Jack the Ripper the Freemason (The Hidden Truth)

[pumpkin]

Yes it may as well be "pumpkin head" it is just a Symbol.

Hey now, leave me out of this.

[allodial]

Allodial and MJ, I have found the last two posts to be of interest. Last night I was poking around looking for some scripture material on the internet (just following page to page with hyperlinks) and I came across this article

https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/jesus-was-not-a-jew/

I read it twice last night and it strikes me as well researched and annotated.

I post to add to the discussion in this thread

CanadianSolution

Agreed, they are quite similar. Thanks for the links.

Re: Moses's Staff

Moses throw down your staff. ..

You err in a manner quite pregnant with presumption. I mentioned that Eustace Mullins said or suggested that Freemasons regarded themselves to be Jews and all others to be Gentiles. The key thing with that is the EXCLUSION of all others. Are you defending the exclusion in some indirect way? Because you are making an argument about that which no one posting on the thread ever stated. And oddly, you fail to mention or to discuss Eustace Mullins' mention of exclusion or the significance of that exclusion. I'm not the one making the exclusion but yet you are making argument as if I were. Why exactly is that?

To be a Judahite a member of the tribe of Judah perhaps was a religious/internal matter. Doesn't Paul make that clear? Did anyone posting suggest otherwise? The significance of the term "Jew" having never existed until the 1800s--now that is significant because it means that Paul did not use the term Jew. The modern world attempts to protect secular nation-state onto most everything. What if perchance being a Judahite was about being membership in a religious order? In any case, without slander, it is significant for anyone to convert to a religion 900 years after the temple and key foundations were obliterated and to pick it up with from the vantage point as if time had swung back a thousand or more years. It is puzzling and perplexing to see someone aim to steal fire from a people who were under probation for their idol worship and aim to bask in such glory. Its puzzling and perplexing for someone to write books in the 1800s to suggest that the taking of Canaan had not occurred when it had occurred many thousands of years prior. Its puzzling to see people aim to steal fire from a people under probation and for at the same time ignore the significance of the first set of tablets being withheld (they were withheld until Jesus Christ).

[Why did Jesus speak in parables? Because the cherubim guard the way to the tree of life!]

Quite a lot of folks into witchcraft and the like find significance in the Tetragrammaton (there is more than one), does that make them "Jews" (some of them think so)? Quite a number of folks think Moses to have been a magician or sorcerer though he was no such thing. Witchcraft has no place in the Bible in the lives of any Judahite or Israelite.

When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". During the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation. -Benjamin Freedman

Key thing MJ is the significance in that the "Jew" having not been a term that Paul ever used--but instead Judahite or Judean. One key thing with the term "Jew" as an abbreviation is that its highly truncated to the extent that you don't know if the completion leads to Judahite, Judean or Idumean--meaning someone who is an Idumean could call themselves Jew like Mr. Caterpiller and Mr. Categorical could both call themselves Mr. Cat. Maybe that is what the above quoted by Benjamin Freedman by "double meaning": as in Idumean or Judahite could be meant (thus a way, by syntax, to blend in two disparate tribes or peoples).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2755[/ATTACH]

If one looks over the history of Israel and Judah, it is clear that the attempts to secularize Israel and Judah led to their downfall and judgment. With time, the misinterpretations and errors resulting from looking at things from a carnal or worldly perspective clearly has had its negative impacts.

So yes it is by heart by changes made in the heart--internally that makes someone a Member. You've never read me making any suggestion to the contrary.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Judah means "praised" and it is made clear at Romans 2:29 that it is not worldly or secular praise. Paul, clearly, was not referring to being an Idumean. And the Judeans or Judahites clearly were not praised by God for doing wicked things--for such things they were judged.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2756[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2757[/ATTACH]
Snippet from A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament By Edward Robinson, Alexandros Negres, John Morison Duncan (1879)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2760[/ATTACH]

Of course the word "Jew" is known and used (and abused) these days. It has many meanings that is clear. Etymology and word history here have nothing here to maligning any true Jew in the sense of Judahite/Hebrew/Israelite.

For further edification: the word for shepherd is 'roeh' (resh - ayin - heh). Is not a racecar shepherded by its driver (droehver?) around the predefined path/track? You know like he-roe (like Superman or superhero). So if you follow a path, perhaps you shepherd your body. The Good Shepherd keeps those under his care away from dangers, away from snakes--i.e. keeps them on a defined path.

With arc, circle, etc. I allude to the Hebrew word orahh meaning a path followed by travelers. However, I also illustrates is relation to the word for shepherd and now the word for chauffered and chaperone. The 'hh' probably comes off as a hard 'c'. I suppose I can 'see across languages' when I read.

Isn't it remarkable how similar the word Herod is to the word Pharaoh? Now if Judea was under a kind of probation during Herod's time, is it not uncanny that "Herod" is so similar to Pharaoh and that Moses had authority as Egyptian royalty and may have been like an administrator or governor with respect to the second set of tablets. Not to mention they were still talking about Moses' seat in back then during Herod's time.

Re: Central Nervous System / Staff
From what I've gathered, the older Vedas or Upanishads conveyed a message of the lightning from the mountain striking and destroying the serpent below The mountain being the head the serpent below being the base of the spine--not the serpent rising up to the mountain (ala kundalini rising up the spine) but instead the serpent being destroyed from above. It might be that many have it backwards these days? Divine intervention is top down rather than ground up --not pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps but being helped from above.

Also, if circumcision was not done by newborns, why would one expect a man to circumcise his own heart?

The problem with the hand/staff central nervous system paradigm is that the nervous system pervades the entire body even cells themselves and thusly the hand. He did not throw down his hand, or his body or his spine but a staff. Much is explained here: Moses Was Not A Magician. The detail in the Egyptian gives much credence to an actual, non-allegorical event transpiring. One might also wonder in your paradigm what it means that he picked up the staff again?

In some ways, the throwing down of the staff and it becoming a serpent seems to foreshadow the casting down of the Great Dragon in the book of Revelations.

Related:

• Was King Herod A Descendent of Esau?
• Moses Was Not A Magician
• The Amazing Name Judah: Meaning and Etymology
• Galilean vs. Judean in Matthew 22
• The Word Jew Is Not In the Bible (?)
• The House Of Herod

[allodial]

Hey now, leave me out of this.

Pumpkins start getting quite popular this time of year.


No offense.

[Michael Joseph]

Oh I see. The argument is centered on the Greek term. And to that end you are right on the money. But even the Encyclopedia Judaica mentions that the so called Jews were never part of true Israel. And for that matter were never in bondage in Egypt. To that end does it really matter?

To get caught up in the physical people who occupy upon a land mass is, in my opinion, to miss the true meaning. For the true Israel is not geographical or physical but it is a Spiritual Commonwealth. Thus to be a Judean resident in Jerusalem is to be either in subject to the lower nature or to be born of the Spirit above - for Jerusalem above is the mother of us all.

I see your point now.

According to the literal interpretation of the Bible, their God told Abraham's descendants they have a land claim; according to the Koran, their God told their folks to go take it back. So the people in their literal interpretations go to war in service to their war God who seeks to kill those who oppose The Will - sounds like a loving God to me. Of course I jest. I await the day when men begin to see that what is being said is everyman has an ability to enter in upon Jerusalem Above and become a Jew sitting in the East. Where said man is located on the Earth matters not one iota. Nevertheless, the bloody campaign wages on in desperation - when will the fighting cease?

There is no doubt brother that the Bible and other holy books have been tampered with by the scribes. Thusly, as I know you can appreciate one should perform their own due diligence. I believe King James gave such a warning in the cover letter of the 1611.


G2453
??????????
Ioudaios
ee-oo-dah'-yos
From G2448 (in the sense of G2455 as a country); udaean, that is, belonging to Jehudah:

Therefore the term Jew was used to describe those of the bloodline of Judah [Yehudah] and ALSO those who were residents in the city of Judea. Obviously, there is room for confusion when one speaks to residence. For instance, look who settled so called "The United States of America". But today ask any resident of the United States of America if they are American or not and most likely the response will be "Yes, I am a United States citizen".

Are the residents today in so called United States of America all of the original bloodline of the settlors? Of course not. Are they not nevertheless resident?

I completely comprehend the nature of those who claim to be of the bloodline of Judah but do lie. But consider what that is telling you about yourself for a moment. Where does Judah sit? These in a sense take the Kingdom by Force. We would like to think that this is someone different from us because we would never do that - but in fact we do it all the time. Unfortunately it is in our very nature to control our environment.

The question remains of said control: is it per the Direction of the Kingdom of God or under our own will? Thusly, we see many a man who claims "God wills it"? To that end Father exclaims:

Isaiah 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah

Why is Isaiah speaking to rulers and peoples of a place that was supposed to be destroyed? Unless he speaks to a mind-set.


Isaiah 1:12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?


Here is sadness as I hear folks all the time declaring - I can't wait to go to Jerusalem - as if appearing in some city on the face of the Earth is going to get one even one step closer to God. Sad indeed. For those who read a literal interpretation actually sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice God's beautiful animals. Or for that matter appearing in church on Saturday or Sunday singing and swaying with arms raised. Giving Pastor 10% of their hard earned income. It is a waste of time.

I will assemble myself only upon true believers who actually do the Word. And I will never give one dime to any Pastor who seeks to sell The Way. It is free and it does not cost one cent to enter in Today.

Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.


Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.


Yet when man in his control madness declares God wills it or it is the law of God - then weak man bows in ignorance under the thumb of those who are full of hatred. Let a man call himself what he desires - a Jew or a Greek or American - to what end does it profit? Yet, clearly one claiming a "special status" with God does so with one goal - Self Promotion. God is not a Jew, a Greek, an American or any nationality.

I see little good coming forth out of Nationality. I see only war and strife being understood by bankers posing as government in the name of State - talk about Terror. Thusly, I fight earnestly against the idea of identification thru Statehood.

For Christ is ALL and IN ALL. God is not a respecter of Persons.

This just popped in my head....


Best Regards,
Michael Joseph

[allodial]

Sharing information is not an argument, is it? Canadian Solution shared information. Very helpful and interesting information. I'm not aware of any argument of any kind of the sort you mention. Are you making or attempting to create an argument from nothing? That is what trolls do. But as for the argument you are looking for or are making its not here. You either add helpful information or you don't. I'm not even aware of ever making any suggestion of the Freemasons claiming to be Jews to be right or wrong.

Therefore the term Jew was used to describe those of the bloodline of Judah [Yehudah] and ALSO those who were residents in the city of Judea. Obviously, there is room for confusion when one speaks to residence. For instance, look who settled so called "The United States of America". But today ask any resident of the United States of America if they are American or not and most likely the response will be "Yes, I am a United States citizen".

So those who describe themselves as being of the bloodline of Judah who are not would be lying wouldn't they if they called themselves Jews in the sense you mention? I'd tend to say that Judah in the utmost upright sense hardly compares to modern secular government. Also, "residence" and "resident" are terms that speak of strangers. Perhaps you are confused? The United States is "in" America but is not America so a USian might be 100% correct in calling himself/herself "American".

Nonetheless shaking off the confusion, AFAIK, the plan of salvation that started with Abraham was narrowed down such that the ultimate result would come through Judah--its important that salvation was not to come through all of the tribes of Israel--only through Judah. That is plain, clear and simple. Ambiguity and obscurity breeds wisdom how?

Where is there any argument about who possesses Palestine or not or who has or hasn't the right to? Clearly, it is well known that blood descendants of the original 30AD through 70AD saints and such have been at or near the area called Judea since around 70AD and thusly long before the 1800s and long before 1933.

As I have explained, when the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well- financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English- speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation.

The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little relation to its original and correct meaning as the "secondary meaning" today as for the word "camel" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "camel", or the "secondary meaning" for the word "ivory" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "ivory". The "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" is a cigarette by that name but its original and correct meaning is a desert animal by that ancient name. The "secondary meaning" of the word "ivory" today is a piece of soap but its original and correct meaning is the tusk of a male elephant.

The "secondary meaning" of words often become the generally accepted meanings of words formerly having entirely different meanings. This is accomplished by the expenditure of great amounts of money for well-planned publicity. Today if you ask for a "camel" someone will hand you a cigarette by that name. Today if you ask for a piece of "ivory" someone will hand you a piece of soap by that name. You will never receive either a desert animal or a piece of the tusk of a male elephant. That must illustrate the extent to which these "secondary meanings" are able to practically eclipse the original and correct meanings of words in the minds of the general public. The "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" today has practically totally eclipsed the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew" when it was introduced as a word in the English language. This phenomena is not uncommon.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary meaning" of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that "secondary meanings" can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for three centuries has created a "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" which has completely "blacked out" the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew". There can be no doubt about that.

There is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a so- called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a person who today professes the form of religious worship known as "Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.

The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word "Jew" today, to the preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestable historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now approaches a psychosis. -Benjamin Freedman in his book Facts Are Facts

In comprehending scripture it is very important to overcome the ambiguity that recent modifications introduced. It is maybe just a little, teensy-weensy important (OR MAYBE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT?) to know that not everyone who calls themselves a "Jew" is a Jew in the sense that Paul meant. It seems that for MJ the "pesky details" might be just "silly" or "meaningless". Thus begs the question: MJ, why don't you start threads about topics dear to you rather than introduce "arguments" and beliefs into threads even when the OT is unrelated? Mind you, that is what trolls do by definition. But I'm not necessarily calling anyone a troll.

At the time of Christ's birth, Herod was so insanely jealous of his status as King of Judea that when he heard of another "king" born in Bethlehem, he gave a cruel order to have all male babies under two years old murdered. This "massacre of the innocents," is the one act most generally associated with his name, more so than any other act of his life.

At Herod's death, he had four remaining sons: Archelaus, Antipas, Philip I, and Philip II. After his death, half of his kingdom was given to Archelaus , while the remaining half was divided between Antipas and Philip II .

The crucifixion maybe had something to do with Herod's or his successors' being made king of Judea (not of "Jews"--that word was not used) and not wanting any competition? Afterall, wouldn't it have been known for a long time that salvation would come out of Judah/Judea?

[BLBereans]

I still do not comprehend, nor understand, why the ability to see the deeper meanings of, and in, people and events in scripture requires the acceptance that the people and events of scripture never really existed or occurred as depicted.

The actions of people, whether then or now, reflect either true or false interpretation of the text. The Scriptures cannot be fully and accurately interpreted by "moderns" if we filter them with our "modern" culture and worldview.

I believe it is vitally important to research and study the language and culture of the people to whom scripture was Divinely inspired to write. We must think like an "Israelite" in order to interpret through the worldview of the Israelites who wrote the words we read and study.

In my opinion, that doesn't mean that once we do this, we inevitably find out that the people and events written about are merely allegorical having had no real and earthly experiences or lives as we do.

The terrestrial and tangible earth is not a figment of imagination nor was it created as inherently evil; God said it was good. Currently, it is in a fallen state as we can plainly see death, evil and destruction all around us. The promise is that it will be restored, along with us, when this age of evil and destruction is ended.

This will not mean we will finally realize we, the heavens and earth and all of creation were all merely "allegories"... in my humble opinion.

[BLBereans]

Something interesting regarding freemasonry...




source

[allodial]

They deny the existence of a God that has power to make life and his creative power: they deny him having sons which is to deny his interest in life or creation.
They deny the existence of a God that has having any personality or any character: they instead prefer a god of forces.
They deny the existence of a God who is good (see denial of personality): they instead offer up a dualism of equally-matched good and evil.
To complete it and round it off, they deny the historicity and relegate everything in scripture to mere allegory (secretly fearing the retribution they might face should it all be true).

Interesting how Ptah, potter, water and father somewhat sound alike.

[allodial]

Crosstalk here.