|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 6, 2004 22:18:54 GMT
There may be some ears in here that are not ready to accept this, but an investigation of Mr. Pyle's claims concerning the name "Jahbulon" are absolutely on target. The "Jah" is a no-brainer, and has already been conceded by practically everyone here. The others were a bit more of a problem, and truthfully, I thought at first you were far off the mark. The name of "On" was the one I took on first, because I had never heard a suggestion of a Greek God named On. Nowhere in anything I have or in anything I could find online suggested any different, so I was ready to disagree totally. Then I re-read the post and saw I had been mistaken and you were not even hinting at a "Greek God" at all, but a Greek word for the God of the Bible. Next I tried a Septuagint concordance, and there was not even a word "on" included. A lexicon, and a New Testament Greek concordance still turned up nothing. I was literally about to give up and refute your claim, when I thought about the Septuagint itself and figured it wouldn't hurt to look. When I did so, checking the Exodus 3:14 reference, there it was, right before me, only instead of the Greek letter omicron (“short” o), it was the omega (“long” o). Can’t see it in the English, but it’ll sure throw you for a loop in Greek. Then I had the idea this wasn’t really a name for God at all, but simply a form of the Hebrew “I AM” verb, and began to research it from that angle. I ran into a snag when checking out the reference I found from Hosea 12:4, where I found in the side-by-side English translation of the Septuagint, a mention of the “house of On.” I had a problem because it simply was not there in my other English translation (NKJV). At least it wasn’t there until I recognized that “house of On” was translated as “Bethel” in my English version. Took me longer than it should have, but finally realized that the translation of “Bethel” literally means “house of God,” and so “house of On” was an equivalent. A tedious process of discovery, but found it eventually. The “bul” was much harder, but only because I made it so by starting at the harder sources first. I first started an internet search on the hunch that “bel” and “ba’al” may not be one and the same. All I came across were places where they are spoken of interchangeably, and a non-canonical book about Daniel and Bel. Since I knew it was more or less an equivalent of “ba’al,” I started the search at “ba’al.” This was a bit harder, because I had to re-familiarize with the Hebrew lettering and reverse reading. Also, even though I have a Hebrew-English Bible, it is not one of your better versions, the Hebrew lettering is difficult to determine in places. I was not finding “ba’al” in the passage in Isaiah 54:5, nor was I finding it in a Hebrew concordance. Something finally told me to look in the Strong’s concordance and get an idea what I was l looking for. When I did, there it was plain as could be, and I looked up the corresponding number. I found it, and it’s there, plain as you want it to be, “ba’al” as the Hebrew word for “husband.” The word can also mean “master,” so that the verse translated comes to, “For the Lord your Maker is your Master.” (For those interested, it is in KJV concordance as #1167. “Ba’al” with a capital is under #1168 as the Canaanite deity. I assumed the root word may be somewhat different, but the two in the Hebrew are exactly the same.) My conclusion is, Mr. Pyle, you have made an excellent case for a strictly biblical origin for this word that has been suggested as a combination of gods that include a pagan fertility god adopted from the area around them, and an Egyptian sun god. The conclusions are simple:
(1) “Jah” = a shortened form of “Yahweh” or “Jehovah.”<br>(2) “Bul” = another form of “ba’al,” translated as “husband” throughout most of the Old Testament, but also translated as “master” in Exodus 22:8, and Judges 19:22-23. (3) “On” = the same name God gave Moses when questioned, “whom shall I say has sent me?” The fact that this is a name for God is clear from the passage in Hosea 12:4, translating “house of On” from the Septuagint Greek version, which corresponds to the Hebrew “Bethel,” which means “House of God.”<br> by Rev Wayne
This was part of a long debate started by accusers of masonry with the usual accusations that the Word , was a derivative of a series of pagan Gods
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 6, 2004 22:25:51 GMT
Bill
The start of your post seems to be at an end of an argument? I cant make sense of it! Excuse my dumbness but could you please reiterate the original point (if there is one) .
Jah Bul On as you are probably are aware was origanally of great import to RA masons I cannot ellucidate further, but I would be interested to know where this Post sarted?
Its the "I thought at first you were way off the mark" that I dont understand.
|
|
|
Post by Stash on Nov 6, 2004 22:38:30 GMT
Like your excerpt said...."JAH" is obvious...no real need to touch on that one.
"BUL: The compounds of this divine name Bel, are of great variety. Bel-us was used by the Chaldeans; and the deity was known amongst the ancient Celtae by the name of Bel or Belenus, which title, by modern authors, was Vel-ynyns, the island of Bel; and the fires lighted up on May-day were in honour of this deity, and called Bel's fire. The inhabitants made use of a word, known only to themselves, to express the unutterable name of the Deity, of which the letters O. I. W. were a sacred symbol. In this they resembled the Jews, who always said Adonai, when the name of Jehovah occurred. Baal was the most ancient god of the Cannanites, and was referred to the sun. Menasseh raised altars to this deity and worshipped him in all the pomp of heathen superstition; and when these altars were destroyed by Josiah, the worship of Baal was identified with that of the sun."
ON: Under this appellation the Deity was worshipped by the Egyptians, and they professed to believe that he was eternal , and the fountain of light and life, but , according to their gross conceptions, being necessarily visible, the sun was adored as his representative, and was most probably the same as Osiris. If they believed ON to be the living and eternal God, they allowed the same attributes to the sun, which they undoubtedly woshipped as the Lord of the creation. Oannes was the God of the Chaledeans, and Dag-ON of the Philistines; both of which are derivations of the same name. On was evidently the same deity as the Hebrew Jehova, and was introduced amonst the Greeks by Plato, who acknowledges his eternity and incomprehensibility in these remarkable words: "Tell me of the God ON; which is, and never knew beginning."....."
This is just a view of some of the most common knowledge on the above. Enjoyed the post Bill. Interesting
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 6, 2004 22:44:55 GMT
Jahbulon is a compound word and the combination reads thus;
Jah; Chaldee word for God, signifying "His essence and majesty incomprehensible" It is also a hebrew word signifying "I am and shall be".
Bul; Syriac word, signifying "Lord or Powerful" it is in itself a compound word formed from the preposition Beth in or on and UL "Heaven or High". Therefore the meaning of the word is "Lord in Heaven or on High".
On: Egyptian word signifying "Father of All" as in that well know prayer "Our Father which art in Heaven".
I have just explained the RA word that was before our beautiful ritual was destroyed by Political correctness, the explanation is not complete because I do not feel it is right for me to state the whole (although as it is no longer practised in UGLE I am not violating anything).
I truly get very upset that Politics was allowed to dictate changes to our ritual.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 7, 2004 0:26:42 GMT
I am with Middlepillar on this and I deplore that this word was removed from English RA. The explanation I received for it was "The God who is" or as is quoted in the Bible "I am that I am" and NOT the fanciful explanation given by Antis of some Composite God made out of Jehovah, Baal and Osiris.
|
|
|
Post by Hubert (N. Z.) on Nov 7, 2004 0:53:21 GMT
To Middlepillar and others:
We still practice the full ceremony in the HRA in Co-Freemasonry and have the full explanations. I have yet to read all the postings on this site, but for now I just wish to emphasise the need for us all to attend as many side and higher degrees as we are able so as to keep this History and energy ALIVE.
For me both the Mark and HRA are essential parts of our masonic education. Cheers, Hubert
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 7, 2004 1:05:53 GMT
Bill The start of your post seems to be at an end of an argument? I cant make sense of it! Excuse my dumbness but could you please reiterate the original point (if there is one) . Jah Bul On as you are probably are aware was origanally of great import to RA masons I cannot ellucidate further, but I would be interested to know where this Post sarted? Its the "I thought at first you were way off the mark" that I dont understand. This is an end to a long debate visited by many Christians and many masons. To post the lot would have taken a week. So I posted the close , to stimulate some thought.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 7, 2004 1:28:45 GMT
Bill Jah Bul On as you are probably are aware was origanally of great import to RA masons And is still is to some www.geocities.com/aliezzahir/Introduction.htmHave a look here. It is an interesting site with a lot of words, and words are dead until something is done with them, that is why I am happy to direct anyone to such asite.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Nov 7, 2004 3:33:37 GMT
?? I was totally unaware that 'this word was removed from English RA' - this is certainly not the case in other Constitutions in 'amity' with UGLE. It is incredible to think that alterations are possibly made because of religious fanatics!
|
|
|
Post by Stash on Nov 7, 2004 8:30:48 GMT
Well, I think it is more political fanatics than religious fanatics responsible for the changes all across the board
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 7, 2004 8:48:20 GMT
Same with the Traditional Craft Penalties. It does us no good to water down these things as it simply does not undo the animosity of the Antis whethere Political or Religious and saddens those Brethren and Companions who do understand and appreciate our Rituals and Traditions. We should stay as we are and any change should be driven from inside Freemasonry and from Ordinary Members NOT by those with Fancy Aprons and "Scrambled Egg" on Dark Blue Collars.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 7, 2004 11:31:47 GMT
Bill Mc
Thanks, sorry for being slow to appreciate your stimulation!
JMD This is the reason I and a lot of others are so bl...y annoyed with our Supreme Rulers, again to re-iterate it is Political correctness gone mad (changing something to accomadate zealots!
Taylorsman; This is exactly the reason I am so anti the ill thought out further changes, I really believe enough damage has been done to our beautifull ritual, why change something for the sake of it? It will be a disaster. (sorry for putting this remark here but the 2 threads are running close to each other now) (Staffs the apollogy is to you and admin!)
|
|
|
Post by offramp on Nov 7, 2004 17:16:16 GMT
Bill's point - which seems somehow to have been disregarded - is that the anti-Mason's claim tha Jahbulon is a composite deity of Yahweh-Baal-Osiris is totally wrong.
What he has discovered, quite brilliantly and convincingly in my opinion, is that the name stands for Yahweh-Lord-I AM.
A very interesting post Bill - although it could have done with some paragraph marks!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 7, 2004 18:01:29 GMT
Hey even I am not perfect ;D But you nailed the point , precisely.
|
|
|
Post by offramp on Nov 21, 2004 7:08:49 GMT
Because of one of the 10 Commandments - I can't remember which one - but let's just say the 5th Commandment and hopefully no one will check up - the Jews did not make any images of what God looked like. But the Samaritans did make some images... I have seen one picture of Jah and his wife, and here it is. Oddly, God has the head of a bull. There is a discussion of the drawing here: www.bibleorigins.net/KuntilletAjrudArticle.html
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Nov 21, 2004 8:47:35 GMT
Offramp, it was the first:
"First I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange Gods before me".
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 21, 2004 9:49:40 GMT
The Second Commandment
"thou shall not make unto thyself any graven image to fall down and worship it".
Now this of course was the exact opposite to all the other religions of that time which had many such God Images. To this day both Judaism and Islam reject any such "idols" as do the more Calvinistic parts of Christianity in contrast to some of the more Ritualistic Churches.
I'm afraid that Jah-Bul-On, which I understand is still used in Scots and other Royal Arch Constitutions apart from UGLE, will always be interpreted to suit the bias of the viewer, the Antis will insist that it is the name of a Composite Masonic God comprising the Jewish Jehovah (or Jahweh if you insist), the Philistine Baal and the Egyptian Osiris and nothing will divest them of that belief. In a way it's a bit like the JFK assassination, some accept the Official View that a lone nutter called Oswald shot Kennedy from the Texas Schoolbook Depository, others reject that as a snowjob and believe that a combination of the Mafia and the CIA with FBI complicity shot him from the Grassy Knoll and neither side will be convinced against their entrenched belief.
I no longer bother to argue with convicned Antis be they driven by Religion or Politics. I offer them both sources of information and a visit to a Masonic Temple but they usually reject this out of hand saying that I will only tell them what I am told to tell them and that all the "juicy bits" will be hidden away if they visit , so I no longer waste my time.
|
|
|
Post by offramp on Nov 25, 2004 7:36:28 GMT
In the Book of Hosea, which has already been mentioned, there are these lines: Hosea 2:18 The NAB gives this important comment:
So all three names are quite simply different titles for God.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 1, 2005 0:48:06 GMT
I assert and many no doubt will disagree that HRA is Sumerian in origin later adapted to Jewish esoteric technology - hence the 2 lots of sacred names and the horrible rendition of the signs of the zodiac in straight lines - at least where I practiced.
The Sumerian gods in reverse order of significance were (as far as memory serves) Ea (Ja)- responsible for humanity and who used Oannes (an annedotus - fish head and human head) to clear the mouth of the Euphrates for commerce - and thereby represented by a fish head (mitre) on a stick.
The next is Bul (Baal) - Lord in charge of the earth who had an "uplifted eye above his house that scanned all the lands" represented by an all-seeing eye on a stick.
The last is An (On or Anu) - who descended to earth periodically (18th) and who "lowered kingship to earth" who is represented by a crown on a stick.
An is associated by the Egyptians with the pole star around which the arch of the heavens rotates - hence Holy (thats An himself) Royal (lowering kingship) and the Arch of the zodiac signs wheeling in space.
The 3 fold grip is a fragment remaining from the esoteric technology of the alien gods - of whom we are descended - sons of the gods.
I have seen the 3 fold grip used in invocation by non-humans.
Best wishes
Russell Holland Caboolture 266 UGLQ Australia
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 11:53:18 GMT
I truly get very upset that Politics was allowed to dictate changes to our ritual. I so much agree with your statement Brother! I only recently discovered that the word was changed and the explanation I was given (from those very few that even know the word was changed in the HRA...) is for politics reason and mainly because of the Church of England push of it. I can't believe that they changed a crucial part of the ritual because of the Church!
|
|