Freemasons

[catnthehat]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1292459]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

30cal explained nothing when it comes to why a person who was a strong believe in the Christian faith would not become a Mason, except maybe his own idea.
There are many members of Free Masonry that are very devout Christians , in fact , I'm not sure if you have grasped what Free masonry is all about.
Cat[/QUOTE

Sorry Cat, not all my own ideas although I do agree with some of them. Search the web and see what previous members of Freemasonary, who are now Christians say.

I just think everyone would likely be better off if they make an informed decision. Get information from all sides, then make your decision.

So what were these people before they became Christians?
They were asked if they believed in God when they became Masons, so they either lied then or are lying now? That is very confusion, for sure.

People can say whatever they want, form any opinion they want , but at the end of the day it is their opinion, and of someone wants to believe what they say, that is there business.

Obviously not everyone agrees with MY opinion either, but that does not automatically make them right and me wrong , OR the other way around.

Cat

[Mistagin]

Faith is the believe in the unproven, and strong faith requires setting aside rational knowledge

(post # 175)

avb3, are you suggesting that 'strong faith' and 'rational knowledge' are polar opposites. that they cannot co-exist?
Can a person of faith not seek to enhance and strengthen knowledge via a faith system / worldview?
Are you suggesting a person of faith cannot be a 'rational' person?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Pioneer2

You need only look at the Western Countries originally founded on Christian principles .Where they were morally then and where they are now.Courts that favor the criminal and punish the victim.No accountability for one's actions.Abhorant sexual behavior with children etc.I think that stoning applies in this case instead of a cell/apartment overlooking a playground......JMO

Yeah, I want to go back to the olden days.

You know, like the religion that constructed the Children's Crusade, the Inquisitions, burning people at the stake, trial by drowning... you know THAT Christian religion.

Great principles, doncha think? You bet, let's get back to those Dark Ages.

It would be the Christian thing to do, right?

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Obviously not everyone agrees with MY opinion either, but that does not automatically make them right and me wrong , OR the other way around.

Cat

Case in point. Cat and I might disagree with something, but I ain't gonna argue with a dude that can circumcise a gnat at 1000 yards....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

(post # 175)

avb3, are you suggesting that 'strong faith' and 'rational knowledge' are polar opposites. that they cannot co-exist?
Can a person of faith not seek to enhance and strengthen knowledge via a faith system / worldview?
Are you suggesting a person of faith cannot be a 'rational' person?

Not at all. I am only saying that those of literal faith, and I emphasis "literal", put rational thought aside when discussing that faith. Science goes out the window for those that believe in a 6000 year old earth.

[CaberTosser]

How about the to and fro bible thumpers & burners start a new thread on religion, politics, abortion, homosexuality, favorite stoning techniques and old world strudel recipes instead of ruining what was a reasonable thread before their appearance? Heck, even throw in a segue on marijuana if you like.

It's amazing that with all the realities there are to deal with people can get so utterly consumed with such theological trivialities.

Heck, only 5 of the 10 commandments are of significant importance anyways, 4 if you're flexible on honoring your father and mother (what if they're bad and you're not?)

[unclebuck]

Originally Posted by Pioneer2

You are free to spend eternity anywhere you wish.We have all been given free will to choose.No one can use the excuse,"I never knew" on Judgment Day.I am responsible for my own actions not something somebody else did centuries ago or today for that matter....no malice intended or implied..Harold

Love hearing from "born again christians". So heartwarming to know that they have been saved ahead of the rest of us. Has "Big Huey" given them preference over the rest of us? The reason I say that is because the "Big Guy" hasn't mentioned anything to me yet!!!!!!

[30Cal]

[QUOTE=catnthehat;1292480]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

So what were these people before they became Christians?
They were asked if they believed in God when they became Masons, so they either lied then or are lying now? That is very confusion, for sure.

People can say whatever they want, form any opinion they want , but at the end of the day it is their opinion, and of someone wants to believe what they say, that is there business.

Obviously not everyone agrees with MY opinion either, but that does not automatically make them right and me wrong , OR the other way around.

Cat

Piont taken, when is a person really considered to be a Christian? Lots of people say they believe in God. However, what is God to them? Is it a fuzzy warm word to be used to make one feel they are protected by a supreme diety or does it make a person just feel good because God is suppose to be good? I would like to believe that when people say they believe in God that they have a personal relationship with Him. Does God have a first name, maybe a last name? Does a person who say they believe in God agree with His purpose or will. If not, how could they believe in Him if they don't know what He is all about, or what His will might be for they're life? Or when people say they believe in God, are they only saying that He exist, yet they have not taken the time to really understand what it is that they believe in. Lots of questions??? I'm certain there must be answers.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

Case in point. Cat and I might disagree with something, but I ain't gonna argue with a dude that can circumcise a gnat at 1000 yards....

it was a gopher, not a gnat - it is simply AMAZING how things can get blown out of proportion!!
Cat

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nice long diatribe.

Perhaps as a christian you can explain to us Numbers 31:1-54.

Which in short tells us the story of Moses telling his buddies to kill all the men, women and children of the neighboring tribe. Oh, and should his men find any virgins, they can keep them for themselves.

His buddies found 32,000 virgins.

That is a whole bunch better then those poor muslims who have to martyr themselves to get 72 virgins in the afterlife.

So, what great christian teachings are there in that part of your bible?

DERAIL!

avb3, you've done it before in other threads - pull something from the Bible out of context and challenge a Christian to defend it.

You are obviously a smart, pretty well-read person, so I'm gonna challenge you to get some more context behind Numbers 31, for a hint go and read Numbers chapters 22-25, they kinda put a different slant on what was going on in that part of the Biblical story (the Midianites and their allies from Moab were planning to destroy Israel).

Oh, and do so remembering that God challenged the people of Israel to be true to Him alone! You should be able to answer your own question yourself.

Also, according to the Bible, the Israelite people were not invaders, they were going home after some 400 years of slavery in Egypt - home to the land God had promised would be theirs. Here are just a few texts saying just that: Genesis 12:1-7, 13:14-17, 15:7-21, 17:8, Deuteronomy 1:6-8, and there are a whole bunch of other texts saying the same thing.

[rottie]

I normally stay out of threads like this one but will wade in.
Cat I support your views 100 %.
Pioneer you are on the mark as well.

People have a choice,they can either believe or not its that simple,neither side has the right to be little or put down the other side. Just accept who and what each individual is,as long as I am comfortable in my own skin and can live with myself as a contributing member of society then why would I care what those that dont believe think

I have my own resons for believing,which I wont get into on a public forum,but they are sound and I am gratefull to have being raised to have them

Ian

[greylynx]

To all the Masons who are observing this thread.

As an independent outside observer, I recommend that Cat be given a "higher rank" within the Mason organization.

The reason for the request of a higher rank is evident in the messages that that Cat has responded to.

Cat has handled each and every message in an accurate, fair, and humble manner.

Cat has demonstrated what I think a Mason is, and I am sure his responses will bring further membership from people on this forum.

I wish all Masons the best in their travels.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by greylynx

To all the Masons who are observing this thread.

As an independent outside observer, I recommend that Cat be given a "higher rank" within the Mason organization.

The reason for the request of a higher rank is evident in the messages that that Cat has responded to.

Cat has handled each and every message in an accurate, fair, and humble manner.

Cat has demonstrated what I think a Mason is, and I am sure his responses will bring further membership from people on this forum.

I wish all Masons the best in their travels.

sounds good to us ,, only after he gives my bunyon on my left big toe a really good pumicing and wears a top hat and tap shoes for the next six weeks.

[greylynx]

Gus:

Please don't insult my friends.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Gus:

Please don't insult my friends.

which one's the 'a nod and a wink to the blind bat' friends, or Cat,, who knows I'm joshing him.

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

sounds good to us ,, only after he gives my bunyon on my left big toe a really good pumicing and wears a top hat and tap shoes for the next six weeks.

OOH, while we're at it, BBJ has some hemmoroids that need ointment treatment....

[Bigrib]

darn it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OExykL5QnXY

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by greylynx

To all the Masons who are observing this thread.

As an independent outside observer, I recommend that Cat be given a "higher rank" within the Mason organization.

The reason for the request of a higher rank is evident in the messages that that Cat has responded to.

Cat has handled each and every message in an accurate, fair, and humble manner.

Cat has demonstrated what I think a Mason is, and I am sure his responses will bring further membership from people on this forum.

I wish all Masons the best in their travels.

Actually, we advance our lodge rank at our own pace, but a Mason's true rank is not really measured by the rank he holds in Lodge, but measured by how he conducted himself in his daily life, and that time will come when every man has to give a full a true account of his life .
Cat

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

sounds good to us ,, only after he gives my bunyon on my left big toe a really good pumicing and wears a top hat and tap shoes for the next six weeks.

But i already wear a hat, and I LIKE that hat!!
Oh, and the pumicing thing - today ain't your day, tomorrow don't look very good either!
Cat

[catnthehat]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1292459]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

30cal explained nothing when it comes to why a person who was a strong believe in the Christian faith would not become a Mason, except maybe his own idea.
There are many members of Free Masonry that are very devout Christians , in fact , I'm not sure if you have grasped what Free masonry is all about.
Cat[/QUOTE

Sorry Cat, not all my own ideas although I do agree with some of them. Search the web and see what previous members of Freemasonary, who are now Christians say.

I just think everyone would likely be better off if they make an informed decision. Get information from all sides, then make your decision.

P.S. And to those who are Christains (those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour) I would strongly suggest that you pray and ask for direction into this matter before joining Freemasonry. This would include those who are Freemasons. Great verse to consider: Study and show yourself approved...rightly dividing the word (2 Timothy 2:15)

Thanks for the link riderpride55

I am going to add a bit more to this thread, the links that you posted leave just enough out concerning the obligations and such concerning the cutting of throats, chests, and other parts of a man's body , that it spreads a negative light on Free Masonry, which it was intended to do.
This is why I originally said it was horse crap.

For a Free Mason to say " I am a good man because look at all the money I give away to charity " is not right at all, simply because they do not do it to gain favour with anyone , just to help those that need it.
To do otherwise is simply bragging IMO.

There have been many on this thread that have thanked me for things I do ( or did) here, and other such stuff, and although I appreciate the kind words they are more than a bit embarrassing for me, because I do not say or do things for recognition, only to respond.
There are more than a few members here that are far better men than I in my own mind's eye, for sure, but they have not responded to this thread , nor will they at all, because it is not in their nature to do so.
Cat

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

DERAIL!

avb3, you've done it before in other threads - pull something from the Bible out of context and challenge a Christian to defend it.

You are obviously a smart, pretty well-read person, so I'm gonna challenge you to get some more context behind Numbers 31, for a hint go and read Numbers chapters 22-25, they kinda put a different slant on what was going on in that part of the Biblical story (the Midianites and their allies from Moab were planning to destroy Israel).

Oh, and do so remembering that God challenged the people of Israel to be true to Him alone! You should be able to answer your own question yourself.

Also, according to the Bible, the Israelite people were not invaders, they were going home after some 400 years of slavery in Egypt - home to the land God had promised would be theirs. Here are just a few texts saying just that: Genesis 12:1-7, 13:14-17, 15:7-21, 17:8, Deuteronomy 1:6-8, and there are a whole bunch of other texts saying the same thing.

Actually, the only time I will discuss biblical texts is someone else brings it up first; the bible may be a spiritual guide, it is not history, it is full of its own errors, and it is used way to often, as is the koran, to support positions which are just not justifiable.

So, if someone else does not bring up the bible, I never will.

400 years? Genisis 15:13 says that, but flip the pages to Exodus 12:40 or Galatians 3:17 and we get 430 years.

Which was it? After all, the bible is inerrant, right? As I said, it is full of its own errors.

Deuteronomy 1:7 has an interesting faux pas in it; it tells about Moses telling his clan that they are to go "unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates". Just a little correction in geography, the river Euphrates never has been in Lebanon or anywhere near ancient or modern Lebanon. Inerrant, right? As I said, it is full of its own errors.

Actually, why didn't the Israelite go back where they really came from, Babylon, according to the bible? After all, that's where Abraham started his journey. Yeah, yeah, I know it's all about the promised land story, but really now, let's put things into the real historical context.

In archeological terms (which would mean science is involved), there just is no indication of mass exodus from Egypt, nor an indication that over 600,000 people wandered around Sinai for any amount of time (there are no artifacts indicating large encampments, etc) and there is no indication of all the battles that the OT suggests happened.

In fact, what archaeology does show is that other then there being no pig remains, it appears that there is nothing different from Canaanite encampments and Israelite ones. Archaeology certainly seems to indicate that Israelite were indigenous and not people who came from anywhere.

Using the bible (or the koran, or torah) to prove themselves is a circular argument which serves no end.

Using the bible or koran or the torah as spiritual guidance is an entirely different matter. If one looks at the bible from a metaphorical or allegorical perspective, it becomes a much strong guidance then trying to justify it as a literal history.

Science has shown, it just doesn't bear up. Yes, I know, there is the occasional archaeological find that matches up with what is discussed in the bible, but that doesn't prove the whole book, does it?

As example, Luke says Jesus's birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means that it could not have happened before 6 CE, the year we know he came into office. Now Matthew tells us Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power. He died in 4 BCE.

Was Mary pregnant for 10 years? THAT is a miracle in itself.

I can go on and on about both internal and external inconsistencies with biblical stories, IF one takes them literal.

If one looks for spiritual guidance, and looks for the universal messages that are included in the bible, and understands that the allegorical and metaphorical teachings differ little from the ancient Egyptian (Horus), Persian (Mithra), and Greek (Dionysus) that preceded the Christ story in some cases by thousands of years, then it is an entirely different matter. Mankind's spiritual needs have been universal over history.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Except Moses's tribe was the invader. They thought of themselves as "special", or at least Moses had them coached that way.



Are you referring to the "I am the Lord of Light", "I, even I, am he that knoweth the paths to heaven", "I have come that I may remove all evil which is on you" and "I am the heir of endless time"?

Sounds familiar?

It was written about 1700 years before the biblical birth of Christ. It refers to Horus, the Egyptian savior, who turned water into wine, raised El-arus from the dead, walked on water, was born of a virgin, who died and was resurrected three days later and then went to the heavens. (Egyptian Book of the Dead).

The Christ story is not original. Dionysus, Mithra and and a number of other saviors had virgin births and were resurrected, many 1000's of years before the Christ story. It is not original if you have any knowledge of comparative religions.

What promulgated Christianity was a great salesman in Paul, and later on, the codification of the Trinity by St. Augustine. Mind you, the bible as we know it today wasn't cobbled together until the Council of Nicaea back in the 4th century.

By men, who then went and burned all other gospels and religious writings that existed.

Holy, weren't they? What a shock when the Gospels of Thomas, Judas and others were discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945.

Who knew that what the Council of Nicaea tried to destroy still existed.

So, what teachings does one get from that?

Many of these so called virgin births and resurrected saviours that you may be referring to were known as myths and legends. Whereas, the story of Christ birth, resurrection...etc. is very well rooted through Historical writings of Josephus and numerous Roman accounts. Self-taught amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey argued that the deity of Horus and Jesus shared identical mythological origins in book Ancient Egypt, the light of the world, a book that was written long after the Historic accounts of Christ. Theologian W.Ward Gasque composed an e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists, including Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool Kenneth Kitchen, and Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto Ron Leprohan. The e-mail detailed the comparisons alleged by Massey which had been repeated by Harpur. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing any similarities suggested byMassey, and one Egyptologist criticized the comparison as "fringe nonsense." (RE: Gasque, W. Ward (2004-08-09). "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?" . History News Network [George Mason University]).

I'm familiar of The Egyptian Book of the Dead, as I had a fellow peace officer/partner whom I worked with on a daily bases who practically forced it upon me when I was searching for truth and information about the existence of God. Possibly like you (?), I was a non-believer. However, I read and search for information from both sides of this spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:2 - Literally) to come to an informed decision or conclusion as to what information could be considered reliable. I began to see from my life's history that I was indeed surrounded by events that had not just a physical manifestation, but a spiritual component that manifested it's presence through our thought. During many struggles when I was given this type of information you are now presenting God remained faithful, seeing that I was finally interested to learn something about Him. Therefore, people began to be moved in my direction, which I normally would not have associated with before, with the answers that I needed to move forward. I was given a book that was written by a man who was a confessed Atheist. He set out to disprove the existence of God and merits of Christianity. But through the Grace of God he was saved, because the harder he tried to disprove that God existed the stronger his convictions became from the information he gathered that God really did exist and could be know through Christ Jesus. This man was Josh McDowell, who compiled a collection of his notes in a book titled Josh McDowell - "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict". I suggest you read it as it may answer many of the questions you present here. In addition, I would hope that you do not only study from one side of the fence? I have not!

The "Book of The Dead" is exactly that a "Book of the Dead" ← I've been there, done that. Now I read the "Book of The Living" (AKA - The Bible/God's Word). From the numerous libraries that I have collected (including books from most basic beliefs, mysticism, and comparative studies or criticisms) I have come to learn that the scale of justice, or should I say the scales of truth and fairness that dates back to the Goddess Maat, and later Isis, of ancient Egypt and the Hellenic deities, IMO weighs if favour of Jesus the Messiah, Lord, and God. Hopefully you will study from both sides also and come to a good conclusion.

I would enjoy debating more, but all the answers for anyone who seeks for the truth in regard to whether a Christian can be involved in Freemasonry has already been published. I began my calling into Freemasonry to learn that much of what I was experiencing, reading/studying was quite disturbing, so I stopped that journey. All things have a spiritual component, and Freemasonry is very much involved in spiritual things. Let any Freemason tell you it isn't?

Thank you Cat for your insight, riderpride55 for your references, Mistagin for your answer and references to avb3 questions, Pioneer 2 for your input and fellowship, and avb3 for again reminding me the importance of being studied.

Literally:

Ask and it will be given to you. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you (Luke 11:9)

One final comment avb3, the Bible is not full of errors as you would like others to believe. I once thought this way also when I was deep within my sins, but when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, His spirit entered my heart/soul, it was only then that I could see that God's Word was harmonious, flowing with understanding and goodness. Outside the Spirit of Christ I could see nothing because all that surrounded me was darkness, without light I was lost and had no understanding.

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart". Hebrew 4:12

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, the only time I will discuss biblical texts is someone else brings it up first; the bible may be a spiritual guide, it is not history, it is full of its own errors, and it is used way to often, as is the koran, to support positions which are just not justifiable.

So, if someone else does not bring up the bible, I never will.

400 years? Genisis 15:13 says that, but flip the pages to Exodus 12:40 or Galatians 3:17 and we get 430 years.

Which was it? After all, the bible is inerrant, right? As I said, it is full of its own errors.
Deuteronomy 1:7 has an interesting faux pas in it; it tells about Moses telling his clan that they are to go "unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates". Just a little correction in geography, the river Euphrates never has been in Lebanon or anywhere near ancient or modern Lebanon. Inerrant, right? As I said, it is full of its own errors.

Actually, why didn't the Israelite go back where they really came from, Babylon, according to the bible? After all, that's where Abraham started his journey. Yeah, yeah, I know it's all about the promised land story, but really now, let's put things into the real historical context.

In archeological terms (which would mean science is involved), there just is no indication of mass exodus from Egypt, nor an indication that over 600,000 people wandered around Sinai for any amount of time (there are no artifacts indicating large encampments, etc) and there is no indication of all the battles that the OT suggests happened.

In fact, what archaeology does show is that other then there being no pig remains, it appears that there is nothing different from Canaanite encampments and Israelite ones. Archaeology certainly seems to indicate that Israelite were indigenous and not people who came from anywhere.

Using the bible (or the koran, or torah) to prove themselves is a circular argument which serves no end.

Using the bible or koran or the torah as spiritual guidance is an entirely different matter. If one looks at the bible from a metaphorical or allegorical perspective, it becomes a much strong guidance then trying to justify it as a literal history.

Science has shown, it just doesn't bear up. Yes, I know, there is the occasional archaeological find that matches up with what is discussed in the bible, but that doesn't prove the whole book, does it?

As example, Luke says Jesus's birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means that it could not have happened before 6 CE, the year we know he came into office. Now Matthew tells us Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power. He died in 4 BCE.

Was Mary pregnant for 10 years? THAT is a miracle in itself.

I can go on and on about both internal and external inconsistencies with biblical stories, IF one takes them literal.

If one looks for spiritual guidance, and looks for the universal messages that are included in the bible, and understands that the allegorical and metaphorical teachings differ little from the ancient Egyptian (Horus), Persian (Mithra), and Greek (Dionysus) that preceded the Christ story in some cases by thousands of years, then it is an entirely different matter. Mankind's spiritual needs have been universal over history.

Sorry, your so wrong... kinda like I was about 20 yrs ago. There are full documentories that clearly prove the journey from Egypt did happen, with film that show chariot wheels at th bottom of the sea, where they cross and markers that are still in place. Suggest we all study harder, do a little more research.

And Science confirms all these things. Suggest you read "In The Beginning - compelling evidence for creation and the flood...and so muchmore. Book was written by Dr. Walter Brown,Chief of Science and Technology at the Air War College, Associate Professor at the US Air Force Academy, Director of Benet Research, Development and Engineering Laboratories in Albany New York, A National Science Foundation Fellow at MIT, Phd in Mechanical Engineering, even a paratrooper and Ranger in the US Army. These arre just some of his qualifications....they go on. He use to be invited to numerous Universities to debate these issues, similar to the things you bring up; and it proves to be very embarrassing to the professors of the Universities as they can not stand up against him.

Lots of Scientific evidence, question is are you looking in the right places?

I'm curious avb3, are you a Freemason, Shriner or connected to these organizations?

[avb3]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1293798]

Many of these so called virgin births and resurrected saviours that you may be referring to were known as myths and legends.

We are in complete agreement that they are myths and legends.

Whereas, the story of Christ birth, resurrection...etc. is very well rooted through Historical writings of Josephus and numerous Roman accounts.

We will disagree on this one. The Christ story was told before, many times, and is also a myth and legend.

That does NOT take away the powerful spiritual message it brings. Just don't call it history.

Josephus has been shown to be very economical with the truth; much of his "history" is not. Even then, he only mentions the Christ story in a very short 127 word excerpt. Even then, it there are no extant copies that talk about Jesus that are dated before 324 CE, interestingly enough 1 year prior to the Council of Nicaea, which cobbled together the bible as we know it, excluding numerous gospels, among those the gospel of Thomas and that of Judas. Co-incidence?

Josephus is not a credible source. A devout Jew all of his life, he would never have called Jesus "the messiah". Jews are still waiting for the first coming.

I am not aware of ANY Roman accounts that refer to the story around Jesus. Don't forget, Romans were very, very good record keepers. If your aware of any of these source, please advise.

...Theologian W.Ward Gasque composed an e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists, including Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool Kenneth Kitchen, and Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto Ron Leprohan. The e-mail detailed the comparisons alleged by Massey which had been repeated by Harpur. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing any similarities suggested by Massey, and one Egyptologist criticized the comparison as "fringe nonsense." (RE: Gasque, W. Ward (2004-08-09). "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?" . History News Network [George Mason University]).

Who were the other 18? And exactly what did he send them?

Harpur responded to Gasque's comments as follows:

"Ward Gasque, is a professor of Church History. But his remarks confined themselves almost entirely to an expression of comments on the alleged validity of the New Testament Gospels as evidence for an historical Jesus. This was unfortunate. Any first year seminary student [except perhaps at the most extreme conservative Bible Colleges in the country] knows that the four Gospels are decidedly NOT "four independent witnesses" of the supposed historical Christ. For example, Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark, the earliest Gospel, to the extent of reproducing between them roughly 75% of Mark’s material, often verse for verse. The last 200 years of biblical criticism has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the Gospels are faith documents, benign propaganda, if you like. But they are NOT history or even biography. If indeed there is, as Gasque has said, “incontrovertible evidence” of Jesus’ historicity why hasn’t someone produced a shred of it? The scholarly world itself is waiting."

Gasque is not quite as credible as it is made out.

......he was saved because the harder he tried to disprove, that God existed and it was through Christ Jesus that one could come to know God, the stronger his convictions became from the information he gathered. This man was Josh McDowell, who compiled a collection of his notes in a book titled Josh McDowell - "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict". I suggest you read it as it may answer many of the questions you present here. In addition, I would hope that you do not only study from one side of the fence? I have not!

I have read the bible from cover to cover, which is something most Christians have not. More then that, I have read 3 concordances, one an 8 volume one. How many concordances have most Christians read, cover to cover and cross referenced to the original text? I think I have at least a smattering of information from the Christian perspective available to me.

The more I read, studied and cross-referenced, the more convinced I became that what I was reading was not historical or literal. Although Harpur spends significant time comparing similarities to Egyptian religion, even more common are the similarities to the Persian Mithra religion, from which Christians adapted or borrowed many traditions. December 25 certainly (even studying the bible it is clear Jesus was born in the spring time, and not in winter), and the resurrection story is virtually identical.

In addition, Zoroastrianism has some clear similarities to some Christian practices. Zoroaster born of a virgin, died a horrible death, resurrected. Sound familiar?

There are further similarity to Buddha, whose transfiguration to the heavens from a mountain top in Sri Lanka. Coincidence? Buddha predated the Christ story by 100's of years. Buddha's mother? Maya. Not a large step away from Mary, is it?

One must wonder why all these other religions mirror much of the Christian one, yet pre-date it by hundreds if not thousand of years. Or maybe, just maybe, the Christian one mirrors them?

Some universal spiritual truths may exist, right?

[Gust]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Many of these so called virgin births that you may be referring to were known as myths and legends.

This all changed after the invention of the turkey baster.

[gunmum]

Gentlemen, this religious debate is actually a worldview debate and it is fascinating to read you all defend your worldviews. HOWEVER, this was a thread on Freemasons, who, are not supposed to be discussing religion. So, I propose that you hop on over to a thread that I will title "worldviews" (I have a special challenge for you there) and let Freemasons continue on this thread

[30Cal]

Your comparing different caledars, when trying look at birth dates. The Jewish Calender is very different along with their festivals of celebration. The time when Christ birth is celebrated is upon an agreed time. You should now that?

Did you read the Bible front to back or did you study the Bible front to back, two different approaches.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by gunmum

Gentlemen, this religious debate is actually a worldview debate and it is fascinating to read you all defend your worldviews. HOWEVER, this was a thread on Freemasons, who, are not supposed to be discussing religion. So, I propose that you hop on over to a thread that I will title "worldviews" (I have a special challenge for you there) and let Freemasons continue on this thread

Sorry Gunman...enough said

[Mistagin]

Okay, I'll respond, even though it's way off the original thread topic.

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, the only time I will discuss biblical texts is someone else brings it up first; the bible may be a spiritual guide, it is not history True, but it does tell a historical story. , it is full of its own errors, Pretty much all the supposed 'errors' can be explained and have been by many, many Biblical scholars of all kinds, here is not the place to even try to do so. and it is used way to often, as is the koran, to support positions which are just not justifiable. like what?

So, if someone else does not bring up the bible, I never will. On this thread you were the first to bring up an actual Biblical text, asking for someone to respond to it, all other references to the Bible were kind of generic in response to the track the thread took with the revelation that the Masonic Lodge requires members to profess belief in "God".

400 years? Genisis 15:13 says that, but flip the pages to Exodus 12:40 or Galatians 3:17 and we get 430 years.
Note that I said "some 400 years" - that means"somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 years - give or take a few."

Which was it? After all, the bible is inerrant, right? As I said, it is full of its own errors.
Inerrant means it will not lead anyone astray in matters of spiritual truth, it does not mean there are absolutely no discrepancies, which can all be explained through understanding things like genre, author's / speaker's intent, intended original audience and what a term or word mean for them in context, example: for numbers - is it intended to be an actual literal number or a descriptive term of a period of time? For proper Biblical interpretation and understanding there is always a lot of sometimes rather complicated hermeneutics involved. It's not as black and white as you seem to want to have it be.

Deuteronomy 1:7 has an interesting faux pas in it; it tells about Moses telling his clan that they are to go "unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates". Just a little correction in geography, the river Euphrates never has been in Lebanon or anywhere near ancient or modern Lebanon. Inerrant, right? As I said, it is full of its own errors.
I respectfully disagree, the text is not saying nor is it inferring that the Euphrates River is in Lebanon. Other versions of the text you refer to and interpretation thereof understand that God is telling Moses to lead the people to THE LAND - the land of the Promise - which would extend all the way to the Euphrates. Go back to Genesis 15:18. Deuteronomy 1:7 is connecting to God's historical promise given to Abraham in Genesis 15:18. In light of this there is no 'error' as you infer; in fact, the texts actually reinforce each other!

Actually, why didn't the Israelite go back where they really came from, Babylon, according to the bible? After all, that's where Abraham started his journey. Yeah, yeah, I know it's all about the promised land story, but really now, let's put things into the real historical context.
Abraham was from Ur, and he was not promised Babylon nor Persia, he was told by God to go to the land of Canaan and that was the land he and his descendants were to have for their homeland, so why would they go to Babylon? It wasn't theirs and wasn't ever intended to be! The land of that promise is the historical context of the theme of THE LAND in the Bible!

In archeological terms (which would mean science is involved), there just is no indication of mass exodus from Egypt, nor an indication that over 600,000 people wandered around Sinai for any amount of time (there are no artifacts indicating large encampments, etc) and there is no indication of all the battles that the OT suggests happened.
Haven't we debated this kind of thing before? - Yup, back before Christmas. It depends which archaeologists are listened to. Many Biblical archaeologists and their findings and theories are discredited simply because they are Biblical archaeologists! So far we haven't found evidence of a lot of other stuff either, for example, the "hidden tomb" of Genghis Khan, nor his palace, nor many of his supposed battle sites. The same can be said for battles fought by Attila the Hun, we believe they were fought, but still don't know exactly where. Lack of archaeological evidence doesn't mean those didn't happen either.

In fact, what archaeology does show is that other then there being no pig remains Well, that seems to be a pretty big difference - based on the Biblical commands from God to the Israelite people not to have pigs around!!!, it appears that there is nothing different from Canaanite encampments and Israelite ones. Archaeology certainly seems to indicate that Israelite were indigenous and not people who came from anywhere.

Using the bible (or the koran, or torah) to prove themselves is a circular argument which serves no end.
Not sure what you mean here. In many ways the Bible does 'prove' itself - in the sense that it will support itself and will not spiritually contradict itself. Lots of Biblical scholars and students gladly and willingly apply various sciences and proven scientific methodologies to try and understand the Bible better. I can't speak about the Koran because I don't know much about it.

Using the bible or koran or the torah as spiritual guidance is an entirely different matter. If one looks at the bible from a metaphorical or allegorical perspective, it becomes a much strong guidance then trying to justify it as a literal history.
The Bible was never intended to be literal history, but it is historical. In fact, the main point of it's historicity is to anchor what it is and the story it tells in the timeline of real history! Believers believe it is God's word and it tells His story in such a way that that story is integrally entwined with the human story. In doing so it has metaphorical elements, some allegorical elements, and several other genres used to tell the story God is telling.

Science has shown, it just doesn't bear up. Depends what science is trying to show. Yes, I know, there is the occasional archaeological find that matches up with what is discussed in the bible, but that doesn't prove the whole book, does it? Certainly doesn't disprove it either!

As example, Luke says Jesus's birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means that it could not have happened before 6 CE, the year we know he came into office. Now Matthew tells us Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power. He died in 4 BCE.
We've argued this exact point before. I think I 'won'

Was Mary pregnant for 10 years? THAT is a miracle in itself. You're grasping at straws, or trying to create a straw man with this point.

I can go on and on about both internal and external inconsistencies with biblical stories, IF one takes them literal.
And there's the problem - not everything ought to, nor should be, taken literally! That's where you get silly arguments like you stated above about Mary being pregnant for 10 years. If 'literal' doesn't fit then there has to be another dimension to the story being told. The trick is to find it.

If one looks for spiritual guidance, and looks for the universal messages that are included in the bible, and understands that the allegorical and metaphorical teachings differ little from the ancient Egyptian (Horus), Persian (Mithra), and Greek (Dionysus) that preceded the Christ story in some cases by thousands of years, then it is an entirely different matter. Mankind's spiritual needs have been universal over history.

There is one universal spiritual need all of mankind needs - you are correct in saying that. That spiritual need is salvation from sin and restoration into relationship with God. But not all religions or spiritual guides have the same answer. One has a distinctly different answer - the Bible. It's answer is Jesus - who, through His mission SOME 2000 years ago, achieved salvation for God's people - and that salvation is a free gift of grace.

Just to get this back onto the Free Masonry issue (which I know very little about), it seems to me that there are parallel arguments between Biblical / Christian faith discussions and this Free Masonry one. It seems like there is a lot of misinformation or 'surface' knowledge or urban myth types of knowledge that people take as 'gospel truth' about things like these and run with it - and some, based on their limited or skewed 'knowledge' or biased-for-whatever-reason, try to 'shout down' those who actually do know a lot about it. Like with Cat, who is giving great information about Free Masonry - even though it sounds like he's going to have to do a lot to appease the members for revealing "secrets", ha, ha. Don't be too hard on him, Masons, I hope to have coffee with him sometime soon!

I'm also thinking that there is stuff the Masons do in their rituals and meetings, and say in their oaths, that is rooted in history. Some of those rituals and oaths seem to be offensive to some who've posted in this thread. If those rituals / oaths were being written / developed today they might likely be different. But there is value in their historicity too. Is that an accurate assessment?

So to those who give good info, thanks! I've learned some good stuff about Free Masonry in this one - and that's cool.

[BBD]

Originally Posted by nof60

Any freemasons on the board?

This was the original question. How did this thread turn into a religion class. While I can appreciate peoples religious veiws, we've strayed way off topic here. In lodge we don't talk about religion or politics, in fact it's forbidden. You have to have a belief in a higher being to be a mason.... if you do, you've met that part of the requirement to be considered for entrance into freemasonry. If we need to talk about religion as it relates to freemasonry, lets start another thread. Freemasonry is not a religion it's a fraternity that helps people not a religious organization.