Masons don't believe Jesus was Son of God.

i believe that the phrase "son of god " that jesus was using wa a code phrase to other people who were of the same sect as he. lots of terms jesus used have shown up in the dead sea scrolls and are now shown to not mean explicitly what they say but are code phrases. ever wonder why the meek would inherit the earth? hrmm code phrase. so he never claimed to be the direct and divine son of god. many of the early christian churches did not believe in the divinity of christ. it is only with the advent of the roman catholic church that much of what we call christianity today came about. personally i believe the roman catholics did us all a great diservice but mucking up the waters of truth for their own personnel gain. quite frankly i think jesus (joshua ben joseph) would be appaled at what modern christian believe about him.

reply to post by The Benevolent Adversary


Would it be correct to revise your phrase "....it is only with the advent of the roman catholic church.... " to

...it is only with the advent of what would eventually become the roman catholic church...

- Not challenging your statement as much as trying to expand upon my understanding of the history.

I feel it was a politically shrewd emperor Constantine and his Nicene council that really 'forced' a consensus of cloistered biblical scholars to concede to each others' beliefs in the name of homogenizing the religion - for purposes of control and consolidation of religious and state powers.

The creed was the nail in the coffin. And in my opinion, the cause of the most egregious forms of intellectual repression of the dark ages.

although i don't agree with some of what freemasonry teaches/advocates, i'm grateful to be able to live in a country where their input into the laws, allowed me and others the chance to seek our own path. yeshua wouldn't want us to come to him out of pressure or force. he said, if someone doesn't want to hear it, shake the dust off and move on. i find his words a lot better counsel than those of paul and it seems infinitely more logical and scriptural position to allow for this option, than the opposite. choosing to say you believe just so you won't get nuked, fried, hung, disemboweled, drowned, shot, stabbed, poisoned, or ostracized, is not choosing him...it's choosing survival that poor person will go to the hereafter thinking darkly of the entire thing, which in my opinion is why some become tyrannical about it - might equals right doesn't work. it just creates bitterness and pain.

reply to post by Masonic Light


The Regius Manuscript is dated to 1390 as far as I know. The Templars were founded @1120, so the Regius Ms. was written 2 centuries AFTER the Templars were founded no? If you have not already done so, may I suggest reading Born in Blood by Robinson? An interesting work with regard to the fraternity.

reply to post by tripletau

This is what Wiki says about it:

The text of the document states that Freemasonry was brought to England during the reign of King Athelstan from 924 to 939.

en.wikipedia.org...



Here's a link with the translated version of the manuscript:
www.masonicsites.org...

reply to post by RuneSpider


You are of course correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I was thinking in terms of the date of the actual documentation as opposed to legendary/historical references contained within it.

If we are willing to accept those as having validity, the legends date back much, much farther in time, and in all honesty are highly unlikely in my opinion.

It is my opinion, that modern Freemasonry owes much to the Templars and while there is info to support this, there certainly exists some question as to what extent.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Splitta
Masonry was borne of the Templars being forced underground by Pope Clement V.

Masonry predates both the Knights Templar and Pope Clement V (see, for example, the Regius Manuscript, which describes a Masonic gathering at York, England two centuries before the Templars were founded).

The Templars, who were an order of MONKS, NOT KNIGHTS

Actually, they were both.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? The general consensus on the age of the Regius Manuscript dates its writing to between the late 1300s and the middle of the 15th century. The Templars were founded in 1118.

yes i agree but where could this all be coming from?

reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy

Jesus sacrificed himself so that we may have access to the Father. You would have to read the book and research yourself to know the Turth about how much Truth is in the Bible.

This sacrifice business is totally ridiculous, I really cannot understand the childish mentality of individuals who promote this nonesense.

No sacrifice was made dude even if the crucifixion (cruci -"fiction") did happen the jesusyajweh god didn't actually die.

He may have pretended to die by hiding out in the clouds for three days so the gullible would believe he came back to life, but an eternal being simply cannot die.

My friend spend a little time thinking, suspend your delusion for even a few minutes and replace the delusion with some critical thinking for but a few minutes more, just a mere few minutes out of your entire life.

While you do this why not define sacrifice, you may find it implies "permanent" loss of something you hold dear or value greatly.

You may well realize (probably not because your thinking is deeply marred by the delusional beliefs you have) that no one sacrificed anything for you, you have been lied to.

Right now I am making a sacrifice for you, I am spending time that I will never get back, trying to help you free your mind and help you come back to humanity. But this is a sacrifice I am willing to make in the hope that you may wish to join us in promoting a guilt and fear free peaceful world.

Originally posted by Splitta



How exactly did you come to that conclusion? The general consensus on the age of the Regius Manuscript dates its writing to between the late 1300s and the middle of the 15th century. The Templars were founded in 1118.

See above. The manuscript is generally believed to have been copied from an earlier one, and describes a Masonic gathering in York in the 10th century.

Originally posted by tripletau
If you have not already done so, may I suggest reading Born in Blood by Robinson? An interesting work with regard to the fraternity.

I have read it, and it is indeed interesting. However, it considered a "pop history" and its conclusions are not accepted by academic historians.

reply to post by moocowman


That's a very interesting way of putting it!

Although he endured a helluva lot of pain apparently.

Personally I think Jesus was saying, "Believe me and you will have eternal life." not "Believe IN me and you will have eternal life."

His message seems to be identical to all the other great teachers of history. When stripped of dogma and theology it is simply a message of the immortality of the soul, our personal connection with the Creator and an admonition to love others.

All the rest is just the Cult of Paul and Jimmy Swaggart.

[edit on 9/29/09 by emsed1]

reply to post by emsed1

Personally I think Jesus was saying, "Believe me and you will have eternal life." not "Believe IN me and you will have eternal life."

Perhaps the message is "if you can't believe in yourself believe in me, you/we are gods " ?

A message hidden in plain sight obscured by dogma, understood by a few such as 33 degree masons ?

reply to post by moocowman


can ya remove your signature yet?

sigh. i don't hate _______ (fill in blank). i hate what they do.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by moocowman

 

can ya remove your signature yet?

sigh. i don't hate _______ (fill in blank). i hate what they do.

Hey Undo, how you keeping ?

I'm in a right xtian mood this week, yet another of my kids schools handing out bibles to a captive audience, needless to say one is not amused.

What you reckon Undo, do you agree with the OP that the Masons' are the Antichrist ?

What do you think of the inscription above the Jesus son of josephs' tomb and the skull positioning ? Masonic /Templar ?

Do you think that Masonry has its' roots in Egypt or Sumer perhaps ?

reply to post by moocowman


wellllllllllllllllll, i think amen was an egyptian name for enlil. but as you recall, i don't believe that the teaching necessarily followed the god name around. i don't think jesus was caesarian, however, although that was a nicely researched theory. i don't think masonry is the antichrist. nopers, not even for five seconds. some masons are antichrist in their viewpoint, but i think the litmus test is: who is antichrist? he is antichrist who denies the father and the son. and i think there's another that says something about the spirit of antichrist is evidenced in denial of christ's deity.

this is a huge subject, to be honest because it requires first and foremost, the conceptualization of the "sons of god", which further requires categorization and a ton of history that most people can't be bothered reading. it's easier to just read someone else's opinion. lol

p.s. it helps when researching to assume it's true and work from there. i did that with other ancient texts besides the bible and the results were astounding. the old texts of the ancient cultures support each other.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

That's a nice try, kingswillquiver. Like I said in the other thread, Freemasonry doesn't require a belief of the Christian faith, it just requires a faith in a Higher Power.

Freemasonry is not a religion:

* Freemasonry advocates no sectarian faith or practise.
* We seek no converts.
* We solicit no new members.
* We raise no money for religious purposes.
* We have no dogma or theology. Religious discussion is forbidden in a masonic lodge thereby eliminating the chance for any masonic dogma to form.
* It offers no sacraments and does not claim to lead to salvation by works, by secret knowledge, or by any other means. The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with the modes of recognition only and not with the means of salvation.
* By any definition of religion accepted by our critics, we cannot qualify as a religion.
* Freemasonry supports religion. Freemasonry is far from indifferent to religion. Without interfering in religious practise, it expects each member to follow his own faith.

Freemasons use "Supreme Grand Master" or "Supreme Architect of the Universe" and so on because we don't use any one name of God as our members are of many different faiths.

And what evidence do you have that we Freemasons descended from those who condemned Jesus? I bet you also believe that Jews are agents of Satan.

So now we protect bankers? Wow, that, and bankers are apparently anti-Christian. Hmmmm. Strange.

Originally posted by Cuhail
How can you take the words of one Freemason and apply them to the orginazation?

When you have hate in the heart you will see what you want to see. Nothing extreme is ever good. Moderation.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

You speak as if everyone in the world is Christian. That is not the case.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

And yet it is proven that Jim never received the 33rd degree.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

It probably wasn't the Bible that Augustus took his Oath on. It depends on his faith.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Christian fundamentalism disagrees anything that doesn't follow their exact interpretation of the Christian faith. They also hate religious tolerance so Freemasonry allowing men of different faiths to join is a major thorn in their side.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

I've been a Freemason for years and I still believe in God so your petty assumption is wrong.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

The 10 Commandments only pertain to the Judeo-Christian faiths. Freemasonry has no God of its own. Each member celebrates their faith in their own way. My God may not be the same as another member. So no, me joining the Freemasons doesn't break the 3rd Commandment as I still worship the Christian God I always have.

reply to post by kingswillquiver

To take our Oaths on.

reply to post by Shadow18433

And yet, I have shown evidence in other threads that the conspiracy theories were based on lies. You call our posts propaganda, but what do you call what you post?

The OP is an illogical argument. Anyone that has studied logic (philosophy) can see this.

reply to post by aorAki

Intellect has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

reply to post by Masonic Light

I hate it too, because they give Christianity a bad name.

reply to post by Splitta

It's still isn't proven. I honestly think it would cool if we were, but there is no definitive evidence of it.