Masonic Sun Worship

Originally posted by Tamahu
Peace MOOR45

I don't agree with some of the stuff in those sites as well.

I don't know what exactly is true and what isn't about what I've learned, regarding the relationship between the N.O.I., Moorish Science and FreeMasonry; but I'm sure that those Masons who may support European supremacy, sh*t a brick every time someone brings this stuff up.



But we will be seeing the revelation of some marvelous things, now that the devils civilization has expired(1914) and is falling apart as we speak.

I know that most of it is symbolic though.


PEACE




[edit on 19-6-2004 by Tamahu]

Brother you have to understand that there is no such thing as the "white devil". This type of nonsense was the wrong message sent when the NOI first came about. As you know even Malcolm X took an about face on this. Humanity has to uplift as a whole for progress to happen. Asiatics fell for using this flawed doctrine. Also by sin (operating against the laws of nature). Masonry is a noble science created by the ancients(ancestors). But keep in mind not everyone has noble intentions. A true Moor/Moslem/Traveler strives to serve man for the good of society. As we speak mankind and man are being put through a spritual initiation to help us evolve into a higher form of conciousness. Ain't gonna be easy!



[edit on 6/22/2004 by MOOR45]

[edit on 6/22/2004 by MOOR45]

The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."
Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

Originally posted by billmcelligott
In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun.

This subject has been discussed in depth elsewhere here on ATS.
It should also be noticed that Jeus is described as the morning star in the Bible in a few places.

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright and Morning Star."

2 Peter 1:19 "Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

The first verse above is taken from the KJV. Bible literalists sometimes state the fact that the word "and" between "bright" and "Morning" has been removed in the later revised editions to prove that Lucifer and Jesus were not one. Unfortunately their argument seems moot when you notice that the "and" still doesn't change the import or meaning of the sentence.

The earlier Vulgate Bible has the passage as:
"ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina"

Was Jesus therefore claiming to be a likeness of Venus? Venus was one of the major Roman goddesses of the time and everyone would have been aware of her. When Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, I believe that the connection between Jesus and Venus would have been a powerful one. It seems a possible explanation to me, especially when you remember that Venus was not only equated with Bill's definition, but also with Love.

Incidentally. Lucifer appears in the earlier Vulgate Bible and did not originate in the KJV.

Isaiah 4:12 "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes."

www.sacred-texts.com...

[edit on 22-6-2004 by Leveller]

Any one interested in learning about venus and the sun (and most other masonic ideas and secrets) should have a look at this item on ebay.

cgi.ebay.co.uk...

I got hold of a copy and have to say they are right, it will change everything you thought you knew about the bible and freemasons in this 690 page book.

Read it and thought it wasn't all that. The Hiram Key was more entertaining.
They've got some good theory about the groove-ware people, but in my opinion they jump to way too many conclusions in both books - they suffer from HBHG syndrome.

Knight and Lomas have written a few books between themselves. Robert Lomas has himself since become a freemason.

Both men are freemasons. I admit they don't explain there thinking very well, but that's because they're not academics, just normal people who wanted to share their knowledge.

Lomas is an academic. He's a professor at Bradford University and teaches there.
You're right about Knight. He's a freemason too.

Here is a link to the masonic info site at Bradford:

www.bradford.ac.uk...

Hey Leveler is there an evidence that Sir Francis Bacon was "Shakespear"?