Why is Tubal Cain revered by Masons?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Well I am glad we are on the same page about Lilith, I just didn't mention Samael because Semyaza has Aza in his name and something makes me think he is the father of Azazel .

I would go with they are the same but Semyaza was obliterated and turned into the constellation Orion.

1/3 of the stars falling from heaven has a literal meaning behind it, (no idea what) astrotheology is the root of every religion and the only heavenly host to rebel numbered 200 so I can not get on board with the whole fallen angel business as angels have no free will but for some reason the Sons of El/God did.

I believe they were a symbol for the old gods of polytheistic Canaan/Israel who needed to be gotten rid of and the Book of Enoch accomplished that in detail. No more Azazel or Semyaza, they were imprisoned in Sheol and the only God left was TMH.

At first the Sons of God were demigods then they became Igrigori or Watchers and are called fallen angels but they were Sons and Watchers but not Malakh (messengers/angels).

Free will being the difference. Just rambling but I think Satan is a Seraph, and not even a high ranking archangel.

Also Jews refuse to accept the existence of fallen angels for some reason so I think those are the reasons why, an Igrigori isn't technically an angel.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Lord=Yahweh/Baal

God=El as in El Elyon God Most High

No I'm not convinced we can figure out which verses from the Bible are from El Elyon, and which verses are from Yahweh, simply by considering whether the word God, or the word Lord was used.

Case in point. Deuteronomy.

"They have moved me to anger, with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

~ Deuteronomy 32:21

I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

~ Deuteronomy 32:23

I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men.

Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the LORD hath not done all this.

~ Deuteronomy 32:26-27

How should one chase one thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?

For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

~ Deuteronomy 32:30-33

To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that come upon them shall make haste.

For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants when he seeth that their power is gone and there is none shut up, or left.

And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted?

~ Deuteronomy 32:35-37"

I consider all these verses to be from Yahweh.

But here Yahweh seems to refer to himself as LORD and God.

And Yahweh also seems to refer to El Elyon as god.
Or perhaps he is referring to other angels as god.

In the first commandment, Yahweh also seems to refer to El Elyon as god, and himself as God.
Or perhaps he is referring to others angels as god...

The way I look at it....

If a verse sounds commanding and dictatorial, it could be from Yahweh.

If a verse sounds more like a statement, or an interrogation, it could be from El Elyon.

But this is just a general guideline, and would probably not work in all instances...

God of Earth
and
God of Heaven

the most simplistic way I have come to read into it...

a reply to: InachMarbank

Actually the texts say that "I have produced a man with the help of the Lord."
Next she bore his brother Abel.

Cain means produced in a way in Hebrew. I would say that Samael could be the father of Cain and that paternity was an issue which led to the Lord rejecting him for no reason.

It seems something in Cain was unacceptable and what better explanation than the seed of Samael made him evil?

And the subsequent extinction of his bloodline for again seemingly nothing. The sons of Seth also had relations with the Sons of God who came to earth as Watchers and didn't get wiped out but preserved.

I have heard of Old stories of Noah having a scaly chest that he kept covered but I have a hard time tracking down the source. Although the DSS have Lamech doubting his paternity because of his appearance and he seeks out Enoch on a mountain for confirmation that the child was his. I guess he was shining when born (like a Seraph?).

a reply to: InachMarbank

Most High is the key. El Elyon or God Most High who gave Yahweh Israel as an INHERITANCE.

El by itself could be Yahweh as El had been rendered a sometimes generic word and not a name.

El Elyon , most prominently used in Psalms is the difference maker, God Most High.

But it would be a late reinterpretation because El was Elyon and Yahweh/Baal the Lord or god of Israel.

Elohim gets translated into just God when it means God's or the whole family of El.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
Why is it he is revered?

He is not.

His appearance in the ritual amounts to mentioning that he was the 'first known artificer of brass and iron'.

If any one person in Masonic ritual were to be 'revered' it would be Hiram Abiff 'for his virtuous conduct, for his unfeigned piety to God, for his inflexible fidelity to his trust'.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
Why is it he is revered?

He is not.

His appearance in the ritual amounts to mentioning that he was the 'first known artificer of brass and iron'.

If any one person in Masonic ritual were to be 'revered' it would be Hiram Abiff 'for his virtuous conduct, for his unfeigned piety to God, for his inflexible fidelity to his trust'.

You mean Hammurabi? He was the original author of civil laws and Hiram Abi(ff) is Hammurabi.

Why the doofy name? Abiff? Why not just recognize Hammurabi for Hammurabi, why turn him into a farcical pageant?

I don't need to be a Mason to revere Hammurabi, but I do need to NOT be a Mason to revere myself.

As far as reverence for Tubal Cain being non existent in Masonry I doubt that. Nimrod reverence also exists in Masonry so it's no stretch to believe that said reverence for Tubal is real and not something I just imagined.

You revere him (Tubal) for his scientific achievements in metallurgy because Masonry is/was a guild of builders who would need such technology.

But apparently you have an alternative definition of reverence because you said you don't revere him in the same breath as telling me why you revere him.

Odd.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
You mean Hammurabi?

No, I meant Hiram Abiff.

As far as reverence for Tubal Cain being non existent in Masonry I doubt that.

Do you? Then maybe you can tell me where he appears other than where I mentioned.

But apparently you have an alternative definition of reverence because you said you don't revere him in the same breath as telling me why you revere him.

Maybe you can show me where the reverence is when describing Tubalcain's background. And yes, we do have different definitions of the word 'revere', I use the standard one and you use one you made up to suit your viewpoint.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If you don't revere someone in the realm of mythological pseudo history called religion you don't mention him in your rituals. The fact that you include him in the ritual is itself a form of reverence.

If you just need someone to credit metal work to you would choose a post deluge personality who had a real impact in the scientific development of brass or whatever metals.

Using the obscure Tubal Cain is out of reverence for his alleged involvement in the science.

I guess I know why he is revered now though so thanks!

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
If you don't revere someone in the realm of mythological pseudo history called religion you don't mention him in your rituals. The fact that you include him in the ritual is itself a form of reverence.

Using that dopey logic we 'revere' Jubelum since he is mentioned in the ritual too.

I gave you the one person Masons are charged to 'imitate', Hiram Abiff, and why we should do so. If you still think this is inaccurate then go and join and come back when you have all the insider information.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
You mean Hammurabi?

No, I meant Hiram Abiff.

As far as reverence for Tubal Cain being non existent in Masonry I doubt that.

Do you? Then maybe you can tell me where he appears other than where I mentioned.

But apparently you have an alternative definition of reverence because you said you don't revere him in the same breath as telling me why you revere him.

Maybe you can show me where the reverence is when describing Tubalcain's background. And yes, we do have different definitions of the word 'revere', I use the standard one and you use one you made up to suit your viewpoint.

I needed the good morning chuckle your response just gave me. Thanks again.

You revere him for his achievements in metallurgy, why is hard for you to see how reverence is reverence? Accusing me of making up my own definition seems a bit odd considering I know what reverence means.

And that by mentioning him you are revering him and/or his accomplishments?

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
And that by mentioning him you are revering him and/or his accomplishments?

I like how you skirted the question, do we revere Jubelum since he is also mentioned? What about David? He is mentioned also.

Mentioning does not equate to reverence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
If you don't revere someone in the realm of mythological pseudo history called religion you don't mention him in your rituals. The fact that you include him in the ritual is itself a form of reverence.

Using that dopey logic we 'revere' Jubelum since he is mentioned in the ritual too.

For his achievements in metallurgy? As I see it the ruffians are villains and not at all revered. So I think you are a tad bit off, logically speaking. Not me.

I gave you the one person Masons are charged to 'imitate', Hiram Abiff, and why we should do so. If you still think this is inaccurate then go and join and come back when you have all the insider information.

Oh, thanks but I don't march to the tune of a so called worshipful master. I don't revere masters or the thought of calling an old geezer worshipful or master.

I don't take oaths either, however thanks anyway for offering but I find the whole thing a little silly. No offense to you personally.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
For his achievements in metallurgy? As I see it the ruffians are villains and not at all revered. So I think you are a tad bit off, logically speaking. Not me.

Why? You equate mentioning to reverence.

Oh, thanks but I don't march to the tune of a so called worshipful master. I don't revere masters or the thought of calling an old geezer worshipful or master.

Our Master this year is 29, not exactly 'old geezer' territory and if you are going to play the moronic card of thinking Worshipful Master is anything more than assign of respect, like calling a judge 'your honor', then be my guest, it only makes you look more silly.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
And that by mentioning him you are revering him and/or his accomplishments?

I like how you skirted the question, do we revere Jubelum since he is also mentioned? What about David? He is mentioned also.

Mentioning does not equate to reverence.

I thought that was obvious. But mentioning for the purpose of acknowledging scientific achievements IS reverence.





I think that is the difference between mentioning and mentioning OUT OF REVERENCE.

That you admire the achievements of the mentionee equates, logically, to reverence.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
That you admire the achievements of the mentionee equates, logically, to reverence.

And where in the ritual does it say we 'admire' his achievements?

You are running a rather poor circular argument. And the irony of ANOTHER non-Mason trying to tell us about the ritual is comical.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
If you don't revere someone in the realm of mythological pseudo history called religion you don't mention him in your rituals. The fact that you include him in the ritual is itself a form of reverence.

Using that dopey logic we 'revere' Jubelum since he is mentioned in the ritual too. (Augustus Masonicus)

My response:

For his achievements in metallurgy? As I see it the ruffians are villains and not at all revered. So I think you are a tad bit off, logically speaking. Not me.

I gave you the one person Masons are charged to 'imitate', Hiram Abiff, and why we should do so. If you still think this is inaccurate then go and join and come back when you have all the insider information.

Oh, thanks but I don't march to the tune of a so called worshipful master. I don't revere masters or the thought of calling an old geezer worshipful or master.

I don't take oaths either, however thanks anyway for offering but I find the whole thing a little silly. No offense to you personally.

I didn't skirt the question I refuted your logic.

You just didn't notice and accused me of skirting a question I actually addressed.

Are we going to be playing dirty now? Because I have no reverence for accusations of an untrue nature.

edit on 7-8-2016 by Muffenstuff because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2016 by Muffenstuff because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
I didn't skirt the question I refuted your logic.

Skirted.

Are we going to be playing dirty now? Because I have no reverence for accusations of an untrue nature.

I do not have to play anything, just quote your silliness back to you since you are not hear to have a question answered, you are here to pontificate.

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
If you don't revere someone in the realm of mythological pseudo history called religion you don't mention him in your rituals. The fact that you include him in the ritual is itself a form of reverence.

Using that dopey logic we 'revere' Jubelum since he is mentioned in the ritual too.

For his achievements in metallurgy? As I see it the ruffians are villains and not at all revered. So I think you are a tad bit off, logically speaking. Not me.

I gave you the one person Masons are charged to 'imitate', Hiram Abiff, and why we should do so. If you still think this is inaccurate then go and join and come back when you have all the insider information.

Oh, thanks but I don't march to the tune of a so called worshipful master. I don't revere masters or the thought of calling an old geezer worshipful or master.

I don't take oaths either, however thanks anyway for offering but I find the whole thing a little silly. No offense to you personally.

I am quoting my (apparently ignored) response to the question I have been hilariously accused of skirting here.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Had I ACTUALLY skirted your ridiculous insinuation that I think reverence=mention, I would not have explained how the villainous ruffians MENTIONED are not REVERED.

Tell me, is Tubal Cain also a villain, as the Ruffians are villainized when mentioned I don't see that as being the case with Tubal.

l

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
And that by mentioning him you are revering him and/or his accomplishments?

I like how you skirted the question, do we revere Jubelum since he is also mentioned? What about David? He is mentioned also.

Mentioning does not equate to reverence.

I thought that was obvious. But mentioning for the purpose of acknowledging scientific achievements IS reverence.

I think that is the difference between mentioning and mentioning OUT OF REVERENCE.

That you admire the achievements of the mentionee equates, logically, to reverence.

And again in another quote I have proof I didn't "skirt" anything and addressed the question head on.

Good try though.