Religious Zealotry and its Inherent Hypocrisy Towards Masonry

reply to post by NarrowGate

You have malicious intent.

You are perpetuating known mis-translations, and myths.....By what standard do you declare the word 'malicious'?

As has been proven, Lucifer translated as day-star, or light-bearer...There are a great many references to Jesus being 'the light'....There is nothing 'malicious' about connecting the two...You only believe my intent is such, because you are hanging onto a proven myth, and judging the statement by said myth....If it wasn't for the fact you are erroneously attributing the deeds of 'Satan' to Lucifer, there wouldn't be a problem with that statement; now would there?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


www.apologeticspress.org...

Q:

Isaiah 14:12 mentions the name of "Lucifer." I’ve heard it said that this is Satan. Are Lucifer and Satan one and the same?

A:

It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.

Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts.

The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “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 Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “It derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?

No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:

I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).
As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23).

It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “In the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).

Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.

The context presented in Isaiah 14:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1950 edition), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, James Burton (1990), The Major Prophets—Isaiah (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Jackson, Wayne (1987), “Your Question & My Answer,” Christian Courier, 23:15, August.

Keil, C.F. and Franz Delitzsch, (1982 edition), Commentary on the Old Testament—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

reply to post by NarrowGate

Well, the wise men, the magi, were not ignorant men nor did they fear to study such things like many do today. Most men of the cloth (even in the pre-christian days) were also men of letters. They would have indeed studied the stars and their movements, and many things that most today would call mystic.

reply to post by NarrowGate

A popular misconception is still a misconception. They are pulling from the same erroneous source as everyone else.

reply to post by NarrowGate

Jesus was referred to as the Morning Star, which would be Lucifer.

reply to post by NarrowGate

No, Satan was not called Lucifer before his fall. That is false.

I seriously do not understand why so many other religious folk think a life of ignorance is a way of life. An enlightened mind is a mind for God.

Originally posted by KSigMason
I seriously do not understand why so many other religious folk think a life of ignorance is a way of life.

Fear.

Freemasonry is the path of the devils way and Lucifer is your God .

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


That they might be wrong; and instead of seeking their own answers, they clutch onto their crutch of "God's Salvation" without them ever having to do any kind of self-improvement whatsoever...

Maybe if they realized that the whole lot of it was inherently false, that there is no anthropomorphic boogey-man trying to make people do wrong; they would start to understand it isn't Satan that is 'evil' but Man, who possesses both Good AND Evil inside of him...

It is Man's responsibility for the effects of those Good or Bad actions...

But by all means let's continually throw the blame on anybody but ourselves, so that we can avoid doing anything to change...

reply to post by FreedomEntered


What do you know anyways, huh? Your opinion is worth a grain of salt, not having studied Freemasonry or any kind of Esoteric art, except through the heavily blinded lens of fundamental Christianity..

Let's not point out, how a good deal of us have proven that the Lucifer = Satan, connection is a figment of your imagination, and if anything Lucifer is Jesus...Heavily evidenced by the many sayings and allusions to Jesus, as the 'Light'...

So if you want to say that myself, or the Freemasons here worship Lucifer, I think I would take that as a compliment....

Hell, you're worshiping Lucifer; you are just too blinded to see it...

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Freemasonry is the path of the devils way and Lucifer is your God.

Sorry, you are more likely to be trapsing down the path of Lucifer since you are the one who believes in him.

I admire your strong faith in believing in the Devil.

I do disagree with prejudice, intolerance of others beliefs. You really feel your way is,the only way and all zealots have clouded judgements of freemasonry. so be . But id never want to be freemason as it's the devils,way. Jesus is,the son of God , you don't need freemasonry to find the light. It's misleasing. That's what I asseRt that it's a guys club,.

Tried to delete this message but couldn't.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
But id never want to be freemason as it's the devils,way.

Who is more likely to be following the 'Devil's way', you who believes in him or someone who does not?

You Satan-believers are funny.

You twist words. I'm not the one who meets others in private scheming for a global take over. I'm very empathic even towards an ant, i'm far from part of the devils way.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
...i'm far from part of the devils way.

Sorry, Satan-believer, your strong insistence that Satan is real puts you firmly on the 'Devil's way'.

I choose not to be superstitious like you and do not believe in Satan.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

So many call themselves "christians", "muslims", or whatever, but in reality they are just in the religion of the insecure. Their insecurities, and fear, make them lash out out in ignorance. As seen in the comment below this one.

reply to post by FreedomEntered

Freemasonry is a righteous path and nothing Satanic or wrong with it. Your interpretation and intolerance doesn't denote any wrongdoing on our part.

Nothing in Freemasonry diminishes the luster of Christ and His Teachings. The religiously intolerant on the other hand, with your overly aggressive preaching, you usually chase people away. While I no longer attend any church on a regular basis, I still hold the teachings of Christ close to my heart. You don't get converts by deep-throating (for the lack of a better word) them with Christ's message. Far too many "christians" have taken the Christ out of this Faith and have deformed into a militant society of passive-aggressive behavior.

reply to post by FreedomEntered

We do not believe we are the only way. We are bought a pathway one can take in this life.

We do not mislead.

Gosh your warped. I'm a pacifist. And yet because I find freemasonry a repulsive path,i'm now following the devils way. Gee

reply to post by FreedomEntered

I do disagree with prejudice, intolerance of others beliefs. You really feel your way is,the only way

You see, there is this old idiom, I think you might like it....

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle; "You are dirty and ugly and black! Sure no one would think you were metal, Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot; "'Tis your own dirty image you see; For I am so clean – without blemish or blot – That your blackness is mirrored in me."

reply to post by FreedomEntered

Gosh your warped. I'm a pacifist. And yet because I find freemasonry a repulsive path,i'm now following the devils way. Gee

Ya know, I've never seen Freemasonry(Masons) kill or rape women & children, just because they prayed to a different God than the one they did..

reply to post by FreedomEntered
I also find certain muslims to be disruptive . You Freemasons are intolerant of others opinions. Again it's nothing personal . Your decadent and fantasists. You won't find God through that mumbo jumbo.

reply to post by FreedomEntered

I also find Islam to be disruptive . You Freemasons are intolerant of others opinions.

Apparently, you failed to grasp the concept of an idiom, or the one provided for you...

You condemn Islam, while in the same breath accuse Freemasons of being intolerant of others opinions.....



I don't think I have seen a more intellectually deficient comment in all of my life....

I'm saying people have the right to condemn barbaric practices in any religion/cult/fraternity.