|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 24, 2009 21:56:14 GMT
IMHO it would be sad if any Mason thought Bro. Alber Pike was a "crank." The man is immortal inn his work, and he is for a reason. The language used in M & D serves a very specific purpose.
Eliphas Levi was also a Freemason. A member of Lodge Rose of Perfect Silence. IMHO he was also one of the most important Magus of the 19th century. His Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual, and The Key to the Great Mysteries are required study IMHO.
Back to the topic at hand. There are relativly few Lucifarians out there. Those who are may or not be interested in Freemasonry. There may be a few Lucifarians out there who are Freemasons.
I don't know of any.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by shemihaza on Nov 24, 2009 22:00:34 GMT
It might help to understand that Brother Pike had a rather limited audience here in the US as well as the UK and Europe. Until about 1974, his book Morals and Dogma was given to all Scottish Rite Masons in the Southern Jurisdiction. The reason for that is that he was re-writing SR for that jurisdiction. Pike was, in the opinion of many Masons and the profane alike, a bit of a Masonic crank. He was in love with his own purple prose as the some 800 pages of M and D should demonstrate to nearly any reader. Ironically, when you offer a suggestion on a source teaching how to read esoterica, you will find that a trained esoteric student will tell you that Pike was in fact no speaking about Satan worship at all. That however didnt stop those like Leo Taxi and Eliphas Levi from latching on to a few sentences and declaring that Pike and Satan were not only in league, but were one and the same. Pikes references were arcane and difficult to understand them when he wrote them and time has not helped. Brother, I'm a little confused with some of what you just wrote, and IMO some of your statements are inaccurate. Please compare a portion of Pike's 24th degree with an extract from Levi's "Transcendental Magic": There are many other examples of where Levi's work has been used in the work of the AASR. Further, you said, This is simply not accurate, although it's an opinion I frequently find repeated by many of the "experts" that populate "masonic forums". The NMJ for many years used the work of Pike in many of its degrees, and one can simply read through the history of changes that have been made in each degree to see that Pike's work was an enormous influence in both US jurisdictions. The prose style of Morals and Dogmas is difficult. They were intended to aloud as lectures to candidates, although through the years, the practice gave way to reading them from books instead. Now that we have web 2.0, every and his brother is an instant expert and can simply check out google for the "facts" without bothering to dirty one's fingers with the dust of research. Regarding Pike's profession of Christian faith, I recommend "Symbolism of the Blue degress of Masonry: Esoterika", where there are several revealing passages in the back of the book. Do not buy the Kessinger reprint, as it doesn't have the extra materials, nor the excellent preface by Bro. de Hoyos. The version for sale at the AASR SJ store is the one to get, and although a bit pricey, it's worth every penny. Also, the writing style is much different than M&D; very approachable, even for a 21st C student of Masonry, and will put to rest many of these misconceptions and assumptions about Pike and devil worship. www.scottishritestore.org/cgi-php/store.php?search=yes&detail=yes&category=1&subcat=9&item_no=221
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 25, 2009 17:51:04 GMT
By, Frater AzazIoelset S.O.T.O.
Lucifer is not a Fallen Angel in Original Hebrew Text - Lucifer (Venus) = Bearer Of Light / Light
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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 first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati was consulted. They were asked "What Hebrew name was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?"
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."
Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name; Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre; bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.
So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."
Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say, "this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king... How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.
How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."
Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan". So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.
The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.
----------
The author of The Polytheism Of The Bible And The Mystery Of Lucifer, F.T. DeAngelis, comments on this as follows
"It seems minor, but - the actual term used in the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 14:12 (given that there is no ONE way of accurately transliterating) is Eo(u)s phoros, morning star/DAWN god of light. Eos or Eous phoros [not Heos (as your website claims) or phos phorus (as a Christian website I visited shows)] - although there is a Greek term and English... phosphoro(u)s. Your [site] is pretty accurate. The actual name, "Lucifer," goes back to the Greeks, before the Romans. Socrates and Plato talk about this "god of light"; surprisingly, not in the context of Eos (god of Dawn), but -- as a morning star -- juxtaposed with the sun (Helios) and Hermes. This information can be found in Plato's Timaeus (38e) and in Edith Hamilton's Mythology."
On a lighter note, Arthur Clarke, in his fictional book 2061 correctly uses the word "Lucifer". He uses it as a name for a new sun in the solar system which is correct since the new sun is a second 'morning star' of 'original' 'light-bearing' substance--not some evil being of religious mythology.
David Grinspoon comments on the historical aspects of the word as follows: "The origin of the Judeo-Christian Devil as an angel fallen from heaven into the depths of hell is mirrored in the descent of Venus from shining morning star to the darkness below. This underworld demon, still feared today by people in many parts of the world, is also called Lucifer, which was originally a Latin name for Venus as a morning star." (Venus Revealed p. 17) Actually, Grinspoon should just refer to the "Christian Devil" since the Jews never believed in such a creature and still don't to this day.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Nov 27, 2009 19:25:54 GMT
The book The Masonic Secret by WGH Robert Ambelain expands on the theory of a Gnostic Lucifarian Hiram Abiff.
It's not an easy to find but it is an excellent read.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by theprimogenrule on Nov 30, 2009 19:35:14 GMT
Lucifer is the mythical ruler of this world, so mayb ethey might pay homage, less then praise. Gods only opposition. That says alot.
|
|
|
Post by shemihaza on Nov 30, 2009 20:16:28 GMT
Lucifer is the mythical ruler of this world, so mayb ethey might pay homage, less then praise. Gods only opposition. That says alot. Such as...with your posts about Lucifer, Skull and Bones, and George Bush, it's fairly obvious you're on some kind of fishing expedition? Maybe you should ask something about proto-simian Reptilian ape-chicks next. ;D I would bet that would get you the real answers you're seeking over here, and fast.
|
|
|
Post by happyzealot on Dec 1, 2009 6:53:18 GMT
Ehh... I don't think I'd wanna see that...
"Tolerance" does have its limits.
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Dec 8, 2009 11:54:28 GMT
One of the quotes most frequently associated with the Taxil Hoax reads: "That which we must say to the world is that we worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the higher degrees, maintained in the Purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods; darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.... Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil." While this quote does not appear in a book by Leo Taxil, the text in which it appears cites in the index that the quote was from none other than Diana Vaughan. Vaughan is largely considered to be Leo Taxil's alter ego (how many did he have for goodness sake). The interesting thing is that on the night that Taxil was supposed to appear for a public lecture with Vaughan, he explained that she had become ill and would not be able to attend. He then proceded togive his famous oratory on how he had just been pulling people's legs about the involvement of satanism in Freemasonry and that it had all been a huge hoax. Do with this what you will, but I think its an interesting bit of information and, when taken with the oft misquoted and grossly misunderstood few lines from Bro Pike's Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite it starts to put the puzzle pieces together as to why the "antis" love to use these passages and those from Bro Pike in order to "prove" that Freemasonry is nothing but one big satanic cult and any that is a Freemason or student of it is concined to teh firey pits of hell for all eternity. Or not...
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Dec 8, 2009 21:10:31 GMT
Ehh... I don't think I'd wanna see that... "Tolerance" does have its limits. I dunno - I say bring on the proto-simian Reptilian ape-chicks and let us decide for ourselves!
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 10, 2009 0:13:36 GMT
Why not? Freemasons can worship anything they want - even if a Coke bottle if it is their thing . A candidate for Freemasonry is not asked about their worshiping habits - whom or what they worship is not Freemasonry business -
|
|
|
Post by agur on Dec 22, 2009 17:59:09 GMT
Why not? Freemasons can worship anything they want - even if a Coke bottle if it is their thing . A candidate for Freemasonry is not asked about their worshiping habits - whom or what they worship is not Freemasonry business - I think I'm beginning to see the light......and it's reflecting in my Avatar! Hallelujah!!!
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Dec 22, 2009 21:24:37 GMT
IMHO it would be sad if any Mason thought Bro. Alber Pike was a "crank." The man is immortal inn his work, and he is for a reason. The language used in M & D serves a very specific purpose. Indeed. In fact, one of the very things than make people Pike detractors is his brief comment on "Lucifer," in M&D, which is an intentional device used to make us look at and understand Isaiah 14:12 properly.
|
|
|
Post by kimgm on Jan 14, 2010 13:38:33 GMT
Max Heindel is writing on the subject in Freemasonry and Catholicism www.rosicrucian.com/frc/frceng01.htm with the following contents: * Part I: Lucifer, the Rebel Angel * Part II: The Masonic Legend * Part III: The Queen of Sheba * Part IV: Casting the Molten Sea * Part V: The Mystery of Melchisedec * Part VI: Spiritual Alchemy * Part VII: The Philosopher's Stone--What Is It and How It Is Made * Part VIII: The Path of Initiation * Part IX: Armageddon, the Great War, and the Coming Age And "The Temple Legend - Freemasonry & Related Occult Movements" by Rudolf Steiner at uncletaz.com/templelegend.html
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 27, 2010 6:36:05 GMT
To through in a left-handed monkey wrench, Jesus was not called Lucifer, yet was called Phosphorus, another name for the planet Venus, and called the Morning Star which is also Venus. I've never found Venus to be that remarkable in comparison to the Sun as the Sun creates its own light whereas Venus merely reflects.
In comparison to a 'light bearer', Venus is less impressive from this space than the Moon, which delivers more light visually by its proximity. Really, as an astral body Venus/Lucifer/Phosphorus/Morning Star is quite boring by comparison. Mars is even quite remarkable as you can see its canals.
As to the Jerome material and his influence on developing the Satan/Snake/Dragon/Lucifer myth, it was not a big secret by any means. Jerome's statement is fairly clear that he meant it as an analogy, and Milton's excellent PARADISE LOST helped develop and strengthen the myth. I liked Elaine Pagels' Origins of Satan as a nice overview of the development of the satan myth.
Now, Pike in the preface to M&D clearly states that anyone reading it can and should disagree with any or all parts of it. He only asked that the reader fairly consider what is said in the book. No brother is required to agree with another on such matters. Levi is no more deserving of agreement simply because he was a brother. Each man is free to decide for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by adrianlucifer on Feb 27, 2010 5:56:02 GMT
In My experience among Masons, no one has prayed to Me yet. AL Attachments:
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Mar 3, 2010 21:00:50 GMT
I worship no man. Worship means 'worth something', so in that context I worship many things, as I find value in much. As far as the familiar definition, I don't 'worship' the word itself.
|
|
|
Post by asiinja on Nov 17, 2010 12:03:23 GMT
Lucifer "was" the bearer of light. After oposing them, he was send to earth and there locked within.
Why would one worship lufifer he is not the oposition of god. He used to be a very good servant of god but was said to have turned against him and was send to earth by other angels, it never sais that god punished lucifer. The others did it.
Lucifer actualy means "Thou who wears Light" Maybe the falling of this light could resemble the esoteric in ancient times, why does the sun go down?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 17, 2010 12:58:04 GMT
depends on what interpenetration you put on the Bible, many scholars believe Lucifer was actually the King of Babylon, I think we covered that back a few pages.
|
|
|
Post by asiinja on Nov 17, 2010 15:18:57 GMT
Wether some scolars beleave that lucifar was once a king doesnt matter, that would just say again that god actualy punished babilon? So that just again proves there is no reason at all to worship lucifer?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 17, 2010 16:46:34 GMT
I am making no judgement on the acceptance of lucifer. As far as ny Freemasonry goes, we ask for a belief in a supreme being, so if Lucifer were cast down from heaven , then he would not be supreme , he would be subordinate. The place where we get the word Lucifer from is Here will expanc on general knowledge of lucifer en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LuciferIsaiah 14 shows that Isaiah is giving the King of Babylon a telling off. for daring to think he is above God. 12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” 15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit.
16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?”
|
|