The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Before moving on ... and while we are translating Latin here, now might be a good time to translate the Latin affixed to the jewel of the 33rd degree Freemason. The first phrase inscribed thereon is "ordo ab chao" which translated means "order from chaos'. With this in mind I was somewhat taken aback when I heard the most recent darling of political conservative effort, Matt Gaetz, use this term to describe his efforts. The other phrase on said jewel is "Deus Meumque Jus". You can't translate this from any Latin dictionary you can lay hands on in your local book store ... should one still exist anywhere near you. I had to shell out $120 to get one sufficient unto the task by mail. "Deus" means "gods'. The term is plural. "Meumque" ... this was the term that forced me to find another reference work than that which was commonly available. It means, roughly, "by your own work or labor." "Jus" means law or natural law, as in, a law of nature. Roughly translated you get "gods, by our own effort/work and natural law."
This nonsense is close to being an intentional lie except that I believe that you believe what you wrote here. Suffice to say that you've either been lied too or are just flatly wrong. For those who use the phrase as a motto, it means "God and my moral rightness".

‘Deus Meumque Jus’ is a Latin phrase that is commonly translated as ‘God and my right,’ or more appropriately ‘God and my moral rightness.’ However, there is an element of misunderstanding regarding the translation of the phrase.​
Deus is straightforward enough to understand, as it is very commonly known as the Latin word for God. The confusion lies in the word Jus, as it relates to law and justice, so some speculate that the motto actually translates to ‘God my justice’ or ‘God my law.’​
Brother Christopher Haddop perfectly summarises the contentious origins of the motto when he writes:​
‘The motto is the Latin version of a French phrase that originated in England and used in a Masonic degree system named after Scotland that descended from French sources by way of Haiti with the help of a Dutch trader through Jamaica and eventually almost completely redefined in the United States.’​
The same author tells us that the French translation of the phrase – ‘Dieu et Mon Droit’ – is actually the United Kingdom’s royal motto. This is thought to be a result of a legendary battle cry by England’s King Richard I during a battle in 1198. The motto refers to the longstanding notion of the divine right of kings.​
Despite the rather spurious origins of the motto, within Freemasonry, we have understood the phrase as ‘God and my moral rightness .’ It is thought that, when seen on Masonic regalia within the 32nd and 33rd degrees, this is the intended meaning.
- Source
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
Yeppers.
Masons are just another packaging of spiritual alchemy and gnosticim.
Seeking hidden divine knowledge to help you open yourself up to the inner self-realization that you can rise above and be part of brotherhood of godlike beings that shepherd order back to a chaotic world.
It started way back in the garden.
Made a big comeback and caused a flurry of secret societies to arise.
Yes,"deus meumque jus" sounds a whole lot like what was offered in the garden ..." ye shall be as gods and ye shall not surely die." That was a half lie. Adam and Eve did "become as gods (Elohim)" in that they could discern good and evil. They were expelled from the garden before they could lay hands on the tree of life. Our only way back is thru Christ.

There is a fascinating book on this subject by Alexander Hislop entitled "The Two Babylons" that traces the lie told in the garden up to today. I can't get on board with his rabid anti Catholicism but, that aside, it's an engrossing read.

 
Last edited:

fzappa13

Well-known member
This nonsense is close to being an intentional lie except that I believe that you believe what you wrote here. Suffice to say that you've either been lied too or are just flatly wrong. For those who use the phrase as a motto, it means "God and my moral rightness".

‘Deus Meumque Jus’ is a Latin phrase that is commonly translated as ‘God and my right,’ or more appropriately ‘God and my moral rightness.’ However, there is an element of misunderstanding regarding the translation of the phrase.​
Deus is straightforward enough to understand, as it is very commonly known as the Latin word for God. The confusion lies in the word Jus, as it relates to law and justice, so some speculate that the motto actually translates to ‘God my justice’ or ‘God my law.’​
Brother Christopher Haddop perfectly summarises the contentious origins of the motto when he writes:​
‘The motto is the Latin version of a French phrase that originated in England and used in a Masonic degree system named after Scotland that descended from French sources by way of Haiti with the help of a Dutch trader through Jamaica and eventually almost completely redefined in the United States.’​
The same author tells us that the French translation of the phrase – ‘Dieu et Mon Droit’ – is actually the United Kingdom’s royal motto. This is thought to be a result of a legendary battle cry by England’s King Richard I during a battle in 1198. The motto refers to the longstanding notion of the divine right of kings.​
Despite the rather spurious origins of the motto, within Freemasonry, we have understood the phrase as ‘God and my moral rightness .’ It is thought that, when seen on Masonic regalia within the 32nd and 33rd degrees, this is the intended meaning.
- Source
I think it telling that when you try and google the term "meumque" you are funneled to numerous masonic sources explaining the meaning of the phrase "deus meumque jus". You can't find a definition of that term by itself using a search engine. As Spock would say, "fascinating." Is that and indicator of some conspiracy to keep the layman from educating themselves concerning this subject? In and of itself, likely not. Is this phenomenon something other than coincidence? Most likely, yes. Letting Freemasons tell you what Freemasonry is about is akin to letting Pfizer and Moderna tell you what their shot is about.

I would offer a little more Latin; "caveat emptor."
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
As history is seldom taught any more so few are aware that the "communism" that came to Russia was born and bred in France (and to a lesser degree Germany), hence their outwardly odd relationship that still exists today. This communism was exported to Russia by the French Jacobin clubs that were peopled by Grand Orient Freemasons. Communism was their particular take on the philosophies of one G.W.F. Hegel. They attempted the same thing in France in instigating revolution there as well but their atrocities were sufficiently heinous that public revulsion to them forced the Jacobins to pull in their feelers somewhat and the Freemason Napoleon Bonaparte and his supporters steered things in a little different direction and thus France was able to avoid the fate of Russia at least temporarily.

It was the intent of these Jacobin revolutionaries that communism engulf the entire world. We were warned of it's encroachment here by many. We failed to heed these warnings and communism has now captured our educational systems. I fear it is now only a matter of time before this next generation fully embraces the atheistic philosophy born in the Masonic lodges of France and we will lose the system of Government championed by yet another group of Freemasons.

You see, Freemasonry has been at war with itself for quit some time. In our civil war, French Freemasonry supported the South and English Freemasonry supported the North. Distilled to it's essence one can see Hegel's idea of a directed synthesis through the clash of thesis and antithesis at play here and in our own political system that is careful to maintain only two political parties that give the illusion of choice where none exists. Unless and until we free ourselves from this paradigm we will be inexorably carried forth to it's stated goal.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yes,"deus meumque jus" sounds a whole lot like what was offered in the garden ..." ye shall be as gods and ye shall not surely die." That was a half lie. Adam and Eve did "become as gods (Elohim)" in that they could discern good and evil. They were expelled from the garden before they could lay hands on the tree of life. Our only way back is thru Christ.

There is a fascinating book on this subject by Alexander Hislop entitled "The Two Babylons" that traces the lie told in the garden up to today. I can't get on board with his rabid anti Catholicism but, that aside, it's an engrossing read.

Adam and Eve could discern good from evil before eating from the tree.

Obey God = Good
Disobey God = Evil

It wasn't hard and they weren't stupid, nor is God unjust.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
As history is seldom taught any more so few are aware that the "communism" that came to Russia was born and bred in France (and to a lesser degree Germany), hence their outwardly odd relationship that still exists today. This communism was exported to Russia by the French Jacobin clubs that were peopled by Grand Orient Freemasons. Communism was their particular take on the philosophies of one G.W.F. Hegel. They attempted the same thing in France in instigating revolution there as well but their atrocities were sufficiently heinous that public revulsion to them forced the Jacobins to pull in their feelers somewhat and the Freemason Napoleon Bonaparte and his supporters steered things in a little different direction and thus France was able to avoid the fate of Russia at least temporarily.

It was the intent of these Jacobin revolutionaries that communism engulf the entire world. We were warned of it's encroachment here by many. We failed to heed these warnings and communism has now captured our educational systems. I fear it is now only a matter of time before this next generation fully embraces the atheistic philosophy born in the Masonic lodges of France and we will lose the system of Government championed by yet another group of Freemasons.

You see, Freemasonry has been at war with itself for quit some time. In our civil war, French Freemasonry supported the South and English Freemasonry supported the North. Distilled to it's essence one can see Hegel's idea of a directed synthesis through the clash of thesis and antithesis at play here and in our own political system that is careful to maintain only two political parties that give the illusion of choice where none exists. Unless and until we free ourselves from this paradigm we will be inexorably carried forth to it's stated goal.
It is democracy that is pushing this nation toward the left, not Hagel, not the French and certainly not Freemasonry. Joseph McArthy's efforts to root out Communism was the last real effort anyone has made to rid our society of Marxist dogma (some might count Trump's efforts in this regard but we're not historically separated from that enough yet to know really) and the result was that the press and Hollywood (i.e. not the Masons) turned McArthy's name into a epithet.

Whether you call it Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or whateverism, this country has always been on an inexorable path toward one form of collectivism or another and it will continue on that path so long as the population is allowed to vote on what the rules of society are. The momentum in the direction of collectivism got its biggest boost in the 1920's when women were given the right to vote. Not merely because they're women (women do tend to lean left) but simply because it increases the number of people voting. People (both male and female) are evil, and once you get past a handful of trusted advisors, the more people involved in making a decision, the more likely that decision will be evil.

Right and wrong are not matters of opinion, generally speaking and laws are not to be created but discovered and dispassionately enforced. It is immoral to murder babies, for example. As such, it should be illegal to murder a baby, whether its yours or not and whether it's been born yet or not. It is a moral absolute and any nation that legalizes the immoral is an unjust nation, by definition. Judges should not be allowed to decide a convicted criminal's punishment, to give another example. The law should define the crime as well as the punishment for having committed the crime. It's a matter of interest to the family of the victim to know the motive that the criminal had, but the motive aught not have any impact on the punishment. As God prescribed to Noah, if a man sheds another man's blood (i.e. intentionally), by man his blood shall be shed. God didn't say to execute the murderer unless the murderer was under the age of 18, or unless you can tell that he's sorry or unless you have evidence that it was done in the heat of the moment, or whatever. Convicted murderers should be executed - period. Indeed, even those who attempt murder but fail aught to be punished as though they succeeded.

That's a taste of what a just legal system would look like and ours looked quite similar to that at one time but in a system where the population can soften the law, the law will be softened and a slightly unjust society breads a more unjust society which in turn breads a totally unjust society, which is very nearly where we are today. All of which has as much to do with Freemasonry as it has to do with the Lions Club and the Boy Scouts, which is exactly nothing at all. It has everything to do with the evilness of humans and the humanism that is innate to democracy and which God hates and warned us about in His word.

Clete

P.S. No one seems to be objecting but perhaps it would be best if this discussion about Freemasonry was moved to it's own thread.
 
Last edited:

fzappa13

Well-known member
Adam and Eve could discern good from evil before eating from the tree.

Obey God = Good
Disobey God = Evil

It wasn't hard and they weren't stupid, nor is God unjust.
I'm not sure where you're getting this. You made an assertion but offered no scripture to support it. My Bible says this:

Gen 2:
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

and then there is this:

Gen 3:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

These passages would appear to be at variance with your assertion.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You cannot seriously believe that Adam didn't know he was doing wrong when he ate of the Tree! Also, "God is not unjust." was the scriptural portion of my argument. In other words, if Adam was incapable of knowing right from wrong, then he was incapable of any action that was worthy of death (or any other punishment for that matter).

Do a study on the phrase "knowledge of good and evil" and see what you find. Also, find the two things in scripture that had a ministry of death. You'll find the two issues related.

In short, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the law, it is the alternative to knowing God. It is the first manifestation of law and the law itself is a continuation of the Tree's ministry. One could even say that the law is the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It was not a magic tree that inserted a knew ability into Adam and Eve. It was simply a choice they were given. It was love God and live or not. They chose badly.
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
It is democracy that is pushing this nation toward the left, not Hagel, not the French and certainly not Freemasonry. Joseph McArthy's efforts to root out Communism was the last real effort anyone has made to rid our society of Marxist dogma (some might count Trump's efforts in this regard but we're not historically separated from that enough yet to know really) and the result was that the press and Hollywood (i.e. not the Masons) turned McArthy's name into a epithet.

Whether you call it Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or whateverism, this country has always been on an inexorable path toward one form of collectivism or another and it will continue on that path so long as the population is allowed to vote on what the rules of society are. The momentum in the direction of collectivism got its biggest boost in the 1920's when women were given the right to vote. Not merely because they're women (women do tend to lean left) but simply because it increases the number of people voting. People (both male and female) are evil, and once you get past a handful of trusted advisors, the more people involved in making a decision, the more likely that decision will be evil.

Right and wrong are not matters of opinion, generally speaking and laws are not to be created but discovered and dispassionately enforced. It is immoral to murder babies, for example. As such, it should be illegal to murder a baby, whether its yours or not and whether it's been born yet or not. It is a moral absolute and any nation that legalizes the immoral is an unjust nation, by definition. Judges should not be allowed to decide a convicted criminal's punishment, to give another example. The law should define the crime as well as the punishment for having committed the crime. It's a matter of interest to the family of the victim to know the motive that the criminal had, but the motive aught not have any impact on the punishment. As God prescribed to Noah, if a man sheds another man's blood (i.e. intentionally), by man his blood shall be shed. God didn't say to execute the murderer unless the murderer was under the age of 18, or unless you can tell that he's sorry or unless you have evidence that it was done in the heat of the moment, or whatever. Convicted murderers should be executed - period. Indeed, even those who attempt murder but fail aught to be punished as though they succeeded.

That's a taste of what a just legal system would look like and ours looked quite similar to that at one time but in a system where the population can soften the law, the law will be softened and a slightly unjust society breads a more unjust society which in turn breads a totally unjust society, which is very nearly where we are today. All of which has as much to do with Freemasonry as it has to do with the Lions Club and the Boy Scouts, which is exactly nothing at all. It has everything to do with the evilness of humans and the humanism that is innate to democracy and which God hates and warned us about in His word.

Clete

P.S. No one seems to be objecting but perhaps it would be best if this discussion about Freemasonry was moved to it's own thread.
My goodness Clete, you sure covered a lot of ground in 4 scant paragraphs. I'll sort through them as best can. You begin and end your offering with the notion that "democracy", in and of itself, lay at the root of our inability to self govern. You then get, in my estimation, much closer to the truth when you point out man as the weakness that results in the failure of this form of self government. I would take it a step further and point to 1 Sam 8. Being ruled over by the Lord was not sufficient and so began the experiment in self governance by God's chosen people. It's been down hill ever since and I think there is a lesson to be learned there.

You then suggest that man (and woman) are inherently evil. I disagree. I would suggest that we are capable of both good and evil and across the course of a lifetime we learn to eschew the latter and embrace the former. That is the point and purpose of this life for those of us who are not "tares."

You then go on to lay the blame for our march toward "collectivism" at the feet of women being given the right to vote. While I would agree that they are "the weaker vessel" we are charged with their care and at some point we are going to have to quit playing Adam and blaming them for our own shortcomings. After all it was men that passed the 19th amendment and likely a preponderance of them were Freemasons.

... and then there is this; ." People (both male and female) are evil, and once you get past a handful of trusted advisors, the more people involved in making a decision, the more likely that decision will be evil."

The Bible says this:
Prov 15: 22Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

You then go on to argue for an Old Testament justice system as if Jesus never showed up and said what He said. I know "an eye for an eye" sounds fair but it leaves us all blind eventually.

... and then there is this: "All of which has as much to do with Freemasonry as it has to do with the Lions Club and the Boy Scouts, which is exactly nothing at all."

That's funny in that both are the progeny of the Lodge. As your posts unfurl I am beginning to suspect that your claim of not being a Mason might be suspect, or, to paraphrase the words of another famous Freemason, "Me thinks thou doth protest too much."
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
You cannot seriously believe that Adam didn't know he was doing wrong when he ate of the Tree! Also, "God is not unjust." was the scriptural portion of my argument. In other words, if Adam was incapable of knowing right from wrong, then he was incapable of any action that was worthy of death (or any other punishment for that matter).

Do a study on the phrase "knowledge of good and evil" and see what you find. Also, find the two things in scripture that had a ministry of death. You'll find the two issues related.

In short, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the law, it is the alternative to knowing God. It is the first manifestation of law and the law itself is a continuation of the Tree's ministry. One could even say that the law is the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It was not a magic tree that inserted a knew ability into Adam and Eve. It was simply a choice they were given. It was love God and live or not. They chose badly.
Not only am I "not nicer than God" I'm not smarter than Him either. I tend to just accept what He has said at face value and I find no need to rationalize what He has said to fit my preferences as I have none as it regards His pronouncements.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There's a lot that can be said and questioned about having the knowledge of good and evil and what the result can be of having that knowledge.

One could ask why God forbid Adam & Eve to have that knowledge, and yet God was pleased to grant Solomon that knowledge.
1 Kings 3 ESV
(9) Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”
(10) It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.

One could also ask why Adam & Eve being did not see their nakedness as a shameful thing that needed to be covered prior to having the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:25 & Gen 3:7)

And then we have Solomon saying this:
Proverbs 1 ESV
(7) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
My goodness Clete, you sure covered a lot of ground in 4 scant paragraphs. I'll sort through them as best can. You begin and end your offering with the notion that "democracy", in and of itself, lay at the root of our inability to self govern. You then get, in my estimation, much closer to the truth when you point out man as the weakness that results in the failure of this form of self government. I would take it a step further and point to 1 Sam 8. Being ruled over by the Lord was not sufficient and so began the experiment in self governance by God's chosen people. It's been down hill ever since and I think there is a lesson to be learned there.
Having a king over Israel was always the plan. Israel's error wasn't in wanting a king, it was in not being patient enough to wait on God's timing.

That, of course can be established but it seems a bit much for this post.

You then suggest that man (and woman) are inherently evil. I disagree.
Your disagreement is irrelevant. It isn't a matter of opinion. Anyone descended from Adam who is still in this mortal flesh is evil by nature and whether that were the case or not (which it is) we have not been given the authority to make law but only to enforce it.

I would suggest that we are capable of both good and evil and across the course of a lifetime we learn to eschew the latter and embrace the former. That is the point and purpose of this life for those of us who are not "tares."
No sir. On the contrary. We are born innocent and that is the pinnacle of human righteousness outside of being hidden in Christ, who Himself was and remains a human.

I agree that people are capable of doing good things. I'm no Calvinist and reject entirely their teaching of total depravity but human beings, on the whole and as a group, are evil. Individual actions by specific persons have the greatest variation and therefore the greatest potential for being more good than evil but the larger the group, the less true that becomes. The masses will always gravitate toward collectivism and tyranny. There is clearly a range that groups of people tend to move through where a particular society starts off fairly well, especially if that group has repented and turned toward God, and then they deteriorate until they either implode on themselves or are destroyed by an enemy. This is not only true of nation but of any large organization. Ivy League colleges were all started by Christians and were overtly Christian schools at one time. And just as those schools have deteriorated morally over time, we as a nation are much closer to the end of the process than the beginning.

You then go on to lay the blame for our march toward "collectivism" at the feet of women being given the right to vote. While I would agree that they are "the weaker vessel" we are charged with their care and at some point we are going to have to quit playing Adam and blaming them for our own shortcomings. After all it was men that passed the 19th amendment and likely a preponderance of them were Freemasons.
I thought I was pretty clear that it wasn't the fact that they're women that was the problem. While women do tend to lean left, that isn't what accelerated this country's move in that direction. If it had been reversed and it had been only women that voted and then the men were given the right to vote, the result would have been similar. It is the increase in the size of the committee that creates the problem. Human beings are, on average, evil creatures and the more of them that have a say in what should be considered right and wrong, the faster your society will move toward collectivism (i.e. socialism, communism or whatever).

... and then there is this; ." People (both male and female) are evil, and once you get past a handful of trusted advisors, the more people involved in making a decision, the more likely that decision will be evil."

The Bible says this:
Prov 15: 22Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.
Yes, the passage is the specific reason I included the phrase "once you get passed a handful of advisors". An individual who is responsible for making decisions is wise to seek advice from others before he makes his decision. The key point being that it is still his decision and not the decision of a committee where he is the one who not only makes the decision but is held responsible for it.

You then go on to argue for an Old Testament justice system as if Jesus never showed up and said what He said. I know "an eye for an eye" sounds fair but it leaves us all blind eventually.
So you actually do believe that God is unjust and that Mahatma Gandhi and Paul McCartney are/were wiser than God?

Jesus did not suspend the law, nor did He change a single jot nor tittle of it. An eye for an eye is justice, so says the God that created you and Who is the very fountainhead of Justice itself. His character is what gives the concept of justice its very meaning.

Criminal justice, by the way, is quite simple. It is basically, the inverse of the Golden Rule forceably applied to the criminal by the governing official.

Jesus taught us "Do unto others as you you have them do unto you." Criminal justice is when it is done to the criminal as he did (or sought to do) to his victim. Thus, an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life. If someone steals $1000 then he should be forced to pay the victim $2000. That way the victim is not only made whole but it is done to the criminal as he did to his victim. If he is unable to pay then he should be forced to work for the victim until his debt is paid (up to a maximum of seven years). This is God's system and it is THE ONLY system endorsed by scripture.

Incidentally, several laws in the Old Testament were religious in nature and had to do not only with religious rituals but with keeping Israel separated from other nations, which was necessary for bringing forth the Messiah in accordance with prophecy. These laws were not moral in nature and have no application outside of the context of Israel and that only from within that nation's covenant relationship with God, which is currently in abeyance.

... and then there is this: "All of which has as much to do with Freemasonry as it has to do with the Lions Club and the Boy Scouts, which is exactly nothing at all."

That's funny in that both are the progeny of the Lodge.
Oh, of course they are! What isn't?! Was the Moose Lodge started by the Masons too? How about Checkers? That's a bar across the street from the Moose Lodge in Tulsa OK (or at least it used to be, I don't know if its still there, which is beside the point.)

Interesting, by the way, that the organizational structure of those organizations, never mind that of the United States of America, bear no resemblance at all of the organization that supposedly spawned them all.

As your posts unfurl I am beginning to suspect that your claim of not being a Mason might be suspect, or, to paraphrase the words of another famous Freemason, "Me thinks thou doth protest too much."
I am not, nor have I ever been a Mason. The extent to which I am familiar with the Masons is the extent to which my step-father, his father and his best friend as well as my uncle were all not only Masons but were in the Scottish Rite and Shriners. My step-brother and I never expressed any interest in joining and none of them asked us to do so, but when that many members of your family are so involved, you can't help but pick a few things up. Plus, there's nothing I've said here that can't be found on the internet in about 60 seconds.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Not only am I "not nicer than God" I'm not smarter than Him either. I tend to just accept what He has said at face value and I find no need to rationalize what He has said to fit my preferences as I have none as it regards His pronouncements.
I don't understand this response.

My point was simply to point out that I'm not making this stuff up and have solid biblical basis for all of it. It doesn't have anything to do with rationalizing anything.

On the original point about the effect of their eating of the Tree, just think it through. If all you do is accept the premise that God is just then that premise, by itself, is sufficient to prove your thesis false. Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat of that Tree because God told them not to eat of it and warned them of the consequences if they chose to disobey.

As for the parallels between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the law, they are not only striking but actually central to the story of the bible. Adam and Eve were told emphatically, not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and we, in the Body of Christ, are told emphatically not to partake of the law. For the letter (i.e. the law) kills but the Spirit (i.e. God) gives life! It has always been about a choice between God (life) and the law (flesh - death).
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
There's a lot that can be said and questioned about having the knowledge of good and evil and what the result can be of having that knowledge.

One could ask why God forbid Adam & Eve to have that knowledge, and yet God was pleased to grant Solomon that knowledge.
1 Kings 3 ESV
(9) Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”
(10) It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.
I think the difference between the two is that, in the case of Solomon, the horse had already fled the barn as it were.

One could also ask why Adam & Eve being did not see their nakedness as a shameful thing that needed to be covered prior to having the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:25 & Gen 3:7)
When you get that one figured out let me know.;)

And then we have Solomon saying this:
Proverbs 1 ESV
(7) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
I have long likened mankind's journey across time to the lifespan of an individual. At first, as children, we obey out of fear of the rod of correction. Later, with the arrival of puberty our understanding changes and we begin to obey out of an understanding of what it is we are called to. I think Jesus ushered us into puberty in that regard. As with the pubescent we are called to something we can't quite yet lay hands on but are confident that, in the fullness of time, we will receive our inheritance.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
There's a lot that can be said and questioned about having the knowledge of good and evil and what the result can be of having that knowledge.

One could ask why God forbid Adam & Eve to have that knowledge, and yet God was pleased to grant Solomon that knowledge.
1 Kings 3 ESV
(9) Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”
(10) It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.

One could also ask why Adam & Eve being did not see their nakedness as a shameful thing that needed to be covered prior to having the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:25 & Gen 3:7)

And then we have Solomon saying this:
Proverbs 1 ESV
(7) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

I think the difference between the two is that, in the case of Solomon, the horse had already fled the barn as it were.


When you get that one figured out let me know.;)


I have long likened mankind's journey across time to the lifespan of an individual. At first, as children, we obey out of fear of the rod of correction. Later, with the arrival of puberty our understanding changes and we begin to obey out of an understanding of what it is we are called to. I think Jesus ushered us into puberty in that regard. As with the pubescent we are called to something we can't quite yet lay hands on but are confident that, in the fullness of time, we will receive our inheritance.

Have you two ever thought about how Satan the Evil One had access to Eve's mind even before she or Adam ever actually, objectively sinned?

That means God's perfect creation for man, was a World with demons. How does this square with God being just, and with God not being the author of all sin? I'm saying that even if the Devil rebelled and that's why the Tempter was there in the Garden, that still poses a problem to any conception of God's holiness I've ever heard of. In what conception of divine benevolence does God create a Universe with demons, and say, "Here you go ---- Good luck?" Couldn't He have cleaned it up before handing it over to Adam and his wife?

The answer is No, and this is extremely significant to theology. Demons were crawling around even at the beginning. That was the World, version 1.0

2.0 is the one without demons. But this World was always supposed to have demons. This is absolutely required by logic. Satan was supposed to tempt them, and they were told, "Say No to Satan," but they didn't listen to God, and did listen to the Devil instead. The Lamb was slain at the foundation of the World. This is why.
 
Last edited:

fzappa13

Well-known member
Having a king over Israel was always the plan. Israel's error wasn't in wanting a king, it was in not being patient enough to wait on God's timing.

That, of course can be established but it seems a bit much for this post.
If we can agree that said king was Jesus then I concur.

No sir. On the contrary. We are born innocent and that is the pinnacle of human righteousness outside of being hidden in Christ, who Himself was and remains a human.
Jesus was not and is not "a human". He was and is Elohim. He is the only Elohim to have been born of a woman. This is yet another way in which He is unique. We "humans" are invited to become Elohim through His sacrifice.
I agree that people are capable of doing good things. I'm no Calvinist and reject entirely their teaching of total depravity but human beings, on the whole and as a group, are evil. Individual actions by specific persons have the greatest variation and therefore the greatest potential for being more good than evil but the larger the group, the less true that becomes. The masses will always gravitate toward collectivism and tyranny. There is clearly a range that groups of people tend to move through where a particular society starts off fairly well, especially if that group has repented and turned toward God, and then they deteriorate until they either implode on themselves or are destroyed by an enemy. This is not only true of nation but of any large organization. Ivy League colleges were all started by Christians and were overtly Christian schools at one time. And just as those schools have deteriorated morally over time, we as a nation are much closer to the end of the process than the beginning.
A rather dreary outlook but I tend to agree. Myself personally, I have no interest in crowds much less following them but I am an outlier. We do tend to be a herd animal and that makes us susceptible to being led astray but, at the end of the day, that is still a choice that we must make and account for.

I thought I was pretty clear that it wasn't the fact that they're women that was the problem. While women do tend to lean left, that isn't what accelerated this country's move in that direction. If it had been reversed and it had been only women that voted and then the men were given the right to vote, the result would have been similar. It is the increase in the size of the committee that creates the problem. Human beings are, on average, evil creatures and the more of them that have a say in what should be considered right and wrong, the faster your society will move toward collectivism (i.e. socialism, communism or whatever).
If what you're suggesting here is that we have a clique of the enlightened run things ... they are working on that as we speak but I don't think that arrangement is going to end up the way you envision.


Jesus did not suspend the law, nor did He change a single jot nor tittle of it. An eye for an eye is justice, so says the God that created you and Who is the very fountainhead of Justice itself. His character is what gives the concept of justice its very meaning.
I would respectfully suggest that you missed the entire point and purpose of Jesus. Do you not recall that little incident with the woman taken in adultery?

Was the Moose Lodge started by the Masons too?

:LOL: yes.

Interesting, by the way, that the organizational structure of those organizations, never mind that of the United States of America, bear no resemblance at all of the organization that supposedly spawned them all.

I does not occur to most folks that this phenomenon is deliberate. Take the internet for as an example. At its inception it was full of promise and attracted many. It was like having access to the library of congress. It did not occur to us that this was the command and control system being put into place to eventually make possible the manifestation of Rev13.

I am not, nor have I ever been a Mason. The extent to which I am familiar with the Masons is the extent to which my step-father, his father and his best friend as well as my uncle were all not only Masons but were in the Scottish Rite and Shriners. My step-brother and I never expressed any interest in joining and none of them asked us to do so, but when that many members of your family are so involved, you can't help but pick a few things up. Plus, there's nothing I've said here that can't be found on the internet in about 60 seconds.

Our immediate family exercises a great deal of influence on us in our development and I presume that is as it should be. My father once told me that the American Indians had a saying that a man doesn't fully achieve adulthood until his father dies. I understood that on an intellectual level but I was not prepared for the reality of it. The changes came so fast it was like I was shot out of gun. During the course of administrating the disposition of his estate I discovered that an oil company had cheated both him and his father out of royalties they were owed by a factor of 10.

It was at this point that it occurred to me that not all was as it appeared in the world and this awoke in me a desire to study history. My study of history led me to study the Bible and Freemasonry concurrently in that I saw the tracks of both in history. In a way I was blessed in that both my parents were agnostic so I didn't have to unlearn anything in that regard. That said, my father leaned toward believing in reincarnation and quite naturally some of that had rubbed off on me and I would go on to "unlearn" that. While we are on the subject of reincarnation, this is the lesson inculcated by the 4 degrees which comprise the Royal Arch portion of the 32 degrees of Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

It is useful to occasionally reassess our beliefs in the light of what we have learned as we go along in life and the death of a parent is one such opportunity. If we are indeed still learning, then these opportunities present themselves all the time. Who knows, maybe these little internet exchanges can provide such and opportunity as well if we allow it.
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
Have you two ever thought about how Satan the Evil One had access to Eve's mind even before she or Adam ever actually, objectively sinned?

That means God's perfect creation for man, was a World with demons. How does this square with God being just, and with God not being the author of all sin? I'm saying that even if the Devil rebelled and that's why the Tempter was there in the Garden, that still poses a problem to any conception of God's holiness I've ever heard of. In what conception of divine benevolence does God create a Universe with demons, and say, "Good luck?" Couldn't He have cleaned it up before handing it over to Adam and his wife?

The answer is No, and this is extremely significant to theology. Demons were crawling around even at the beginning. That was the World, version 1.0

2.0 is the one without demons. But this World was always supposed to have demons. This is absolutely required by logic. Satan was supposed to tempt them, and they were told, "Say No to Satan," but they didn't listen to God, and did listen to the Devil instead. The Lamb was slain at the foundation of the World. This is why.
Interesting post. Consider this:

Rev 12:
3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: ...
... 9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Along side this:

Zec 13:
7Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

8And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

9And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

Is it possible that whereas 1/3 of the angels fell from grace 1/3 of us will fall to grace and that this is a part of the point and purpose of the situation of which you speak?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If we can agree that said king was Jesus then I concur.
No, it wasn't Jesus and it really isn't a matter of opinion. Jesus was intended to be the last King but not the first nor the only.

This is evidenced by God's direct involvement with replacing King Saul with King David. Also, it can be no mere coincidence that Israel's first king being a man named Saul from the tribe of Benjamin who started well but ended badly contrasts with another Saul from the tribe of Benjamin who started very badly but ended up very well indeed. I tell you, there can be no doubt about it. Israel's kingdom was not an afterthought nor a divine concession to evil men. God intended there to be a king over Israel all along.

Jesus was not and is not "a human".
Of course He is and to deny it is tantamount to denying the Christian faith. Are you sure you meant to say this?

He was and is Elohim. He is the only Elohim to have been born of a woman. This is yet another way in which He is unique. We "humans" are invited to become Elohim through His sacrifice.
He definitely is God and always has been but He became a man (i.e. a human male) and remains one to this day and forever more. His being BOTH God AND a man is what made Him capable of both being born without a sin nature and capable of living a sinless life and therefore qualified to stand as a sacrifice for mankind. This is only the key teaching of the entire Christian faith.

A rather dreary outlook but I tend to agree. Myself personally, I have no interest in crowds much less following them but I am an outlier. We do tend to be a herd animal and that makes us susceptible to being led astray but, at the end of the day, that is still a choice that we must make and account for.
Quite so. We are individually responsible for our own decisions but the actions of crowds are surprisingly easy to predict and manipulate even for us fallen human beings. Imagine how simple such predictions are for God!

Incidentally, the ease with which large groups of people are manipulated (with fear in particular) is a major reason why democracies are a bad idea. Did you notice how fast your civil liberties disappeared after 9/11, not to mention how the entire world went berserk for 2+ years over Covid19.

If what you're suggesting here is that we have a clique of the enlightened run things ... they are working on that as we speak but I don't think that arrangement is going to end up the way you envision.
What I am suggesting is a system that is ruled by law just as was implemented in Scripture only with some modifications related to the fact that no nation today enjoys the direct relationship with God that Israel had at the time.

Probably the best terminology to describe what I advocate would be a constitutional monarchy, meaning a system of government where there is a king but the king would represent the nation, command the military and negotiate treaties and things like that but have no power to enact new law. It's a rather complex issue that really cannot be conveyed in a single sentence and so everything I say about is likely to generate more questions than it answers. Suffice it to say that there is a complete governmental system, including a criminal justice system, in the bible that most people are completely ignorant of today and it bares almost no resemblance to the modern American system which has moved so far away from justice that people think you're a barbarian for proposing actual justice.

I would respectfully suggest that you missed the entire point and purpose of Jesus. Do you not recall that little incident with the woman taken in adultery?
Well, two things on Earth are almost completely predictable. The actions of crowds and the fact that anyone who calls himself a Christian but instinctively hates justice will bring up John 8:3-11 anytime someone advocates actual justice.

Jesus DID NOT abolish the death penalty in John 8! All he did was outsmart those who were attempting to get him into trouble with the Roman authorities before the appointed time.

This and several other points concerning the death penalty for crimes such as adultery are very well established in the following article. I strongly recommend you read it because you current stance, whether you intend it or not, implies that God is arbitrary (i.e. unjust).

What Does the Bible Say About the Death Penalty

Seriously, what wasn't founded by the Masons?

I want you to name me one social club anywhere on planet Earth that has no connection whatsoever to Freemasonry. Is there one?

I does not occur to most folks that this phenomenon is deliberate. Take the internet for as an example. At its inception it was full of promise and attracted many. It was like having access to the library of congress. It did not occur to us that this was the command and control system being put into place to eventually make possible the manifestation of Rev13.
Have you ever heard the term "unfalsifiable"?

Our immediate family exercises a great deal of influence on us in our development and I presume that is as it should be. My father once told me that the American Indians had a saying that a man doesn't fully achieve adulthood until his father dies. I understood that on an intellectual level but I was not prepared for the reality of it. The changes came so fast it was like I was shot out of gun. During the course of administrating the disposition of his estate I discovered that an oil company had cheated both him and his father out of royalties they were owed by a factor of 10.

It was at this point that it occurred to me that not all was as it appeared in the world and this awoke in me a desire to study history. My study of history led me to study the Bible and Freemasonry concurrently in that I saw the tracks of both in history. In a way I was blessed in that both my parents were agnostic so I didn't have to unlearn anything in that regard. That said, my father leaned toward believing in reincarnation and quite naturally some of that had rubbed off on me and I would go on to "unlearn" that. While we are on the subject of reincarnation, this is the lesson inculcated by the 4 degrees which comprise the Royal Arch portion of the 32 degrees of Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

It is useful to occasionally reassess our beliefs in the light of what we have learned as we go along in life and the death of a parent is one such opportunity. If we are indeed still learning, then these opportunities present themselves all the time. Who knows, maybe these little internet exchanges can provide such and opportunity as well if we allow it.
You've given me no reason to think I need to unlearn anything concerning Freemasonry. It seems to me that you've simply put on a pair of "Freemasons are the bad guys" glasses and called it "relearning". You present in manner similar (although not as insane) to what I've experienced debating those who believe that the Earth is flat and that the powers that be (including Freemasons by the way) have duped the entire population of the Earth into thinking that the planet is a sphere. Every evidence, every counter example, every possible falsifying argument is twisted into evidence in favor of their conspiracy theory. The purpose of this deception is never articulated just as you cannot tell me what purpose the Freemasons have as their goal nor by what means they intend to achieve it. It's all just conspiracy theory nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I can see by this and your last post that I need to make something very clear. I am not endorsing the Freemasons. There are certain things that they have done and that they still do that can come off to some as an appearance of evil. That, along with their secretive nature is precisely what spawns the conspiracy theorists, such as yourself. Having said that, they seem to do no harm to anyone at all and, to the contrary, they really do an awesome amount of excellent work in regards to providing outstanding care of sick children and they do so free of charge to the families that need it.

In actual fact, I'm sort of ambivalent about Freemasonry and am happy to let people make up their own minds as to whether they'll associate themselves with the group or not. Before you brought it up here, I hadn't given a single thought to Freemasonry for years and years apart from seeing the seemingly endless commercials they show on television promoting their hospitals. What I am not ambivalent about, however, is the spreading of conspiracy theories that needlessly paint the group with far too broad of a brush in far too dark a shade of black. Nefarious groups of evil, Satan worshiping, shadow politicians spend their billions on expanding their power, not on trying to save the lives of sick children who don't have two dimes to rub together nor any political power to exploit.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Have you two ever thought about how Satan the Evil One had access to Eve's mind even before she or Adam ever actually, objectively sinned?

That means God's perfect creation for man, was a World with demons. How does this square with God being just, and with God not being the author of all sin? I'm saying that even if the Devil rebelled and that's why the Tempter was there in the Garden, that still poses a problem to any conception of God's holiness I've ever heard of. In what conception of divine benevolence does God create a Universe with demons, and say, "Here you go ---- Good luck?" Couldn't He have cleaned it up before handing it over to Adam and his wife?

The answer is No, and this is extremely significant to theology. Demons were crawling around even at the beginning. That was the World, version 1.0

2.0 is the one without demons. But this World was always supposed to have demons. This is absolutely required by logic. Satan was supposed to tempt them, and they were told, "Say No to Satan," but they didn't listen to God, and did listen to the Devil instead. The Lamb was slain at the foundation of the World. This is why
Here's my view of it in a simplistic nutshell:

I lean towards the viewpoint that Satan's actual rebellion happened in the garden when he tempted mankind to rebel because Ezekiel 28 tells of him being in the garden and was blameless until unrighteousness was found in him and we don't see a judgement being pronounced on Satan until he tempted mankind in the garden.
I believe Adam & Eve lived among the angelic host in the garden, the mountain of God, and that the angelic host was to watch over mankind since the angelic host was sometimes referred to as "watchers".
I believe Adam & Eve knew that Satan (the serpent) was of the angelic host and that's why Eve didn't have any fear or discomfort talking with him,

I don't believe that God ever expected his creation to have the perfect wisdom that God had, and thus were always prone to failure, and thus God already established a remedy plan when He created.
 
Top