SYMBOLISM - Witchcraft, Mind Control, Masons, Illuminati

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


www.catholic.com...

This right here.

And this.

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with more than one billion members worldwide.[1] It is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation.[2] The Catholic hierarchy is led by the Pope and includes cardinals, patriarchs and diocesan bishops. The Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ,[3][4] that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles and that the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter who has apostolic primacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then when you click the little hyperlink of "Christian", you are taken to...

en.wikipedia.org...

Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos[1] and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion[2] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[3] It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[1] The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the savior of humanity. Because of this, Christians commonly refer to Jesus as Christ or Messiah.[4] Jesus' ministry, sacrificial death, and subsequent resurrection are often referred to as the Gospel, meaning "Good News" (from the Greek: εὐαγγέλιον euangélion). In short, the Gospel is news of God the Father's eternal victory over evil,[5] and the promise of salvation and eternal life for all people, through divine grace.[6] Worldwide, the three largest groups of Christianity are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the various denominations of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox patriarchates split from one another in the East–West Schism of 1054 AD, and Protestantism came into existence during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, splitting from the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting...So the Roman Catholic church is the largest group of Christianity, huh?

reply to post by bknapple32

Let this thread of lies just whittle away.

So now it's a thread of lies?

Could you provide a list of these lies or not? including links for proof of that which you are claiming to be lies Or are you lying?
The "cherry picked" info was picked by the naysayers from what was presented, and now want to turn it round to suit your means. To derail this thread, as proved by your above statement.

Skeptic, or mason fan/wannabe.....you decide.

If I was out to derail the thread, I would think a mod would step in. The troll shill derailer argument is tired and overdone...

The lies? How many times do we have to repeat ourselves, its been referenced over and over. Go back and look for yourself.


Edit to add: you must be cherry picking the cherry pick reference. We've also pointed out numerous times how those pushing this agenda are cherry picking their own sources. And in addition, they are also just using sources from you tube and the likes which are in the minority compared to the vast amounts of research on the same topics completely refuting the agenda.

reply to post by bknapple32

The lies? How many times do we have to repeat ourselves

Ourselves? Im talking to you, are you part of a group? A gang? A agenda perhaps......or you fishing for back up?

One lie which wasn't a lie as the op admitted she was mistaken. For it to be a lie you have to know the truth and perpetuate a false truth. I doubt you know the truth, I'll admit, I don't. It's just my opinion. But you now seem to be presenting your posts as fact, which it is not. NOTHING has been prooved.

So unless you know the truth, which I'm assuming you don't, it's just your opinion.....

I was more insinuating you were a fan/wannabe. Simply because of that little bit of brown on your nose there.....oops I was lying/mistaken, I have a dirty screen

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
I wonder if BK will get on you about purposely lying about the sources you posted?

Both links are to a google scan of the book. My apologies if they differ but they appeared to me to be similar when I searched for it again. If they appendix is revised what difference does that make to the book as a whole? The appendix is not what is being discussed, the lack of the quote in question is the point.

So it seems as if the author was expounding upon this specific rule that he made the claim in his later book.

Which is my point, the quote does not appear in any version of the book.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Care to offer an explanation for not pressing AM for blatantly lying?

Give it a rest creamcake. ALL versions of the book do not have the quote:

Not in here...

Or here....

Or even here....

When you find it maybe you can let everyone know. But I have a feeling you never will because it does not exist.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Not word for word but it IS in a version of the book, apparently in a foot note, shame we cant see what the foot note itself is referring too....

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by bknapple32

 

The lies? How many times do we have to repeat ourselves

Ourselves? Im talking to you, are you part of a group? A gang? A agenda perhaps......or you fishing for back up?

One lie which wasn't a lie as the op admitted she was mistaken. For it to be a lie you have to know the truth and perpetuate a false truth. I doubt you know the truth, I'll admit, I don't. It's just my opinion. But you now seem to be presenting your posts as fact, which it is not. NOTHING has been prooved.

So unless you know the truth, which I'm assuming you don't, it's just your opinion.....

I was more insinuating you were a fan/wannabe. Simply because of that little bit of brown on your nose there.....oops I was lying/mistaken, I have a dirty screen

edit on 5-1-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

Have you even read what you were talking about? The OP used a source a claimed the writer WA over if the finding members of freemasonry. And yet that person was born 200 or so years after freemasonry was started. So I'm, yes I do know the truth. And now thanks to the "shills" so does everyone else. That was a lie, not an opinion. And it was very much proven.


And I say ourselves because lady, others and maybe you always refer to the 5 or so derailers and shills and trolls as a group. So I'm defending them along with me.

Have you even read what you were talking about? The OP used a source a claimed the writer WA over if the finding members of freemasonry. And yet that person was born 200 or so years after freemasonry was started.

Of course I have,...have you? The mistake was accepted and corrected, how is that perpetuating false truth?

Originally posted by Wifibrains

Have you even read what you were talking about? The OP used a source a claimed the writer WA over if the finding members of freemasonry. And yet that person was born 200 or so years after freemasonry was started.

Of course I have,...have you? The mistake was accepted and corrected, how is that perpetuating false truth?

Have I? I was the second person to call the OP out on it.

And no, not a, mistake. A mistake is getting something wrong like Lincoln was 6feet tall. A lie would be saying Lincoln was a founding member of the kkk

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Wifibrains

Have you even read what you were talking about? The OP used a source a claimed the writer WA over if the finding members of freemasonry. And yet that person was born 200 or so years after freemasonry was started.

Of course I have,...have you? The mistake was accepted and corrected, how is that perpetuating false truth?

Have I? I was the second person to call the OP out on it.

And no, not a, mistake. A mistake is getting something wrong like Lincoln was 6feet tall. A lie would be saying Lincoln was a founding member of the kkk

I'm not following your logic here, both can be mistakes or lies, it would depend weather you know for sure beforehand.

Are you suggesting she knew he was not, and still went ahead and posted he was? It seems that way. How do you know this?

reply to post by Wifibrains


It was only corrected after she was called out on it; ergo a lie. It would have been a mistake if she edited her post or acknowledged it of her own accord that would be different, but not after being called out about it.

reply to post by Wifibrains


I wrote when I first caught this, that she either knowingly posted the information falsely. Or she didn't bother to even read and vet her own sorce. So take your pick. Either way, it's not the only case of it. She was just off to prove a point, facts be damned.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

It was only corrected after she was called out on it; ergo a lie. It would have been a mistake if she edited her post or acknowledged it of her own accord that would be different, but not after being called out about it.

edit on 5-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

And did she ever edit the post? She had ample time as she was online and posting on this very thread as we were all calling her out on it.

Originally posted by Wifibrains
Not word for word but it IS in a version of the book, apparently in a foot note, shame we cant see what the foot note itself is referring too....

Not word for word because that quotes does not exist in Masonry. Nor anything similar to it.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

It was only corrected after she was called out on it; ergo a lie. It would have been a mistake if she edited her post or acknowledged it of her own accord that would be different, but not after being called out about it.

edit on 5-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Maybe the discrepancy was overlooked by the op, someone, Bk for instance, called her out, she checked it out and corrected her own "mistake". She can only lie if she knew the truth beforehand, it doesn't matter when she edited it.

Bk
I'm sure she did edit it. I went back to check earlier. Can't remember what page it's on, and quite frankly can't be bothered. Me Squabling with you guys will only further derail this thread. All is said and done I'd say. It is what it is, and denver was right. People will see what they want to see, no matter what side of the fence they are on, The sky is grey from where im standing lol,

reply to post by Ladyk74



i seem to be finding the words that i want to say in song

Let's get back on topic, guys. I'm rather interested in seeing this discussion go somewhere.

reply to post by Wifibrains


They seem to change as well here are the closest ones from a 1923 reprint of the 1917 revised edition (Published by ezara a. cook)

"Giving testimony against a brother mason in court which oath is to be obeyed? This or the legal oath?"
p171.
view.samurajdata.se...
or
i46.tinypic.com...

"Will a masonic juror obey this or his legal oath? which?"
p172.
view.samurajdata.se...
or
i46.tinypic.com...

and from a 1968 reprint of the 1917 revised edition (Published by Pomeroy?)
i45.tinypic.com...

Wonder where that page came from and why it was left out of an earlier edition published by someone who was anti secret societies.

reply to post by maryhinge


That is such a good song; and completely relevant to this coming year. 13 is the number of rebellion and revolution.