The Scottish Rite and its importance to anti-Masons

reply to post by JoshNorton


Not when you say it like that Josh, but if you take it from the context of the Bible like Augustus posted

"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!""

In relation to this passage and being biblical people, and also considering the stigma attached to the word 'lucifer' I certainly think it is an odd choice.

Doing a little more research it turns out the Vatican have been interested in astronomy since the 17th century because they are in charge of the calendar, however the telescope is investigating the birth of stars.

Yup it all makes perfect sense now :/



[edit on 29-4-2010 by oxford]

reply to post by oxford

There was also a Bishop of the Church named Lucifer. I believe he lived around the 4th century.

Originally posted by Northwarden
I will say, what it looks like you've presented is only the tip of the iceberg from what I've researched.

The tip of the iceberg in relation to what aspect?

As there appears once again to be a rash of persons touting their 'opinion' as truth I have decied to bring this thread back up to address those who are obviously so very and sadly misinformed. I await their salient points and hopefully, evidence other than in the form of their opinion.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I await their salient points and hopefully, evidence other than in the form of their opinion.

I am not sure you are fully aware of what you are in for. I fear it's gotten worse since the Latin lessons. Opinion has been cast by the wayside and nothing but completely ludicrous "facts" remain. Be it brave or stupid remains to be seen. Circular logic rules this playground. Good luck either way.

In reference to Pepsi incenssent incisitance that the Scottish Rite has some kind managerial control over all; I say it's BS and there are many reasons for that: 1) By-Laws and Constitution define how a organization operates to include governance and legislation. 2) The voting members of that body would not allow decisions from unknown origin take hold without approval. 3) Even the decisions of the presiding officer of the Grand body gets looked at by a jurisprudence committee.

With no disrespect to my Scottish Rite Brethren, but if a random member of the Scottish Rite barged into a meeting and tried anything I as the presiding officer would have them removed.

Good thing to see that masons agree with masons here that there is nothing sinister going on with masonry.
Theory debunked, move along nothing to see here.

reply to post by Schrödinger

How about you post something more than attacking the person. Try posting a rebuttal with substance.

reply to post by Schrödinger
That's a terribly cynical view! Masonry is all about charity...and self-improvement...and charity...not devil-worship...charity...and wisdom...who's Jahbulon? Never heard of him...it's about charity...there are all part of an honest group of big-hearted men that go through perfectly normal initiation ceremonies and congregate in private because as well as being big-hearted, they're also extremely humble and would be embarrassed if the general public found out about all their charity work.

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Good thing to see that masons agree with masons here that there is nothing sinister going on with masonry.
Theory debunked, move along nothing to see here.

but would it really matter who told you there was nothing sinister going on? Some folks just don't have enough excitement in their real lives that they need to invent a few extra boogymen to worry about.

Booo!

13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as Christ's apostles. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an ANGEL OF LIGHT. 15 It is no great thing therefore if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

2 Corinthians 11: 13 - 15

Sorry, I'm still not convinced.

Since even Christ Jesus didn't deny Samael as the ruler of this world when offered all of the governments of this world for a single act of worship by him to Samael, it would logically therefore prove that those ruling this world indeed are in turn ruled by Samael... your 'angel of light'.

This is a statement - of undeniable truth.

Don't get me wrong... Masons truly believe in doing good towards thier fellow man. In fact, Samael is quite benevolent to those who choose to align themselves with him.

I choose to instead align myself with Metatron, the true Son of YHWH!

You can keep your 'Uncle Sam' ...

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
who's Jahbulon? Never heard of him...it's about charity...

Will you stop pretending that anyone denies the word "Jabulon" has been used in Masonic ritual? It's been discussed to death here.

reply to post by OnTheLevel213
I'm not pretending anything - I've spoken to Masons that haven't heard of Jahbulon. When do you get introduced to this name? This Jahbulon has a creature type form does he?

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Schrödinger

 

How about you post something more than attacking the person. Try posting a rebuttal with substance.

Like the 20 or so insinuations alone in this thread made by your fellow masons, that anyone not agreeing with you is not right in the head?
I didn't make a single ad hominem attack, I pointed out that the majority of posters in this thread is masons agreeing with masons.

While I do agree that many seem to think that the 33rd degree of the scottish rite, is the top of the echelon, that in no way represents the majority of theories about secret societies and its uses.

We have already discussed this to death, just because we stopped being vocal about it because you have officially hi jacked this sub forum, to your own; "hey I haz positive experience with freemasonry, ergo is all theories involving secret societies debunked" does not mean that you have debunked anything, the problem with the most accepted theory is just that you; DONT KNOW! None of us does, so stop acting like you know it all, and stop insinuating that you have debunked this subject.

reply to post by Schrödinger

Except with our analysis of the reason for anti-Masonic sentiment we usually back it up with something more than a one-liner. When the tune strikes my fancy I usually post quite a bit.

It's not only the "positive experiences" I have, it is the historical evidence that I use. I can prove much of what I say, but so many anti-Masons just keep their blinders on convinced that they hold some superior knowledge, even over actual Masons.

reply to post by bushidomason


i too wish i would have joined the YR before the SR but alas i am just in the SR and enjoy it very much and have a biased towards it. the transition is tough if you weren't "raised" in new orelans scottish rite lodges

reply to post by southerndemolay

I had a chance to visit the Brethren of Etoile Polaire #1 last Fall. Quite an experience learning about the variations between the Scottish Rite and York Rite Blue Lodges. I also found it fascinating that many of the Lodges spoke French up to the mid-20th century. I also took a tour of the Scottish Rite building and learned about the history of LA Scottish Rite. For the Brethren who haven't been, I would suggest going once to the Crescent City.

Since this thread is back near the top, thought I'd comment on our good friend Lucifer. Quoth Robinson:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else:

This depends entirely on which translation of the Bible you are reading. A machine search of the Vulgate (Protestant canon, sadly) finds Lucifer in Isaiah, Job 11:17, and II Peter 1:19. Modern English translations tend not to use the word at all.

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.""

It goes back before Christian scholars, to the Alexandrian Jews who translated the Septuagint. They understood that Helel ben Schahar referred to the day star, the planet Venus, and applied the corresponding Greek term: Eosphoros, the bearer of light. The Latin translator simply supplied the Latin equivalent, which was Lucifer--also the bearer of light. The folk mythology of Lucifer/Satan arose, not as a result of any conscious decision on the part of redactors, but from simple misunderstanding as the texts were copied and repeated over centuries and across many different cultures.

"The scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century.

James was neither militant nor Catholic. His translation committee used the best available Hebrew text, the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text. (Bomberg's edition is nearly letter-to-letter identical to the modern Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the 11th century Codex Leningradensis; it is the same text used for a thousand years, up to this very day.) Like all good translators, the committee consulted other sources, probably including at least one version translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate itself. The Vulgate is a witness to a pre-Masoretic text, so there's no reason not to consult it when the Hebrew is obscure.

Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place.

This is not a mistranslation. Rather, Jerome (and his predecessors) maintained the Semitic metaphor by translating it into a receptor language metaphor.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
This depends entirely on which translation of the Bible you are reading.

I'm more or less certain that Robinson is referring to the KJV here.

reply to post by OnTheLevel213

As am I. But since he reaches all the way back to Jerome to make his case, it is appropriate to look at Jerome's version. I did, and it shows that lucifer was understood as a metonym for morning or the day star in the fourth century. The word was not, as Robinson's anonymous scholar claims, injected by Latin-speaking Christian scribes who decided to invent a fallen angel.