianty by using
some parts of The Bible selectivelly but IGNORING THE LATEST COVENANT
replacing the old ones.
>>
>>Seven Day Adventist and Jehowah Witness for example.
>>
>>Both created by freemasonoic Jews.
>
Both Seven Day Adventist and Jehowah Witness are followers of Millerism.
Simple Google search and you will find Miller was a freemason BEFORE he
became a Christian. Connection between Judaism and Freemasonry is obvious.
The sect known today as the Jehovah's Witnesses started out in Pennsylvania
in 1870, as a Bible class started by Charles Taze Russell. Russell named his
group the "Millennial Dawn Bible Study." Charles T. Russell began writing a
series of books he called "The Millennial Dawn," which stretched to six
volumes before his death and contained much of the theology Jehovah�s
Witnesses now hold. After Russell's death in 1916, Judge J. F. Rutherford,
Russell's friend and successor, wrote the seventh and final volume of the
"Millennial Dawn" series, "The Finished Mystery," in 1917. Jehovah's
Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement.
Sociologists of religion have classified the group as an Adventist sect. The
group emerged from the Bible Student Movement, founded in the late 19th
century by Charles Taze Russell, who was a freemason and burried under
Pyramide shape monument with masonic symbols (Search for Rosemont United
Cemetery - plenty of pictures available, for example at:
http://www.freeminds.org/organization/russell/charles-t.-russell-gravesite-rosemont-united-cemetery.html .
You can also see that a nearby road is called MASONIC WAY.
Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation
of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the
non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the
identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the
Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the
soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914. Nowhere is Scripture are Jesus and
Michael even mentioned together. Jehovah�s Witnesses believe salvation is
obtained by a combination of faith, good works, and obedience. This
contradicts countless scriptures which declare salvation to be received by
grace through faith.
When 1914 had come and gone, with no Jesus in sight, Russell modified his
teachings and claimed Jesus had, in fact, returned to Earth, but that his
return was invisible. His visible return would come later, but still very
soon. It would result in the final conflict between God and the Devil�the
forces of good and the forces of evil�in which God would be victorious. This
conflict is known to Witnesses as the battle of Armageddon, and just about
everything the Witnesses teach centers around this doctrine.
Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by "Judge" Joseph R. Rutherford.
Rutherford, born in 1869, had been brought up as a Baptist and became the
legal adviser to the Watch Tower. He never was a real judge, but took the
title because, as an attorney, he substituted at least once for an absent
judge.
At one time he claimed Russell was next to Paul as an expounder of the
gospel, but later, in an effort to have his writings supplant Russell�s, he
let Russell�s books go out of print. It was Rutherford who coined the
slogan, "Millions now living will never die." By it he meant that some
people alive in 1914 would still be alive when Armageddon came and the world
was restored to a paradise state.
Now, SEVEN DAY ADVENTISTS: Search Google for "seven day adventist freemason"
No need to look at about 11,000 results as at
http://www.cephasministry.com/index_7th_day_adventist.html
is picture of Founder of 7th Day Adventism Ellen G. White's Tomb Stone.
Obelisks represent Freemasonry.
There are zillion of pages on the Internet about Jewish nature of
freemasonry - Just use
Google.
The "cult" can normally be spotted rather easily, because it goes about
building up its "empire" of followers, built on half truths and outright
lies, usually requesting substatntial donations from the followers to
finance luxurious lifestyle of leaders. Jesus did not buy a jetplane for
money collected from His followers.
Any cult (sect) will always get caught in their lies when they directly
contradict
Jesus, as Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Christian Science do. A cult will
also have some other "revelation" outside holy Scripture that they rely on,
which creates their dogmas. Mormons do (John Smith), Christian Scientists
do (Mary Baker Eddy), Jehovah Witnesses do (their own made up Bible),
Scientology does (L. Ron Hubbard) Islam does (Muhammad); and so do Seventh
Day Adventists. SDA's rely on writings of Ellen White. Cults members will
nearly always hide their affiliation, in order to get a foothold into
meetings, etc.
In his book Answers to Objections, F. D. Nichol demonstrated how the
psycho-logical defense that Adventists erected in their early days (due to
falsely picking dates for Christ's return, etc.) has carried over into
modern times. He wrote:
"When Seventh-day Adventist ministers go into a community to hold a series
of lectures. they conceal, at first, their denominational connection. They
thus hope to draw into the audience people who would never have come if they
knew that Seventh-day Adventists were conducting the meetings. This is a
form of deception. There is something the matter with a religious body that
is afraid to identify itself as soon as it begins to carry on any activity
in a community."
So, what can we make of Seventh Day Adventists? Although the SDA includes a
number of doctrines (e.g. Sabbatarianism, conditional immorality or soul
sleep, annihilation of the wicked, Investigative Judgment) that are outside
the mainstream of historic Christian theology, Seventh Day Adventists (also
simply known by the acronym: SDA) do accept the essential doctrines of the
Christian faith. Yet, on the other hand, they do preach a different Gospel.
To an orthodox Christian, any different Gospel than Jesus preached is a lie.
Hope that help.
May God bless you and take you to the right track.
> Please document this interesting statement --- all 3 implied
> assertions.
>
> Thank you
>
> Bob
> Christ Died to Save You
innerjewel
> >>Both created by freemasonoic Jews.
> Pyramide shape monument with masonic symbols (Search for Rosemont United
> You can also see that a nearby road is called MASONIC WAY.
Please describe the obvious connection between Freemasonry and Judaism
for us.
Taze Russell was Jewish?
What Masonic Lodge did he belong to?
There is no mention of a pyramid in any Masonic ritual that I am aware
of s how is a pyramid a Masonic symbol?
So what if a nearby road is called Masonic way? Does this somehow
prove something significant?
> Russell taught his followers the
> non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the
> identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the
> Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the
> soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914. Nowhere is Scripture are Jesus and
> Michael even mentioned together
Where in the scripture is there any mention of the Trinity?
Larry W
>
> Please describe the obvious connection between Freemasonry and Judaism
> for us.
They both have men as members, silly.
> Taze Russell was Jewish?
> What Masonic Lodge did he belong to?
According to supposedly his own words, he is not a Mason.
http://www.pastor-russell.com/life/mason1.html. But facts are hardly up
for debate with the AJ club.
> There is no mention of a pyramid in any Masonic ritual that I am aware
> of s how is a pyramid a Masonic symbol?
Some Lodges have had the pyramid shaped symbol in their Lodge. The
triangle, or one face of a pyramid, does appear in some Masonic symbols.
But as you stated, it is not one of the typical symbols used in any of
the three capitular degrees.
> So what if a nearby road is called Masonic way? Does this somehow
> prove something significant?
It's a sure sign we're taking over the world. See, we've already
started with a street.
> Where in the scripture is there any mention of the Trinity?
Again you're trying to introduce fact. Facts don't help their cause,
which is why they ignore them so.
--
L a r r y W
PM, Holbrook #30, AF&AM | RP, Acacia #22, Amaranth
Forest Grove #37, RAM | Tualatin #31, OES
Sunset #20, Cryptic | Dad, Hillsboro #24, IORG
theologynut
wrote:
> innerjewel wrote:
>
> > Please describe the obvious connection between Freemasonry and Judaism
> > for us.
>
> They both have men as members, silly.
>
> > Taze Russell was Jewish?
> > What Masonic Lodge did he belong to?
>
> for debate with the AJ club.
>
> > There is no mention of a pyramid in any Masonic ritual that I am aware
> > of s how is a pyramid a Masonic symbol?
>
> Some Lodges have had the pyramid shaped symbol in their Lodge. The
> triangle, or one face of a pyramid, does appear in some Masonic symbols.
> But as you stated, it is not one of the typical symbols used in any of
> the three capitular degrees.
>
> > So what if a nearby road is called Masonic way? Does this somehow
> > prove something significant?
>
> It's a sure sign we're taking over the world. See, we've already
> started with a street.
>
> > Where in the scripture is there any mention of the Trinity?
>
> Again you're trying to introduce fact. Facts don't help their cause,
> which is why they ignore them so.
>
> --
> L a r r y W
> PM, Holbrook #30, AF&AM | RP, Acacia #22, Amaranth
> Forest Grove #37, RAM | Tualatin #31, OES
> Sunset #20, Cryptic | Dad, Hillsboro #24, IORG
"Partaking of the god," symbolized by bread and wine can be traced
back to the cult of Dionysus, the Greek god of wine (Bacchus in
Latin). During the Dionysian revels, wine symbolized the blood of the
animal sacrifice, usually a goat. Jews had strict taboos against
coming in contact with blood (remember Peter's admonition to
Christians to "avoid blood and fornication") and most scholars doubt
that Jesus would have compared what he was drinking to a taboo
substance. It is the result of syncretism (absorbing pagan rituals)
and the Hellenic influence of Greek Christians. Jesus probably
celebrated Passover with the usual four glasses of wine and food
representing the Jews' captivity in Egypt. He probably could not see
his future any better than any other mortal, and could hardly
memorialize a death that had yet to take place. Any more than he
could have foreseen the development of his teachings into an organized
and widespread EKKLESIA (church) before the death and alleged
resurrection that was the basis of that institution.
Misty-a
"theologynut" <sharonkath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af9fa35f-416d-40fd...@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~
When there is a chage in the priesthood there also is a chage in the
Law.
M,
Jim Bennie
news:xK9Ml.27484$5N7....@newsfe09.iad...
> innerjewel wrote:
>> So what if a nearby road is called Masonic way? Does this somehow
>> prove something significant?
>
> It's a sure sign we're taking over the world. See, we've already started
> with a street.
Gee, there are a bunch of Maple Streets out there. Maybe they think maple
trees are taking over the world, too.
Jim, Vancouver
Larry W
> Gee, there are a bunch of Maple Streets out there. Maybe they think maple
> trees are taking over the world, too.
Canadians, Jim. Canadians.
David Simpson
<jg.stopsp...@vcn.bc.ca> typed:
You mean, ... they (gulp) aren't?
--
Regards
David Simpson
(Unattached MM, Victoria, Australia)
Q:Why is it that Mexico isn't sending anyone to the '84 summer
games? A:Anyone in Mexico who can run, swim or jump is already
in LA.
Alex
Hash: SHA1
Jim Bennie wrote:
No no no....
The Maple leaf is the emblem of Canada, so obviously it indicates that
Canada is attempting to absorb the USA....
>
> Jim, Vancouver
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoEq/oACgkQ9gAxTR0xERUI7ACgkqBisGWER0iRDGWslaKYNldj
HvUAmwXc+blUu+8yX0Q1yXVtakSzjsbj
=rBps
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
innerjewel
Holy Trinity? I can't find one anywhere and one would think that such
an important aspect of Christianity would be prevailent in the
scriptures. It seems that this isn't the case.
Larry W
The Bible doesn't mention "Holy Trinity" per se, but does refer to God
the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. There's a decent
writeup at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Alex
Hash: SHA1
innerjewel wrote:
The doctrine of the Trinity has very shaky Scriptural foundations. no
reference to it is found in the earliest extant Church writings, and it
appears to have been developed around the time of the Council of Nicea.
The primary Scriptural references used to support the dogma are the passages
relating to what the churches refer to as "the Great Commission", one or two
passages in the Pauline Epistles and Acts where notable conversions are
related, and references are made to baptising "...in the name of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit".
Additional authority is sometimes drawn from the book of Genesis,
specifically the first chapter, often argued in conjunction with John
chapter 1. It is usually pointed out that "'elohim" is plural, and that God
is reported to have stated "Let *us* ...".
It is a difficult dogma to prove from Scripture, and when one considers that
many major Pagan deities were of a triune nature (Pagan Goddesses were
frequently regarded as having 3 aspects of the one, Hecate Triformis being
perhaps the best known in the Graeco-Roman world), one begins to suspect
that this is a belief stolen straight from the pre-Christian, Pagan
religions, in exactly the same way and for precisely the same reasons that
the early Church "adopted" all the important Pagan festivals (Yule =
Christmas, Samhain = Halloween, the Lunar Spring Festival names after
Ishtar/Astarte/Eostre became Easter, etcetera.), to make it easier for non-
Christians to convert.
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoFbIEACgkQ9gAxTR0xERWoLgCgg2BwrTY3ZuZd8AP6JNVZ4TTa
ThoAoI5M5P/eWbMU8boH2zrFWEgMR6+f
=TJ3T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Aaron
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>innerjewel wrote:
>
>> On a serious note, does anyone know of any biblical reference to the
>> Holy Trinity? I can't find one anywhere and one would think that such
>> an important aspect of Christianity would be prevailent in the
>> scriptures. It seems that this isn't the case.
>
>The doctrine of the Trinity has very shaky Scriptural foundations. no
>reference to it is found in the earliest extant Church writings, and it
>appears to have been developed around the time of the Council of Nicea.
>
>The primary Scriptural references used to support the dogma are the passages
>relating to what the churches refer to as "the Great Commission", one or two
>passages in the Pauline Epistles and Acts where notable conversions are
>related, and references are made to baptising "...in the name of the Father,
>the Son and the Holy Spirit".
>
>Additional authority is sometimes drawn from the book of Genesis,
>specifically the first chapter, often argued in conjunction with John
>chapter 1. It is usually pointed out that "'elohim" is plural, and that God
>is reported to have stated "Let *us* ...".
Elohim is the plural of Elohey, but the verb used (bara) is singular.
This indicates a Unity as Judaism believes, but does not give us the
number three.
>
>It is a difficult dogma to prove from Scripture, and when one considers that
>many major Pagan deities were of a triune nature (Pagan Goddesses were
>frequently regarded as having 3 aspects of the one, Hecate Triformis being
>perhaps the best known in the Graeco-Roman world), one begins to suspect
>that this is a belief stolen straight from the pre-Christian, Pagan
>religions, in exactly the same way and for precisely the same reasons that
>the early Church "adopted" all the important Pagan festivals (Yule =
>Christmas, Samhain = Halloween, the Lunar Spring Festival names after
>Ishtar/Astarte/Eostre became Easter, etcetera.), to make it easier for non-
>Christians to convert.
The "trinity" doctrine is the result of the work of the heretic Origen
who was excommunicated less than a year after he was ordained. Origen
defined God using the Middle Platonic Theosophy that was popular in
the Roman Empire in his time. By applying the explanation that Middle
Platonic Theosophy given for how the Pagan "gods" could be statues,
beings in Olympus and having a spiritual effect on their real of
influence, Origen redefined God into a Pagan image. This is despite
the fact that the Bible mentions four elements to God's Unity (Father,
Holy Spirit, Shekina (Presence), and Son, given in the order in which
they are described in the Bible).
I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish. Since
Freemasonry is not a religion, this makes sense . The more I hear
against Freemasonry from people who have no clue what it is but attack
based on paranoia and bigotry, the better my opinion of Freemasonry
becomes. The Freemasons are not lowering themselves to the level of
these dishonest people despite the lies being told about them. I do
find it sad that there are people out there who feel so bad about
themselves that they feel the need to make up those lies to distract
themselves from their own low self esteem. I pity those broken people
and wish that they would stop pretending that they are serving God by
attacking Freemasonry. God commanded us to never bear false witness;
you cannot serve God by falsely accusing people. These people claim
to be "Christian;" but Jesus said that we must not judge others and
that we should look to our own faults before attempting to help others
("Remove the log from your eye before attempting to remove the speck
from your comrade's eye.") That sounds like good advice!
David Simpson
<sett...@yahoo.com> typed:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>innerjewel wrote:
>
>> On a serious note, does anyone know of any biblical reference to the
>> Holy Trinity? I can't find one anywhere and one would think that such
>> an important aspect of Christianity would be prevailent in the
>> scriptures. It seems that this isn't the case.
>
[...]
>Additional authority is sometimes drawn from the book of Genesis,
>specifically the first chapter, often argued in conjunction with John
>chapter 1. It is usually pointed out that "'elohim" is plural, and that God
>is reported to have stated "Let *us* ...".
>
A reference to the "Royal 'We'" rather than a plural.
--
Regards
David Simpson
(Unattached MM, Victoria, Australia)
Q:What's the difference between a duck and an elephant? A:You
can't get down off an elephant.
Crimson Ghost
news:s80b05piq4cr70bui...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:43:53 +1000, Alex <sett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
> Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish. Since
> Freemasonry is not a religion, this makes sense . The more I hear
> against Freemasonry from people who have no clue what it is but attack
> based on paranoia and bigotry, the better my opinion of Freemasonry
> becomes.
Not to get off topic, but this makes me very happy.
I have faithfully served the Craft as Master seven times, and every time I
see someone say this, it just shows me that there are people who take the
time to think for themselves, and not accept what is told to them.
Alex, if you were to petition a lodge, that lodge would be proud to have
you as a member.
Crimson Ghost
,
"innerjewel" <fiat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ace604f-27a0-437c...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Trinity message:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm
(1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph.
4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2).
(2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the
divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding
all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment,
John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence,
Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit
statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8).
(3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter�s comments in
Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was
lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like
omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates
people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a
work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is
evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as �the Spirit of our God,�
(1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as �the Spirit, who is our God.�
if all 3 are God, that's Trinity.
if it quack as duck, and look like a duck.... it's a duck !!!
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=6287X
Peter, in explaining the phenomenon of Pentecost, represents it as the
activity of the Trinity: �This Jesus � being � exalted at the right hand of
God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he
has poured out this which you see and hear� (Acts 2:32-33). So the church of
Pentecost was founded on the doctrine of the Trinity.
2 Cor. 13:14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Peter traces salvation to the same triunal source: �destined by God the
Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ� (1 Pet.
1:2). The apostolic benediction: �The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the
love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all� (2 Cor.
13:14), not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but interprets the deeper
meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son
giving access to the love of the Father and to the communion of the Spirit.
Aaron
Actually, that was me (Aaron) responding to Alex.
>
>Crimson Ghost
Aaron
But you left out the Shekina (The Presence of God).
Alex
Hash: SHA1
Aaron wrote:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:43:53 +1000, Alex <sett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> Elohim is the plural of Elohey, but the verb used (bara) is singular.
> This indicates a Unity as Judaism believes, but does not give us the
> number three.
>
Actually, Elohim is made up word... it is a feminine root ('elo'ah according
to most scholars,although there is some argument) with a *masculine* plural
ending (the -im). It is the closest one can get to genderless in a language
which has no neuter gender.
>>
[snip]
>
> The "trinity" doctrine is the result of the work of the heretic Origen
> who was excommunicated less than a year after he was ordained. Origen
> defined God using the Middle Platonic Theosophy that was popular in
> the Roman Empire in his time. By applying the explanation that Middle
> Platonic Theosophy given for how the Pagan "gods" could be statues,
> beings in Olympus and having a spiritual effect on their real of
> influence, Origen redefined God into a Pagan image. This is despite
> the fact that the Bible mentions four elements to God's Unity (Father,
> Holy Spirit, Shekina (Presence), and Son, given in the order in which
> they are described in the Bible).
The "Son" aspect, IIRC. is specifically NT/Christian. Interesting also that
Shekinah is traditionally the feminine aspect of G-d
>
> I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
> Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish.
...And several Pagans (I'm not the only one here :) ).
> Since
> Freemasonry is not a religion, this makes sense . The more I hear
> against Freemasonry from people who have no clue what it is but attack
> based on paranoia and bigotry, the better my opinion of Freemasonry
> becomes. The Freemasons are not lowering themselves to the level of
> these dishonest people despite the lies being told about them. I do
> find it sad that there are people out there who feel so bad about
> themselves that they feel the need to make up those lies to distract
> themselves from their own low self esteem. I pity those broken people
> and wish that they would stop pretending that they are serving God by
> attacking Freemasonry. God commanded us to never bear false witness;
> you cannot serve God by falsely accusing people. These people claim
> to be "Christian;" but Jesus said that we must not judge others and
> that we should look to our own faults before attempting to help others
> ("Remove the log from your eye before attempting to remove the speck
> from your comrade's eye.") That sounds like good advice!
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoGvLIACgkQ9gAxTR0xERWWKACbBvBVRlAq3c9VSuSF7+8AY8PF
EWcAn2GcNXrwcUfo/ri6QXQUh6XNYWaV
=ZYCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alex
Hash: SHA1
Crimson Ghost wrote:
I think you meant to write "Aaron" :)
>
> Crimson Ghost
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoGvPUACgkQ9gAxTR0xERVvYQCeKuFBUcjKfUjy1oqEoQ50rG13
MEEAn06JKMKeX7XtoNo3CmYpGeGi/yvF
=AqLH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alex
Hash: SHA1
David Simpson wrote:
> [Default] On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:43:53 +1000, Alex
> <sett...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>innerjewel wrote:
>>
>>> On a serious note, does anyone know of any biblical reference to the
>>> Holy Trinity? I can't find one anywhere and one would think that such
>>> an important aspect of Christianity would be prevailent in the
>>> scriptures. It seems that this isn't the case.
>>
> [...]
>>Additional authority is sometimes drawn from the book of Genesis,
>>specifically the first chapter, often argued in conjunction with John
>>chapter 1. It is usually pointed out that "'elohim" is plural, and that
>>God is reported to have stated "Let *us* ...".
>>
> A reference to the "Royal 'We'" rather than a plural.
That is one view. However, since 'elohim is itself plural, then that view
becomes less probable...
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEUEARECAAYFAkoGvV8ACgkQ9gAxTR0xERU+UQCfSKgDuR9uyBBKoRyH3dG0xXaX
LnMAlA8dzcg0vNU6SfmGgrxsfClNXY8=
=2Hwi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
,
"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
news:as7d0550719n3vj7f...@4ax.com...
I didn't.
Shekina is part of Kabala - not a Christianity.
Crimson Ghost
news:00229744$0$9733$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
Ah.
Sorry about that.
Aaron, if YOU were to petition a lodge, that lodge would be proud to
have you as a member.
Crimson 'too poor to pay attention' Ghost
Aaron
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Aaron wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:43:53 +1000, Alex <sett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>
>> Elohim is the plural of Elohey, but the verb used (bara) is singular.
>> This indicates a Unity as Judaism believes, but does not give us the
>> number three.
>>
>
>Actually, Elohim is made up word... it is a feminine root ('elo'ah according
>to most scholars,although there is some argument) with a *masculine* plural
>ending (the -im). It is the closest one can get to genderless in a language
>which has no neuter gender.
That is not correct. the singular "Elohey" is used in Exodus.
Since all Language is "made up" by somone, the term "made up word" is
rather meaningless.
>>>
>[snip]
>>
>> The "trinity" doctrine is the result of the work of the heretic Origen
>> who was excommunicated less than a year after he was ordained. Origen
>> defined God using the Middle Platonic Theosophy that was popular in
>> the Roman Empire in his time. By applying the explanation that Middle
>> Platonic Theosophy given for how the Pagan "gods" could be statues,
>> beings in Olympus and having a spiritual effect on their real of
>> influence, Origen redefined God into a Pagan image. This is despite
>> the fact that the Bible mentions four elements to God's Unity (Father,
>> Holy Spirit, Shekina (Presence), and Son, given in the order in which
>> they are described in the Bible).
>
>The "Son" aspect, IIRC. is specifically NT/Christian. Interesting also that
>Shekinah is traditionally the feminine aspect of G-d
The Shekina is the nurturing aspect of God. In humans, this is
typically in the feminine, but I do not believe that Elohim is limited
to human stereotypes.
>>
>> I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
>> Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish.
>
>...And several Pagans (I'm not the only one here :) ).
I have not met any pagan Freemasons. I do know that the local lodge
does not allow Pagans (Polytheists) to join.
Aaron
>>>(3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments
>>>in
>>>Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias
>>>was
>>>lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess
>>>like
>>>omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He
>>>regenerates
>>>people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a
>>>work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is
>>>evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our
>>>God,â€
>>>(1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our
>>>God.â€
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>if all 3 are God, that's Trinity.
>>
>> But you left out the Shekina (The Presence of God).
>>
>
>
>I didn't.
>
>Shekina is part of Kabala - not a Christianity.
That is not true. The Shekina is biblical, not kabalistic. The
Shekina is mentioned in the Christian Bible, the "trinity" is not. If
fact the Zohar, the central work of the Kabbalah, is the only Jewish
source that discusses a "trinity" instead of a "Unity." The Kabbalah
uses a lot of Gemetria (Numerology using the Hebrew text) and it is
the mystical significance of the number three that leads Kabbalists to
theorize that the Unity might be tripartate.
The "trinity" was invented by Origen who used Middle Platonic
Theosophy to redefine God and explain Him to Pagan Greeks and Romans.
The Bible gives no less than four manifestations of God and Revelation
suggests that there may be seven elements to the Unity of God.
Since Christians do not agree on who should be allowed to call
themselves "Christian," I don't think a man made label is very
significant.
>
>
>>>
>>>if it quack as duck, and look like a duck.... it's a duck !!!
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=6287X
>>>
>>>Peter, in explaining the phenomenon of Pentecost, represents it as the
>>>activity of the Trinity: ‘This Jesus … being … exalted at the right
>>>hand of
>>>God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,
>>>he
>>>has poured out this which you see and hear’ (Acts 2:32-33). So the
>>>church of
>>>Pentecost was founded on the doctrine of the Trinity.
>>>
>>>2 Cor. 13:14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
>>>the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
>>>Peter traces salvation to the same triunal source: ‘destined by God the
>>>Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ’ (1
>>>Pet.
>>>1:2). The apostolic benediction: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and
>>>the
>>>love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2
Larry W
> I have not met any pagan Freemasons. I do know that the local lodge
> does not allow Pagans (Polytheists) to join.
This is probably a misinterpretation by one of the members. Masonry
only asks its members and petitioners to profess a belief in a Supreme
Being. We don't ask them to define the nature of that Deity, or to name
It, nor do we even ask if he worships it directly or through some other
means (for example, Christians believe in God, but pray in the name of
His Son, Jesus Christ). As Brother Reverend Joseph Fort Newton once
wrote (emphasis is mine): "When [a man] finds good in every religion
that helps any man to lay hold of divine things and see majestic
meanings in life, *whatever* the name of that faith may be ... such a
man has found the only real secret of Masonry, and the one which it is
trying to give to all the world."
My very limited research of Paganism reveals a primary God, or Supreme
Being, and lesser gods for things like harvests and luck and nice
weather. In Catholicism, by comparison, there is one God but we also
find hundreds of saints for causes like farmers, gamblers and even the
Internet. The similarities are not chance, since it is widely accepted
that many Pagan aspects were adopted by Christianity as attempts to
attract Pagans. I think this helps to suggest that Paganism really
isn't as polytheistic as we might assume, and so a Pagan, IMHO, could
easily find a home in Masonry.
So while it may be true that Masonry would not admit someone who could
not profess a belief in a Supreme Being, I don't think it actually would
inquire as to a man's choice of religion.
Aaron
"Paganism" is a catch-all term for structured polytheism. However,
there are many people who use the term for various forms of Wicca.
Many or the polytheists religions did not believe that their chief
"god" or any of their "gods" was a supreme being.
I suppose both terms leave a bit to the subjective interpretation of
the reader.
>
>So while it may be true that Masonry would not admit someone who could
>not profess a belief in a Supreme Being, I don't think it actually would
>inquire as to a man's choice of religion.
In the case of which I am familiar, the petitioners volunteered the
information about his beliefs. As i am not a member of the lodge, the
Master Mason who told me about the situation did not divulge all of
the lodge's reasoning for disallowing the petitioners's membership.
Aaron
>
>A great wisdom spitted from the under the apron of "innerjewel"
><fiat...@hotmail.com> in enlightening (NOT) message:
>news:2d3fb7d8-2ab7-47b2...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>
>>>Seven Day Adventist and Jehowah Witness for example.
>> >
>>>Both created by freemasonoic Jews.
>> . Connection between Judaism and Freemasonry is obvious.
>>>Charles Taze Russell, who was a freemason and burried under
>>> Pyramide shape monument with masonic symbols (Search for Rosemont United
>>> Cemetery - plenty of pictures available, for example
>>> at:http://www.freeminds.org/organization/russell/charles-t.-russell-grav....
>>> You can also see that a nearby road is called MASONIC WAY.
>>
>>
>> Please describe the obvious connection between Freemasonry and Judaism
>> for us.
>
>
>Us? Shouldn't that be "me" if you are not delegated to ask for others?
>
>How many people are there?
Billions, but not all of us read this NG. :^)
Personally, I am not a Freemason. I was just curious.
>
>As a freemason, you should be aware of own education literature talking
>about selfamusement and selfgratification:
>
>http://freemasondocs.googlepages.com/0003.pdf
>
>saying "The RULE directs us to observe punctually every gospel duty; to
>press forward in the right path, neither inclining to the right nor left
>hand, for the sake of any transient amusement or gratification whatsoever;
>it forbids us to give into the least inclination or propensity into the
>curve of life, and reminds us to beware of the least tendency to a circle,
>either in religion or morals! - not to mind (because they have seldom any
>other than selfish views) neither outs, or ins in politics; and to have in
>all our conduct eternity in view."
>
>That was writen in the year 1843. Ignorant you are "innerjewel" aren't you?
>
>Please use "me" next time instead "us". Thank you.
Please don't be silly, he is not the only one interested in the basis
for your claim.
You have made the point that Freemasonry opposes immorality and that
Freemasonry recognizes that lust for instant gratification is a major
factor in tempting humans to commit evil actions. Judaism recognizes
this fact also. So far, however, I do not see how this is an insult
to Freemasonry. It seems more like an endorsement.
>
>
>Old dilema for me ... and an old biblical saying: "Do not throw pearls in
>front of swines!"
>
>Not saying that "us" are swine like you may think. Your bunch is just a
>group of childish deceived false builders run-aways from the God and society
>to the darkness of the lodge. Not worth to discuss God's Word with.
So far, all you have done is poven that freemasonry agrees with the
Christian Bible, which was written by Jews. The Bible even instructs
us not to stray "to the right or to the left" as you quoted from this
Masonic source. The Masonic source did use the "Aggadah" teaching
technique found in Judaism: the use of parable and symbolism to teach
the truth. The Masonic lodge does have a theme, but you have proven
that the Freemasons make good use of that theme.
>
>
>Shold I just point to Google?
>Because probably the only reason of your reply is to try to ridicule OP for
>having a different opinion than your lodge has and cut the original post
>hoping nobody will see it)?
>
>I searched for your "innerjewels" in alt.freemasonry, but jewels are not
>there - just empty drivel. What a waste of 7 minutes of my life!
Only wasted because swine do not recognize pearls.
>
>Maybe you don't know how to use search engine, so I should reply?
>
>You may also cosider spending $8 (reduced from $44.95 because subject is so
>well known that there are not so many buyers left) and buy this book for own
>education:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Judaism-Secret-Powers-Revolution/dp/1881316904
>
>Let's answer your 1st question. Click on the link:
>
>http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/mar05/freemasonry_and_judaism.htm
>
>"Light is an important symbol in both Freemasonry and Judaism." - hence you
>call yourself in hotmail fiatlux33 ;)
>
>http://freemasondocs.googlepages.com/0002.pdf
>
>Your question answered by your "wor.bro." Paul M. Bessel (both
>links).
>
>"The fundamental tenets of Freemasonry and Judaism are similar."
What is wrong with that? You even Quoted a Jewish source yourself
(The Gospel of Matthew). Aside from the ravings of antisemites, what
is wrong with Freemasonry having things in common with both
Christianity and Judaism? Jesus is a Jew, and Christians, and many
Jews believe Him to be the Messiah.
>
>The rise of Masons to political power in Israel dates back to 1948 and to
>Israel's founding as a modern-day nation. David Ben-Gurion, its first Prime
>Minister, was both a Mason and an avowed Marxist-Leninist and Communist.
>Since that time, every single Prime Minister has been a high-level Mason,
>including Golda Meier, who was a member of the women's organization, the
>Co-Masons.
>
>In 1993 in Jerusalem, a celebration of political Masons was held. According
>to the respected Italian newspaper La Republica (October 1993), in an
>article entitled, "Israel: There is a Pact Between Politicians and Masons,"
>the ceremony was attended by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, as well
>as by the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, Israel Meier Lau. Kollek told the gathered
>Masons, "You do a great honor to Jerusalem. This is natural, considering
>that King Soloman was the great builder of the temple, which is at the roots
>of the Masonic idea, and that his workmen were the first Masons."
>
>At that same ceremony, sponsored by the "Grand Lodge of the State of
>Israel," Rabbi Lau stated that, "The principles of Freemasonry are all
>contained in the Book of Books of the Jewish people."
I am liking Freemasonry better and better the more you try to insult
it.
>
>
>
>Your "secret club" should teach members some real knowledge and real masonic
>history, for example the skills of using the internet search engine instead
>playing "destroy the character" of every contributor of alt.freemasonry
>like "us" cosisting of you, KIV11, Jim Bennie and David Simpson who think
>that alt.freemasonry belongs only to 4 of you.
To be blunt: If you come here trolling because you have emotional
problems and seek to defame others to elevate yourself, there is
little "character" to destroy. So far you seem paranoid and wildly
antisemitic and anti-Christ. You have given me positive things to say
about Freemasonry though.
***SNIP***
Crimson Ghost
news:no4h059c970gdhd57...@4ax.com:
I had one guy who, 2 minutes before his EA degree, said to me (I was JMC
that night), "Um, so, hey, I'm a Wiccan. Is that a problem?"
My answer was "Do you believe in a supreme being?"
"Yes. Several, in fact."
"Then there's no problem."
Masonry asks only that you believe, not in what you believe.
Crimson Ghost
Alex
Hash: SHA1
Aaron wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:38:26 +1000, Alex <sett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:43:53 +1000, Alex <sett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>> Elohim is the plural of Elohey, but the verb used (bara) is singular.
>>> This indicates a Unity as Judaism believes, but does not give us the
>>> number three.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, Elohim is made up word... it is a feminine root ('elo'ah
>>according to most scholars,although there is some argument) with a
>>*masculine* plural ending (the -im). It is the closest one can get to
>>genderless in a language which has no neuter gender.
>
> That is not correct. the singular "Elohey" is used in Exodus.
> Since all Language is "made up" by somone, the term "made up word" is
> rather meaningless.
Interesting. I've searched for that word, and it occurs nowhere in the
Scriptures. I can find 'el, 'elah and 'elohim, but nothing even remotely
approaching the word you give (actually, I suspect that it would be an
impossible word based on the rules of Hebrew consonant/vowel combinations -
the consonants would have to be 'aleph, lamedh, possibly vav if the "o" is
extended, then he, and a yod at the end. Interesting... let's look at 'eloah
(gee, I wish I could actually put the real Hebrew letters in :( ). 'aleph,
lamedh, vav and he... Seems to me that the word you give is is actually the
same, but with a yod added to the end... probably some one has decided to
put that in since Hebrew vowel points (niqud) are supposed to be placed
under or around the preceding consonant. Not always so, I'm afraid - a final
"a(h)" is normally written as a he with the hateph point (in one textbook it
is referred to a "hateph furtive").
Perhaps "compound" would have been more accurate...
However, I will continue to insist that the root used in 'elohim (there
really is *no* singular form)is 'eloah. This is a question I placed before
my lecturer at University of New England quite a few years ago (at the time
I was still a practising Seventh-day Adventist). The primary reason I
discussed the question with that lecturer was because they were Jewish and
had a PhD from the University of Queensland, and so would either know the
answer, or could point me to further reading.
The reply consisted of walking into the room for one of our tutorials (the
subject, BTW, was Studies in Religion - I gained a Distinction in the exam)
and handing me a Hebrew lexicon, open at the relevant article. It stated
quite clearly that, while there was some argument as to the root (some
arguing that it was 'el, others 'eloah) the vast majority agreed on the
feminine root, 'eloah (translates as Goddess in English).
>
>>>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> The "trinity" doctrine is the result of the work of the heretic Origen
>>> who was excommunicated less than a year after he was ordained. Origen
>>> defined God using the Middle Platonic Theosophy that was popular in
>>> the Roman Empire in his time. By applying the explanation that Middle
>>> Platonic Theosophy given for how the Pagan "gods" could be statues,
>>> beings in Olympus and having a spiritual effect on their real of
>>> influence, Origen redefined God into a Pagan image. This is despite
>>> the fact that the Bible mentions four elements to God's Unity (Father,
>>> Holy Spirit, Shekina (Presence), and Son, given in the order in which
>>> they are described in the Bible).
>>
>>The "Son" aspect, IIRC. is specifically NT/Christian. Interesting also
>>that Shekinah is traditionally the feminine aspect of G-d
>
> The Shekina is the nurturing aspect of God. In humans, this is
> typically in the feminine, but I do not believe that Elohim is limited
> to human stereotypes.
Quite definitely not. My conception of the deity is difficult to enunciate
simply, so what I usually say is "G-d is neither male nor female, yet is
simultaneously both male and female". Think about that for a while....
I believe that the word 'elohim was devised by Moses when composing the
books which bear his name in the Tanakh. I have this mental picture of him
sitting there, scratching his head and wondering how on earth one can
describe a genderless, all-encompassing Being in a language which only
allows Masculine and Feminine genders (no neuter). The best he can come up
with is to combine a feminine word with and ending that should by rights be
only applied to a masculine word. Hence 'elohim.
>
>
>>>
>>> I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
>>> Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish.
>>
>>...And several Pagans (I'm not the only one here :) ).
>
> I have not met any pagan Freemasons. I do know that the local lodge
> does not allow Pagans (Polytheists) to join.
A word to the wise - Pagan does NOT equal polytheist. Most Pagan
"traditions" teach a single supreme entity. They regard all other "Gods and
Goddesses" as merely aspects or emanations of that One (sound familiar?).
Apart from myself, there is at the least one Traditional Wiccan in my lodge.
I know of other Masons who are Hindu, yet are able to answer the question
"Do you acknowledge a Supreme Being?" with an honest "yes" (think - Brahmah.
to the Hindu he is The Supreme Creator).
>
>>
>>> Since
>>> Freemasonry is not a religion, this makes sense . The more I hear
>>> against Freemasonry from people who have no clue what it is but attack
>>> based on paranoia and bigotry, the better my opinion of Freemasonry
>>> becomes. The Freemasons are not lowering themselves to the level of
>>> these dishonest people despite the lies being told about them. I do
>>> find it sad that there are people out there who feel so bad about
>>> themselves that they feel the need to make up those lies to distract
>>> themselves from their own low self esteem. I pity those broken people
>>> and wish that they would stop pretending that they are serving God by
>>> attacking Freemasonry. God commanded us to never bear false witness;
>>> you cannot serve God by falsely accusing people. These people claim
>>> to be "Christian;" but Jesus said that we must not judge others and
>>> that we should look to our own faults before attempting to help others
>>> ("Remove the log from your eye before attempting to remove the speck
>>> from your comrade's eye.") That sounds like good advice!
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoJEcIACgkQ9gAxTR0xERVp9QCdFLq/Pt3qVq76LwNncfjiUkIi
l58An2Hn+YyaEDi79QoskZ8rQ3Gt8011
=mRhe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alex
Hash: SHA1
Aaron wrote:
Not correct. Your source is misinformed. "Pagan" is a term which is used as
a blanket term to cover nearly all non-Abrahamic faiths. The one common
feature that all Pagan religions share is a respect, even reverence, for
Nature. their major observances revolve around the natural cycles of the
Earth and of life. I have yet to meet any Pagans of any path who do not
accept the existence of a One from whence all that is, was or ever will be
flows. Some personalise the One, others do not.
> However,
> there are many people who use the term for various forms of Wicca.
> Many or the polytheists religions did not believe that their chief
> "god" or any of their "gods" was a supreme being.
>
> I suppose both terms leave a bit to the subjective interpretation of
> the reader.
>
>>
>>So while it may be true that Masonry would not admit someone who could
>>not profess a belief in a Supreme Being, I don't think it actually would
>>inquire as to a man's choice of religion.
>
> In the case of which I am familiar, the petitioners volunteered the
> information about his beliefs. As i am not a member of the lodge, the
> Master Mason who told me about the situation did not divulge all of
> the lodge's reasoning for disallowing the petitioners's membership.
I mentioned something about it during my interview. It never came up again.
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoJFs8ACgkQ9gAxTR0xERXOJgCfdKbBSdh1wZhLXKg7zAGOKNMa
rRsAoIN8x7LuPxJCFl9BR3otUdQiPuEL
=OmBE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Aaron
I am not sure what book you are calling "the Scriptures," because it
is in the Tanakh (OT). To give the first example I found: Exodus 5:1,
the second: Exodus 5:3, and so on. It is spelled "alef (with chataf
kamatz) - (cholam chaser) - lamed - hey (with tzeyrey chaser) -yod."
> Interesting... let's look at 'eloah
>(gee, I wish I could actually put the real Hebrew letters in :( ). 'aleph,
>lamedh, vav and he... Seems to me that the word you give is is actually the
>same, but with a yod added to the end... probably some one has decided to
>put that in since Hebrew vowel points (niqud) are supposed to be placed
>under or around the preceding consonant. Not always so, I'm afraid - a final
>"a(h)" is normally written as a he with the hateph point (in one textbook it
>is referred to a "hateph furtive").
Aside from cholam chaser, cholam male, and shuruk which are written
between letters, nikkud are placed below the letters which are
pronounced before them with one exception: when a Chet (not Hey) is
accompanied by a Pattach, the vowel is pronounced first. An example
of this exception is the name Noach (anglicized as "Noah").
>
>Perhaps "compound" would have been more accurate...
>
>However, I will continue to insist that the root used in 'elohim (there
>really is *no* singular form)is 'eloah.
Hebrew root words are not the same as English. Most have three
letters, a few ahve two, and are the basis for several different
words. There is one Hebrew root word for "offer," "Offering" (like
animals on the Altar), "approach, and "befriend."
Elah ("Alef (with tzeyrey chaser) - lamed (with kamatz gadol) - hey")
is the singular feminine ("goddess"). The plural is "elot."
Elha ("Alef (with chataf kamatz) - lamed - hey (with dagesh and
pattach)") is one singular masculine form ("god").
"alef (with chataf kamatz) - (cholam chaser) - lamed - hey (with
tzeyrey chaser) - yod" is another masculine form found in the Hebrew
text of the Bible. The plural for both of these is "elohim."
>This is a question I placed before
>my lecturer at University of New England quite a few years ago (at the time
>I was still a practising Seventh-day Adventist). The primary reason I
>discussed the question with that lecturer was because they were Jewish and
>had a PhD from the University of Queensland, and so would either know the
>answer, or could point me to further reading.
>
>The reply consisted of walking into the room for one of our tutorials (the
>subject, BTW, was Studies in Religion - I gained a Distinction in the exam)
>and handing me a Hebrew lexicon, open at the relevant article. It stated
>quite clearly that, while there was some argument as to the root (some
>arguing that it was 'el, others 'eloah) the vast majority agreed on the
>feminine root, 'eloah (translates as Goddess in English).
It sounds like that professor was almost completely ignorant of
Hebrew. That is to be expected. I had a former professor of Hebrew
from the Dallas Theological Institute attend a Bible study, and he
admitted that he was finally learning Hebrew in the study (after he
had retired LOL).
El is the root. From that root we get all the dirivatives.
If you really wanted a correct answer, you would question a professor
from Yeshivah University. :^) Or just get a Tanakh and a
Ben-Yehuda's Hebrew-English dictionary.
>>
>>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> The "trinity" doctrine is the result of the work of the heretic Origen
>>>> who was excommunicated less than a year after he was ordained. Origen
>>>> defined God using the Middle Platonic Theosophy that was popular in
>>>> the Roman Empire in his time. By applying the explanation that Middle
>>>> Platonic Theosophy given for how the Pagan "gods" could be statues,
>>>> beings in Olympus and having a spiritual effect on their real of
>>>> influence, Origen redefined God into a Pagan image. This is despite
>>>> the fact that the Bible mentions four elements to God's Unity (Father,
>>>> Holy Spirit, Shekina (Presence), and Son, given in the order in which
>>>> they are described in the Bible).
>>>
>>>The "Son" aspect, IIRC. is specifically NT/Christian. Interesting also
>>>that Shekinah is traditionally the feminine aspect of G-d
>>
>> The Shekina is the nurturing aspect of God. In humans, this is
>> typically in the feminine, but I do not believe that Elohim is limited
>> to human stereotypes.
>
>Quite definitely not. My conception of the deity is difficult to enunciate
>simply, so what I usually say is "G-d is neither male nor female, yet is
>simultaneously both male and female". Think about that for a while....
I would say that you failed to enunciate your belief (or so I hope)
Maybe a clearer way to say that is: "God being spiritual in nature is
neither male not female, but possesses the best aspects of both
masculinity and femininity." Is that what you were aiming at?
>
>I believe that the word 'elohim was devised by Moses when composing the
>books which bear his name in the Tanakh.
Well they used to bear Mosheh's name two thousand years ago; new
titles were given to them because Mosheh 1, Mosheh 2, Mosheh 3, Mosheh
4, and Mosheh 5 were hard to keep straight when quoting the Bible.
However He did not make up the word, though he may have been guided by
HaShem to be the first to use it as a proper noun or to combine it
with a singular verb.
>I have this mental picture of him
>sitting there, scratching his head and wondering how on earth one can
>describe a genderless, all-encompassing Being in a language which only
>allows Masculine and Feminine genders (no neuter). The best he can come up
>with is to combine a feminine word with and ending that should by rights be
>only applied to a masculine word. Hence 'elohim.
The lack of a neuter was not a problem. When there was doubt or a
mixed situation, you default to the masculine.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
>>>> Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish.
>>>
>>>...And several Pagans (I'm not the only one here :) ).
>>
>> I have not met any pagan Freemasons. I do know that the local lodge
>> does not allow Pagans (Polytheists) to join.
>
>A word to the wise - Pagan does NOT equal polytheist. Most Pagan
>"traditions" teach a single supreme entity. They regard all other "Gods and
>Goddesses" as merely aspects or emanations of that One (sound familiar?).
You are in error. Until the rise of Orthodox (not Greek Orthodox, but
rather "proto-Catholic") Christianity, Judaism was the only
monotheistic religion. Zoroastrianism (various spellings) was loosely
based on what Babylonians overheard from Jews about HaShem and
HaSatan, but was Bitheistic with two gods instead of G-d and a fallen
angel.
The Middle Platonic Theosophy to which you refer was based on Plato's
attempt to make idolatry sound believable. I believe that you are
confusing that with Gnosticism, which is a whole other bag of worms.
The usual English words do not really apply to gnostic beliefs, so the
explanations wind up very long, and I don't like typing that much.
Gnosticism built upon Plato's model but took it to an extreme.
>Apart from myself, there is at the least one Traditional Wiccan in my lodge.
>I know of other Masons who are Hindu, yet are able to answer the question
>"Do you acknowledge a Supreme Being?" with an honest "yes" (think - Brahmah.
>to the Hindu he is The Supreme Creator).
Actually, the hindu faith has various manefestations and variations,
but in general they are polytheist with a Three highest gods (Brahmah,
Vishnu and Shiva) in balance, though in some forms these three form a
"trinity." In any case, they are not "supreme" as we understand it
since they are doomed to be split when "Kali dances with Shiva." and
Kali causes Shiva to destroy all existance, even the gods. However, I
guess the Hindu might reason that they are supreme now.
Of course Freedom of Religion is valued by both Jews and Masons, so I
can see how they would be admitted into the lodge.
David Simpson
<sett...@yahoo.com> typed:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Aaron wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>> The Shekina is the nurturing aspect of God. In humans, this is
>> typically in the feminine, but I do not believe that Elohim is limited
>> to human stereotypes.
>
>Quite definitely not. My conception of the deity is difficult to enunciate
>simply, so what I usually say is "G-d is neither male nor female, yet is
>simultaneously both male and female". Think about that for a while....
>
Aha! A neutered hermaphrodite. <GD&R>
--
Regards
David Simpson
(Unattached MM, Victoria, Australia)
Q:What do you call a half-dozen Indians with Asian flu? A:Six
sick Sikhs (sic).
Alex
Hash: SHA1
Aaron wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:05:46 +1000, Alex <sett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>>Quite definitely not. My conception of the deity is difficult to enunciate
>>simply, so what I usually say is "G-d is neither male nor female, yet is
>>simultaneously both male and female". Think about that for a while....
>
> I would say that you failed to enunciate your belief (or so I hope)
> Maybe a clearer way to say that is: "God being spiritual in nature is
> neither male not female, but possesses the best aspects of both
> masculinity and femininity." Is that what you were aiming at?
Close. Probably I would replace "...the best..." with the words "...all of
the...". It goes somewhat beyond that though :) To explain further how this
concept came to need enunciation... I'd been wrestling with the question
"What is the nature of G-d?" for some time, occasionally debating it with
friends, at other times considering different aspects of the question in
detail, and at other times simply letting things chase each other around in
the back of my mind. I was not satisfied with the image I had been taught
all my life - that of an all good, strongly male being. After all, don't the
scriptures tell us that all things were created or emanated from that Being?
Does not the Creation account state "Let us create Man in our image..." and
"...male and female created He them..."? How then can G-d be purely male (or
purely female - I'd met a few Goddess worshippers by then).
The concept I have was sort of one of those "AHA!" moments, as I realised
that G-d transcends all questions of gender, and all matters of good and
evil as well. In fact. G-d so far transcends everything that there is
absolutely no way that any human being, with the finite human mind, will
*ever* truly comprehend the Creator. Ever.
I started to understand why, in those religions, such as Hinduism, which
have a pantheon of many gods, how and why this had occurred.
Unlike most, I believe that the original religious belief and practise of
humans was monotheistic in nature. In an attempt to at least try to
comprehend, the process, I believe, went something like this (taking Hindu
deities as examples here)....
Someone said to himself "I just can't get my head around this Brahma. it's
just too much. I've only been able to start to comprehend the creative and
destructive aspects. But that is so awkward to use as a term when I'm
discussing it.... I need a simple term.... I'll use the term Shiva for the
creative, and Kali for the destructive..." and so on. But over the course of
time, those terms, which were originally intended as abstracts, started to
take on a life of their own. The aspects became personified, and others
started to regard them as separate entities.
This process continues, with different "sages" over time applying the same
process to aspects of these aspects, followed by the personification of the
different aspects, until each eventually came to be regarded as a separate
entity. Ultimately, the Hindu pantheon developed to the stage we see today.
>
>>
>>I believe that the word 'elohim was devised by Moses when composing the
>>books which bear his name in the Tanakh.
>
> Well they used to bear Mosheh's name two thousand years ago; new
> titles were given to them because Mosheh 1, Mosheh 2, Mosheh 3, Mosheh
> 4, and Mosheh 5 were hard to keep straight when quoting the Bible.
> However He did not make up the word, though he may have been guided by
> HaShem to be the first to use it as a proper noun or to combine it
> with a singular verb.
>
>>I have this mental picture of him
>>sitting there, scratching his head and wondering how on earth one can
>>describe a genderless, all-encompassing Being in a language which only
>>allows Masculine and Feminine genders (no neuter). The best he can come up
>>with is to combine a feminine word with and ending that should by rights
>>be only applied to a masculine word. Hence 'elohim.
>
> The lack of a neuter was not a problem. When there was doubt or a
> mixed situation, you default to the masculine.
As is the case with all languages which have no neuter :) I much prefer
Finnish - it has no gramatical gender at all.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a Freemason, but I, personally, have met Freemasons who were
>>>>> Trinitarians, Unitarians, Christian but neither, and Jewish.
>>>>
>>>>...And several Pagans (I'm not the only one here :) ).
>>>
>>> I have not met any pagan Freemasons. I do know that the local lodge
>>> does not allow Pagans (Polytheists) to join.
>>
>>A word to the wise - Pagan does NOT equal polytheist. Most Pagan
>>"traditions" teach a single supreme entity. They regard all other "Gods
>>and Goddesses" as merely aspects or emanations of that One (sound
>>familiar?).
>
> You are in error. Until the rise of Orthodox (not Greek Orthodox, but
> rather "proto-Catholic") Christianity, Judaism was the only
> monotheistic religion. Zoroastrianism (various spellings) was loosely
> based on what Babylonians overheard from Jews about HaShem and
> HaSatan, but was Bitheistic with two gods instead of G-d and a fallen
> angel.
:) That is the common conception. However, when one examines the oldest
extant writings from ancient religions, on does indeed find traces of a
belief in a single Creator. This holds true for all ancient religions which
had a written form of Scripture, be you referring to Hindu or ancient
Mesopotamian religions.
On another tangent, what do you say to the statement that the Tanakh and
early Hebrew practise recognises the existence of more than one deity? And
that "proto-Judaism" was in fact henotheistic rather than monotheistic? It
might be interesting to start a new thread on this :)
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoJdE8ACgkQ9gAxTR0xERXpoACeMUKt790IRI5wYFOrWkTKwleq
90AAnjwFeYhsnbhCyX6NkVDsGY4Vu+/G
=iap9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Aaron
That is a misconception based on the fact that the Bible recognizes
the Pagan error of directing worship at non-existant deities. While
fictional, they are objects of real worship.
Aaron
You are in error. This is not surprizing since most Paganism is
non-Abrahamic. However there were several polytheistic
Christian-Pagan faiths in the Second, Third, and Fourth centuries CE.
I don't know if any of these survive today.
>The one common
>feature that all Pagan religions share is a respect, even reverence, for
>Nature.
That is not true. Pagans were at the mercy of the elements due to a
lack of technology, but it was really more fear that respect.
> their major observances revolve around the natural cycles of the
>Earth and of life. I have yet to meet any Pagans of any path who do not
>accept the existence of a One from whence all that is, was or ever will be
>flows. Some personalise the One, others do not.
Most Pagan religions have a creation myth, but that does not mean they
believe in a supreme being. The Tuetonic religions (Odinism being the
most well known) had the world created out of a rotting giant corpse.
The giant might be a source, but it could no longer be called a
"being," and certainly not "supreme."
Larry W
whose focus should be Freemasonry.
I think it is safe to say that Paganism is not Christianity and that
there is no universal bucket into which everyone's opinion or definition
of any particular religion may coexist. We are each entitled to our own
perceptions so long as they are not forced upon others who hold
different opinions. An agreement to disagree may be the best way to
keep the harmony.
I think it is also safe to say that Aaron did not observe typical
Masonic behavior; Freemasonry does not concern itself with a candidate's
choice of religion, only that he profess a belief in a Supreme Being.
If he answers Yes then we have no right to inquire further.
Doug Freyburger
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > I have not met any pagan Freemasons.
I've met plenty in more than one denomination/path/tradition.
> > I do know that the local lodge
> > does not allow Pagans (Polytheists) to join.
>
> This is probably a misinterpretation by one of the members.
Very likely but ...
I've met a lot of brothers who haven't knowingly encountered
any Masons who aren't monotheist who think only
monotheists are admitted. Since discussion of religion in
tiled spaces is forbidden this can only be learned at social
events outside of lodge. Having experienced this I queried
California grand line officers about admitting polytheists
and got a positive response. Not that such an appeal to
personal authority really works with other than the MW-GM ...
But at one point I tried reading the petitions of several
different US Grand Lodges. Most ask about a supreme
being without additional wording and leave the answer to
the conscience of the petitioner. The petition of the Grand
Lodge of New York contained wording like "one singe
supreme being" that was explicitly monothiest. In at least
that one grand jurisdiction the petition suggests it is a
matter of jurisdictional policy.
> Masonry
> only asks its members and petitioners to profess a belief in a Supreme
> Being. We don't ask them to define the nature of that Deity, or to name
> It, nor do we even ask if he worships it directly or through some other
> means (for example, Christians believe in God, but pray in the name of
> His Son, Jesus Christ). As Brother Reverend Joseph Fort Newton once
> wrote (emphasis is mine): "When [a man] finds good in every religion
> that helps any man to lay hold of divine things and see majestic
> meanings in life, *whatever* the name of that faith may be ... such a
> man has found the only real secret of Masonry, and the one which it is
> trying to give to all the world."
The fact that Masonry does not just pay lip service to
freedom of religion, but that it in practice has members
from every religion I could think of and many I had never
heard of - That was a deal breaker for me when I was
deciding to petition.
> So while it may be true that Masonry would not admit someone who could
> not profess a belief in a Supreme Being, I don't think it actually would
> inquire as to a man's choice of religion.
The topic comes up after a while - At social events not at
the building. I ended up knowing that one of the brothers
who obligated me is a practicing Tibetan Buddhist, one
who played a fellow craft at my third a practicing Muslim
and so on. Druids, Wiccans, you name it. For me this
sort of actally practicing freedom of religion was a deal
breaker before I petitioned and Masonry has since exceeded
my expectations of the topic.
blue__beard
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>The topic comes up after a while - At social events not at
the building. I ended up knowing that one of the brothers
who obligated me is a practicing Tibetan Buddhist, one
who played a fellow craft at my third a practicing Muslim
and so on. Druids, Wiccans, you name it. For me this
sort of actally practicing freedom of religion was a deal
breaker before I petitioned and Masonry has since exceeded
my expectations of the topic.<<
Hi Doug,
what about California GL having only specific VSLs approved? What about
others who belong to different religions that are not represented by those
specific VSLs (I do realize that the VSLs are symbolic, but if you're going
to include others then...)
Doug Freyburger
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ... For me this
> sort of actally practicing freedom of religion was a deal
> breaker before I petitioned and Masonry has since exceeded
> my expectations of the topic.
>
> others who belong to different religions that are not represented by those
> specific VSLs (I do realize that the VSLs are symbolic, but if you're going
> to include others then...)
Folks who want to see a negative will see a negative. Folks
who want to see a positive will see a positive. I decided to
see a positive. They listed a bunch of scriptures. The
majority of brothers I discussed the list with didn't even
recognize all of the names in the list. That means they
wanted to include more than the majority would recognize
and they acheived that goal.
Also note that's not the *approved* list. It's the *pre*
approved list. Using that word it's clear the list was
intended to be inclusive not exclusive.
Like the generic prayers that are intended to be as
non-denominational as possible given the abilities of the
authors, there isn't any practical way to include all faiths
explicitly. So make a best effort and anyone who wants
to see the positive will understand the original intent.