Concerning Bill Schnoebelen

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by kallisti36

 

that was a freaky ephisode. Poor chef. It's a shame he couldn't play nice. I think we all miss him.
I know for a fact that one member here is also a member of OTO and he assures me that it's much like other occult groups. No bad stuff, just spiritual learning. I trust him to tell the truth. Much more than I would trust a guy who I know lies about other things. Did you see what things he claimed about he Catholic Church? He was an ordained priest and all, according to his site. Amazing things. He must be one special guy to be able to climb to the top of the pile in every aspect of life. But as you said, innocent until proven guilty.

What did he say about the Catholic church? From my understanding he was only involved in groups out of communion with the Vatican (i.e. Old Catholics and Gnostic Catholics). I wouldn't doubt he had the drive to try everything. There is an itch for power once you are exposed to the occult, and according to the testemony from the Witches he associated with, the guy was on an enormous power trip. I'm not so sure about OTO being innocent, especially not any part of it that was associated with Crowley. Crowley was a really bad guy. If Crowley did even half the things he claimed, he would make alot of the Nazis at Nuremberg look misunderstood by comparison. Crowley, much like Schnoebelen was on a huge power trip and seems to have done EVERYTHING as well.

reply to post by kallisti36


Crowley is one that upon further investigation, was not the demon he was made out to be. Power trip? I'd say very much so. But from what I have read, he was seeking knowledge and was a very intelligent person. He was not an angel, but to my knowledge, didn't eat people or kill babies. No sexual molestation either. I think since he was looking in places that most church goers would never look, he was mistakenly labeled a devil. His research is some fascinating reading. Weird, but fascinating. He is one that I would study up on a bit before I claimed to know all about.

edit to add:
here is his study on Catholicism

90th degree makes no sense really. In numerology 90 would just be 9? I am not a numerologist! I know however, that numbers have a meaning, and it is taught in Kabbalah. 1-9 are the main numbers of course. and then we have the master numbers. I therefore postulate and speculate that the 3 degrees that a believe are over 33 would be something along the lines of 444, 555, and 666! perhaps an all knowing Illuminati degree of the 777th degree!

Since they are all focused on ancient mysticism! It would be logical to assume that they would also be working within these master numbers, sacred geometry and so fourth!
Since 90 makes no sense in a numerologist og Kabbalistic context, I would argue, that he pulled that degree out of his ass.

*******36*******
******3435******

*****313233*****
****27282930****
***2223242526***
**161718192021**
*09101112131415*
0102030405060708

Now I speculate that if there where higher degrees, they would not be numbered 34, 35 and 36! But as stated probably something along the line of 44, 55 and 66 or 444, 555 and 666 i.e. it would stay true to the master numbers! 33 is a very powerful number, and I am pretty sure that in symbolism and numerology 33 is higher/better than 90 I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by kallisti36

 

While all of what you said is accurate,

Once again, I agree, it is Pagan. I was just trying to show you that there is much more history to it than just being Pagan and Satanic. Any way, I wasn't intending on derailing this into another Pike discussion. I have no expertise on Bill Schnoebelen so I'll leave you to it.

So Bill, from a Christian perspective is right in that Christians should not be masons. Perhaps he lied about the rest because he thought it would be justified if he could get Masons to leave the craft and become Christians. Again, I'm speculating.

We're talking about Pike at the moment and Pike doesn't represent all of Freemasonry because he was only Scottish Rite. I take it that the masons in this thread are mostly Scottish or York Rite Masons, being the most popular. Tell me, are there certain Rites that your average mason would view as 'creepy' or 'fringe'? Schnoebelen puts alot of emphasis on Memphiz and Mitzraim and gives the impression that this Rite is worse and has more people in it that 'know the truth'.

Most of the people I know involved in a Masonic Lodge are Christians. The only sect of Christianity that has historically had a problem with Masonry is the catholic church.

Please explain to me how living a benevolent life style, spreading Relief through Charity, and embracing Brotherly Love are anti-christian... I think most followers of Christ would find that those tenets are in line with their very own religion. So Bill is wrong. He's imparting his own opinions that Freemasonry is un-christian. Many people have said that but there is no proof that that is factual truth. Just more opinions of people that either:
A) have their own agenda against Masonry and are using it to make money, or
B) have made their own opinions of Freemasonry based on the plethora of anti-masonic material, and conspiracy theories and choose to believe them as factual truth, when in reality it is twisted and warped opinions, not facts.

Have you read Morals and Dogma all the way through? Pike talks about the first 3 degrees of what is considered blue lodge Masonry as well as the 4-32 degrees. In fact there is a chapter dedicated to each. You may find it illuminating.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by kallisti36

 

While all of what you said is accurate,

Once again, I agree, it is Pagan. I was just trying to show you that there is much more history to it than just being Pagan and Satanic. Any way, I wasn't intending on derailing this into another Pike discussion. I have no expertise on Bill Schnoebelen so I'll leave you to it.

So Bill, from a Christian perspective is right in that Christians should not be masons. Perhaps he lied about the rest because he thought it would be justified if he could get Masons to leave the craft and become Christians. Again, I'm speculating.

We're talking about Pike at the moment and Pike doesn't represent all of Freemasonry because he was only Scottish Rite. I take it that the masons in this thread are mostly Scottish or York Rite Masons, being the most popular. Tell me, are there certain Rites that your average mason would view as 'creepy' or 'fringe'? Schnoebelen puts alot of emphasis on Memphiz and Mitzraim and gives the impression that this Rite is worse and has more people in it that 'know the truth'.

Most of the people I know involved in a Masonic Lodge are Christians. The only sect of Christianity that has historically had a problem with Masonry is the catholic church.

Please explain to me how living a benevolent life style, spreading Relief through Charity, and embracing Brotherly Love are anti-christian... I think most followers of Christ would find that those tenets are in line with their very own religion. So Bill is wrong. He's imparting his own opinions that Freemasonry is un-christian. Many people have said that but there is no proof that that is factual truth. Just more opinions of people that either:
A) have their own agenda against Masonry and are using it to make money, or
B) have made their own opinions of Freemasonry based on the plethora of anti-masonic material, and conspiracy theories and choose to believe them as factual truth, when in reality it is twisted and warped opinions, not facts.

Have you read Morals and Dogma all the way through? Pike talks about the first 3 degrees of what is considered blue lodge Masonry as well as the 4-32 degrees. In fact there is a chapter dedicated to each. You may find it illuminating.

I was referring to swearing oaths and use of pagan symbolism. I know all about Shriner and Masonic charities, they do alot for the community, that is a Christian value. Psuedo-occultism is pretty non-Christian though, even if it's not Satanism. He makes a good case even without the possible bs Taxil-esque claims.

Originally posted by Schrödinger
90th degree makes no sense really. In numerology 90 would just be 9? I am not a numerologist! I know however, that numbers have a meaning, and it is taught in Kabbalah. 1-9 are the main numbers of course. and then we have the master numbers. I therefore postulate and speculate that the 3 degrees that a believe are over 33 would be something along the lines of 444, 555, and 666! perhaps an all knowing Illuminati degree of the 777th degree!

Since they are all focused on ancient mysticism! It would be logical to assume that they would also be working within these master numbers, sacred geometry and so fourth!
Since 90 makes no sense in a numerologist og Kabbalistic context, I would argue, that he pulled that degree out of his ass.

*******36*******
******3435******

*****313233*****
****27282930****
***2223242526***
**161718192021**
*09101112131415*
0102030405060708

Now I speculate that if there where higher degrees, they would not be numbered 34, 35 and 36! But as stated probably something along the line of 44, 55 and 66 or 444, 555 and 666 i.e. it would stay true to the master numbers! 33 is a very powerful number, and I am pretty sure that in symbolism and numerology 33 is higher/better than 90

I could be wrong though.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Schrödinger because: (no reason given)

It's actually not a fictitious degree at all en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia confirms this, so I guess 90th degree isn't so esoteric after all. According to Network Dude, the Rite of Memphis-Misraim is not a part of mainstream Masonry.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by kallisti36

 

Crowley is one that upon further investigation, was not the demon he was made out to be. Power trip? I'd say very much so. But from what I have read, he was seeking knowledge and was a very intelligent person. He was not an angel, but to my knowledge, didn't eat people or kill babies. No sexual molestation either. I think since he was looking in places that most church goers would never look, he was mistakenly labeled a devil. His research is some fascinating reading. Weird, but fascinating. He is one that I would study up on a bit before I claimed to know all about.

edit to add:
here is his study on Catholicism

edit on 16-12-2010 by network dude because: add link

Ugghhh KJV onlyism makes me sick Didn't learn anything from that snippet though. The RCC did edit the Bible (deleted the 2nd commandment and divided another commandment into two) and supress it, refuse to translate it, and continued a long tradition of Biblical illiteracy. This isn't a Bill Schnoebelen book though, it's some other guy associated with Chick Tracts. Wish I could read it, though. I was Roman Catholic until I was 18, so I could definitely seperate reactionary bs from fact.

Schnoebelen is a fascinating guy, an engaging speaker who spins a good yarn. I admit I enjoy listening to his wild-eyed tales.

But there is no way I believe him. The primary reason is that he has "bitten off far more than he can chew." If you listen to his lecture, he claims to have mastered so many different paths: He says he was a mormon, a priest, a high-ranking Orthodox bishop, a zillion-degree esoteric freemason/illuminist, and so on. To reach any one of the pinnacles he claims in any of these systems (the ones that actually exist, that is) would take a lifetime for a motivated individual. It's preposterous to make claims like "Well, I decided to become a Russian Orthodox bishop, but then I tired of it and became a high-ranking mormon," etc. Give me a break. Still, his lectures are a lot of fun.

Oh wait, I found Catholicism: The Church on Haunted Hill
I will discern how much is true and false from my own experiences in Roman Catholicism.

Originally posted by silent thunder
Schnoebelen is a fascinating guy, an engaging speaker who spins a good yarn. I admit I enjoy listening to his wild-eyed tales.

But there is no way I believe him. The primary reason is that he has "bitten off far more than he can chew." If you listen to his lecture, he claims to have mastered so many different paths: He says he was a mormon, a priest, a high-ranking Orthodox bishop, a zillion-degree esoteric freemason/illuminist, and so on. To reach any one of the pinnacles he claims in any of these systems (the ones that actually exist, that is) would take a lifetime for a motivated individual. It's preposterous to make claims like "Well, I decided to become a Russian Orthodox bishop, but then I tired of it and became a high-ranking mormon," etc. Give me a break. Still, his lectures are a lot of fun.

He was initiated by a wandering bishop. Probably didn't put too much emphasis on procedures (also he wouldn't be recognized by the main church). Also, you become a Priest of the order of Melchizedech at 18 in Mormonism and becoming an Elder is also pretty easy. Most missionaries you run into are technically priests.

reply to post by kallisti36


By the way, there is a plethora of knowledge here on this very thread to discredit Mr. Schnoebelen. I know for a fact that there is a 32nd degree Scottish Rite Mason, a confirmed Catholic, a member of Memphis Miseram masonry, and while he isn't in this thread, I could call him in, a Satanist. he was on the older thread I referenced. So far, everyone who has been involved in the groups the Bill claims to have traveled to the pinnacle of, seem to think he is fabricating information to sell books. While nobody can offer rock solid proof, the fact that everyone came to the same conclusion should add a tiny bit of weight to the "against" side. i might suggest in light of that, that you don't chisel his words in stone perhaps just use erasable ink.

reply to post by network dude


Can't hurt to research his claims. I'm actually learning a fair bit about fringe groups at the moment and so far his video on Catholicism has been pretty fair (3 of 10 as of now). For everything else I have to take someone else's word for it, whether it be you guys or Schnoebelen and neither side is free of potential bias and loyalties. I think the Catholicism movie is my best bet to find how reactionary or honest he is. Still I will continue my research. I haven't made up my mind as of yet, but I must say you have all presented yourselves very well.

reply to post by kallisti36


learning is never a bad thing. I enjoyed it. If I ever hear the definitive word on Bill, I will post a new thread and invite him to defend his position. I believe if he was a mason, he deserves to have a chance to explain his motives. Please let me know what you think about any misinformation in his catholic interpretation.

reply to post by network dude


Oh man that video was boring. It's nowhere near as reactionary as the title sounds (which I think was Jack Chick's idea, the guy who brought us 'Death Cookie'). Infact most of the things he talks about are the main reasons I left Roman Catholicism in the first place; horrible doctrinal errors and abuse of power. Things get a bit harder to get evidence for when (surprise!) he connects Pope John XXIII with the Rosicrucians and Freemasons. You won't find anything about it on Wiki but apparently Opus Dei considers him to be an Anti-Pope for breaking Canon Law by being part of a secret society: www.opusdeialert.com... There are also FBI documents that paint the picture that he usurped the Papal throne by force from Gregory XVII.

Though, to be fair, Schnoebelen would have a much harder time telling barefaced lies about the Roman Catholic Church with so many people involved. So, the situation could have forced him to be ethical. Besides, it's not like he needs to lie to point out Roman Catholic bs.

Addendum: That link was actually a conspiracy website run by Catholic traditionalists, and are actually Anti-Opus Dei. Sorry for the confusion.

reply to post by kallisti36


I agree with you completely about the church BS part. I grew up Catholic as well. Still love Jesus, but hate church. I just don't remember God being short of cash in anything I read, yet church seems to be very adamant about collecting for "him". It shouldn't be a business and having the biggest church shouldn't be the goal of the pastor or priest. I used to be nieve and thought it was about guiding ones soul.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by kallisti36

 

I agree with you completely about the church BS part. I grew up Catholic as well. Still love Jesus, but hate church. I just don't remember God being short of cash in anything I read, yet church seems to be very adamant about collecting for "him". It shouldn't be a business and having the biggest church shouldn't be the goal of the pastor or priest. I used to be nieve and thought it was about guiding ones soul.

Then there's the Vatican. It's the smallest sovereign nation on Earth and the richest. They have enough money to feed Africa or fund a task force to knock out all of the Warlords that horde the food people donate. But no, they just spend it on Pagan architecture and gold trimmed clothes.

Oh, the reason for the reactionary title was hardly expounded on, but it was explained. The Vaticanus, the hill that the Vatican sits on used to be where the Pagan fortune tellers read people's fortunes and conducted rituals.

reply to post by kallisti36

I was referring to swearing oaths and use of pagan symbolism

..You mean the entire Christian religion? .. Why, we are even coming up on the Winter Solstice celebration of Christmas .. a holiday celebrated since man's first nations were built, and probably before that.. I know I even have a pagan Christmas Tree in my house, taken from the Germans..

In fact.. not a single aspect of Christianity is unique.. so it's quite rich to lambaste someones affiliation with a fraternity because of "pagan" symbolism...

reply to post by kallisti36


When it comes right down to brass tacks, (I usually come around to this point eventually) what religion can you think of off the top of your head that ritualistically drinks the blood and ingests the body of their deity?

If you're going to say Satanism, you would be wrong.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by kallisti36

 

I was referring to swearing oaths and use of pagan symbolism

..You mean the entire Christian religion? .. Why, we are even coming up on the Winter Solstice celebration of Christmas .. a holiday celebrated since man's first nations were built, and probably before that.. I know I even have a pagan Christmas Tree in my house, taken from the Germans..

In fact.. not a single aspect of Christianity is unique.. so it's quite rich to lambaste someones affiliation with a fraternity because of "pagan" symbolism...

Most Pagan influences on Christianity can be traced to Rome. Most of the supposed Pagan/Christian comparisons are immensely weak. Like the theory that Ya'hshuah is just an idea stolen from Osiris. Never mind the fact that Osiris was cut into twelve pieces and couldn't be resurrected, because Isis couldn't find his penis. Unless you are referring to Horus "the crowned and conquering child" and other such rot. I don't recall Ya'hshuah getting in a desperate struggle with Set (Satan) to ejaculate on each other. Or are you referring to Krishna being a 'god-man'. Krishna may or may not have been a virgin birth, this is speculated and was likely invented later. Krishna was a warrior god and killed a ton of people and had sex with thousands of women (Ya'hshuah didn't). Krishna also died in battle, didn't rise from the dead, and didn't go to heaven body and soul. Also, none of these people sacrificed themselves for the sins of mankind. You can find various concepts of 'sin eating' and atonement by blood in other cultures (Native American I think), but they aren't quite the same. Also, the sacrifice is predicted in the OT so, yeah, it wasn't original and whose to say that other people across the world caught wind of the coming sacrifice for the sins of all.

The Masonic (and Catholic) use of the Egyptian obelisk is a Pagan symbol of ressurection. The 'missing piece' that would have ressurected Osiris. This is a ressurection contrary to Christian teachings because it is Ressurection without God. So, blame the Roman Catholics for Pagan idolatry, but don't drag the rest of Christendom into this.

Anyway, thank you for your outdated and disproved claims. The Jesus-mithraic views went down in flames over a decade ago. Meanwhile the arguments of skeptics and apolegists has evolved.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by kallisti36

 

When it comes right down to brass tacks, (I usually come around to this point eventually) what religion can you think of off the top of your head that ritualistically drinks the blood and ingests the body of their deity?

If you're going to say Satanism, you would be wrong.

Ya'hshuah was speaking figuratively of the coming vicarious atonement for sins. I'm not so sure if the RCC doctrine of Transubstantiation is without Biblical support however. Still, it seems unnecessary to re-sacrifice Ya'hshuah every mass.