Construction of Image of the Beast in Australia

[Dawn]

  Give me one reason to believe that this has anything to do with the U.S. Great Seal. Who do you believe is responsible for this Masonic influence? Can you name one believable historian who believes that the Great Seal is a Masonic artifact?

  I assume that you know that the library at the University of Virginia, designed by Thomas Jefferson, is a smaller version of Rome's Pantheon. What significance do you see in that?

The reverse side of the seal was officially rejected in 1883 by an official committee. A consultant to that committee was Professor Charles Elliot Norton of Harvard University. The reason cited by Professor Norton for rejecting the reserve side with its 'all seeing eye' and 'pyramid' was:

'it is greatly to be regretted that the device adopted by Congress in 1782 is of so elaborate and allegorical a character. As to the reverse...it can hardly (however artistically treated by the designer) look otherwise than as a dull emblem of a Masonic fraternity'.

The all-seeing eye represents the Egyptian gods Osirus and Horus - the Egyptian sun god. Freemasonry uses that ancient pagan symbol and high degree Freemasons are well aware of it's origins as Albert Pike noted 'The Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which to the Egyptian initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator' (Pike, Morals and Dogma'. p16-26).

So the fact is that the all-seeing eye is a pagan symbol (regardless of the Freemasonry aspect) used by the ancient religions. Many of the symbols and secrets of Freemasonry have descended from ancient Egypt whose mysteries descended from ancient Babylon.

You did not honestly think that the designers of the Great Seal just come up with the symbol by themselves, did you?

Regarding the University of Virginia and Pantheon - I see the New Roman Order imitating the Old Roman Order.

Did you read the article yet on the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity?

[Dale]

  Dawn in reply #30:
<< The reverse side of the seal was officially rejected in 1883 by an official committee.    >>
  Then why is it on the dollar bill today? The Great Seal of the U.S. was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1782, not rejected in 1783. It sounds like you are quoting a member of the Anti-Masonic movement of the early American Republic. Their views are not representative and cannot be trusted.

  << The all-seeing eye represents the Egyptian gods Osirus and Horus - the Egyptian sun god. Freemasonry uses that ancient pagan symbol and high degree Freemasons are well aware of it's origins as Albert Pike noted 'The Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which to the Egyptian initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator' (Pike, Morals and Dogma'. p16-26).  >>

  Osiris in not a creator god in Egyptian mythology. Ra is the closest thing they had to a creator, and Ra is also the sun god. (Not that it's easy or safe to generalize about Egyptian mythology.)


  << Many of the symbols and secrets of Freemasonry have descended from ancient Egypt whose mysteries descended from ancient Babylon.  >>
  This cannot be true since Egypt is older than Babylon.
  According to the Encyclopedia Brittannica, 1946, organized Freemasonry was founded in London in 1717, although some of the fraternal clubs that joined this organization may go back to the 14th Century.

  << You did not honestly think that the designers of the Great Seal just come up with the symbol by themselves, did you?  >>
  The reverse side of the Great Seal was designed by William Barton, an expert in heraldry and numismatics.

[Dale]

  One of the reasons this concerns me is that the claim that there are pagan Masonic symbols on the U.S. Great Seal, and so on the dollar bill, is spread by those who want people to believe that the Federal Constitution of 1791 is somehow anti-religious. Oddly, many of those who have picked up this rumor are the same religious conservatives who keep telling us that the Founding Fathers were all devout Christians.
  This leads to complete confusion.

  It is true that Benjamin Franklin was a Mason. However, Franklin had little influence on our national symbols: he thought the bald eagle was a poor choice!

[Dale]

  << Did you read the article yet on the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity?  >>

  No, and you haven't shown me much reason to think I should.

[Dawn]

Dale in reply to posts 31, 32 and 33

Yes the final version of the design was approved and adopted by an act of Congress on June 20 1782. Within weeks dies were cast of the front of the Great Seal, but not the reverse side. A second engraving in 1841 was ordered by Secretary of State Daniel Webster. A third engraving was prepared in 1885 under Secretary of State F.T. Frelinghusen and cut by Tiffany & Co.  

A committee appointed by Secretary of State F.T. Frelinghuysen, consisting of Theodore F. Dwight (Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the State Department), Justin Winsor (historian), Charles Eliot Norton (Harvard Professor), William H. Whitmore, John Denison Chaplin, Jr. and James Horton Whitehouse (designer for Tiffany and Co. NYC), decided that a die for the reverse side of the seal would not be produced and used as an official seal. Norton called it a 'dull emblem of a Masonic fraternity'. So the reverse side was not rejected per se (being officially approved by Congress in 1782), the committe merely decided that a die would not be produced - at least not in 1885.

I hope that I have clarified the issue.

As for Osirus being called the 'creator' - you will have to take that up with Albert Pike whom I was quoting.

Regarding Egypt and Babylon. You are quite right in the sense that Babylonia (c.2000-1600 B.C.) was later than ancient Egypt (old kingdom 2705-2213 B.C.). However the foundation of BABYLON THE CITY was much earlier. From the Zondervan Encyclopedia Vol.1 p.444 Zondervan Publishing House 1976 'Genesis 10:10 ascribes the founding of Babylon to Nimrod and makes it contemporary with early Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade)'. Babylon was also a city of the Sumerians (c3100-c2000 B.C.). Thus Babylon is one of the oldest cities of the world. Nimrod built the city Babel, later to be known as Babylon, in the plains of Shinar.

Regarding Freemasonry - its symbols, rituals and mysteries are heavily drawn upon from the ancient pagan religions of Egypt and Babylon. It's irrelevant when Freemasonry was founded. The origins of the symbols and their meanings are ancient and can be very easily verified with historical sources and artifacts.

In defending Freemasonry you are unfortunately calling evil good 'Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness...' Isaiah 5:20. I would suggest you take a look at that article regarding it's incompatibility with Christianity before continuing to strain at gnats.

Of course many Freemasons are not aware of the full extent of occult in the Lodge. So we must pray for God to lift the veil of spiritual blindness to call them out.

[Dale]

  Dawn in post #34:
<< As for Osirus being called the 'creator' - you will have to take that up with Albert Pike whom I was quoting.  >>

  I suggest that you look up Osiris in a reference book. Then look up Ra.

  Dawn:
<< The origins of the symbols and their meanings are ancient and can be very easily verified with historical sources and artifacts.  >>

  I've seen pictures of Egyptian buildings, inscriptions and artifacts from many sources. Every encycopedia has a few photos. I've recorded documentaries on Egypt, read books on the architecture, read translations of a few of the manuscripts.
  Now about the "All Seeing Eye" ... never heard of it, as an Egyptian idea. If you're claiming that the All Seeing Eye was part of the Egyptian belief that the Freemasons adopted, then show me one photo from Egypt with an "All Seeing Eye."
  I don't believe there is one.

[Dawn]

The eye of Horus or all seeing eye was one of the most common amulets of ancient Egypt. As a starting point try the British Museum at http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk and do an object search for wedjat eye or eye of Horus etc to see Egyptian artifacts depicting the all-seeing eye. Try also a basic internet search.

This symbol represents the eye of the Egyptian god Horus. The Masonic all seeing eye, the Eye of Providence symbol on US dollar bill are all derived from the Eye of Horus.

I have sent a photo to your email of just two artifacts from the British Museum of the Faience Wedjat Eye amulet from the Third Intermediate Period 1068-661 BC and Faience pectoral c.1250 BC that depicts the all-seeing eye.

[michael_legna]

In 609 AD it was disgracefully consecrated as a 'church' by the Roman Catholic Pope - the very church that would undertake its own persecution of Protestants during the Inquisitions. So this is no light matter or a joke - this information is extremely important for Christians to know. Before hastily writing do some homework.  

I had some free time so thought I would amuse myself with some of the conspiracy writings on the forum and ran across the above item which I just had to respond to.  I am just getting around to reading the entire thread, and would normally wait to catch completely up, but this is too good to pass by.

The Inquisitions ran from the mid 1200's to the mid 1500's  The Reformation started in the 1500's.  There was no persecution of Protestants during the Inquisitions because they didn't exist yet.

The Inquisitions were for prosecuting Catholics who had taken up heretical teachings and was handled on a local level.

How these crazy ideas like yours get started one will never know.

[Corpus]

And why would Masons wish to draw inspiration from St. Peter's when Rome itself has repeatedly made pronouncements against Freemasonry?

In 1738, Clement XII declared any Catholics who join the Freemasons as excommunicated. The following is just a sampling of the documents speaking out against Freemasonry:

Clement XII, Const. "In Eminenti", 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, "Providas", 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, "Ecclesiam", 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, "Quo graviora", 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encycl. "Traditi", 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, "Mirari", 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Qui pluribus", 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Quibus quantisque malis", 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Quanta cura", 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Multiplices inter", 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Const. "Apostolicæ Sedis", 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Etsi multa", 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Humanum genus", 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, "Præclara", 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, "Annum ingressi", 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Etsí nos", 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, "Ab Apostolici", 15 October, 1890.


Additionally, I have a good friend at church who is a former Mason. He described himself as having been very high in the organization (30th rank or some such..) and conveyed that anti-Catholic bigotry is pervasive throughout the organization.

[Tibby]

Dawn, would you care to enlighten us as to where you got your information from? It sounds like an interesting read, to say the least...

[Dawn]

And why would Masons wish to draw inspiration from St. Peter's when Rome itself has repeatedly made pronouncements against Freemasonry?

Additionally, I have a good friend at church who is a former Mason. He described himself as having been very high in the organization (30th rank or some such..) and conveyed that anti-Catholic bigotry is pervasive throughout the organization.

Yes you are right - the Roman Catholic Church has in the past denounced Freemasonry. Nonetheless there is compelling evidence that suggests that it is controlled by Freemasonry and from time to time this has surfaced - the P2 scandal is an example.

There may be anti-Catholic bigotry but the Masonic Lodge accepts brethren from all faiths and there are many Catholics who are Freemasons.

[Dawn]

Dawn, would you care to enlighten us as to where you got your information from? It sounds like an interesting read, to say the least...

My research was done over 40 years using copious sources from a broad cross section of fields and found in libraries and archives. However, in order to tie everything together, the most important source has been the Scriptures.

[Dawn]

In 609 AD it was disgracefully consecrated as a 'church' by the Roman Catholic Pope - the very church that would undertake its own persecution of Protestants during the Inquisitions. So this is no light matter or a joke - this information is extremely important for Christians to know. Before hastily writing do some homework.  

I had some free time so thought I would amuse myself with some of the conspiracy writings on the forum and ran across the above item which I just had to respond to.  I am just getting around to reading the entire thread, and would normally wait to catch completely up, but this is too good to pass by.

The Inquisitions ran from the mid 1200's to the mid 1500's  The Reformation started in the 1500's.  There was no persecution of Protestants during the Inquisitions because they didn't exist yet.

The Inquisitions were for prosecuting Catholics who had taken up heretical teachings and was handled on a local level.

How these crazy ideas like yours get started one will never know.

I am always amazed at the boldness of revisionist historians.

The term 'Protestant' came into being in the aftermath of the Second Diet of Speyer (1529), to refer to those who objected to the Diet's intolerance towards evangelical attitudes within Germany. But the fundamental Christian beliefs and practices which became predominant in the sixteenth-century Reformation predated it.

It is quite clear that the Vaudois, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups who endured the terror of the early Inquisitions were heretics to Rome but their beliefs were much like those of the Reformers i.e. they were the forerunners of the Protestants and this was acknowledged by the reformer Martin Luther.

You also seem to have forgotten the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) declared it the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics. A heretic was anyone who did not give allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Inquisitions (Roman, Medieval and Spainish) endured for centuries - the Spanish Inquisition had to be suppressed by Napoleon as late as 1809!. In his History of the Inquisition, Canon Llorente, who was Secretary to the Inquisition in Madrid from 1790-92 and who had access to the archives of all the tribunals, estimated that about 300,000 condemned were burnt at the stake - including Protestants, Jews and Moors.

The Medieval Inquisition was given permanent status by Pope Paul III in 1542, as the first of Rome's Sacred Congregations, the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition. Not one of the eighty Popes from the thirteenth century disapproved of the Inquisition. The persecution, torture and killing of 'heretics' has never been repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church.  

The greatest tragedy is that these martyrs have either been forgotten or worse yet, their faithfulness to Christ in the face of torture and death is subjected to revisionist amateur historians like yourself. The Inquisitions and the martyrs (including Protestants and like-minded groups) are not part of some conspiracy theory for your amusement. I find your statements not only historically erroneous and misleading but repugnant.  

[michael_legna]

I am always amazed at the boldness of revisionist historians.

It is not revisionist history to require you to use a term properly.  The term Protestant was never applied to any group prior to the Reformation.  So there were not Protestants persecuted by the Catholic Church during the Inquisitions.  That is just a ploy used by some to garner sympathy for their position and raise hatred and bigotry against Catholics.

The term 'Protestant' came into being in the aftermath of the Second Diet of Speyer (1529), to refer to those who objected to the Diet's intolerance towards evangelical attitudes within Germany.

So you admit your error.

But the fundamental Christian beliefs and practices which became predominant in the sixteenth-century Reformation predated it.

It is quite clear that the Vaudois, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups who endured the terror of the early Inquisitions were heretics to Rome but their beliefs were much like those of the Reformers i.e. they were the forerunners of the Protestants and this was acknowledged by the reformer Martin Luther.

Forerunners are not the same as actual Protestants otherwise Luther would simply have joined them as they were still in existance at the time.

You also seem to have forgotten the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) declared it the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics. A heretic was anyone who did not give allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church.

I have not forgotten the Counter-Reformation but it's intent was again to clean up the Church from the inside.  It was not directed at Protestant but at Catholics, just as the Inquisition was.

As for your claim concerning some directive given by Pope Gregory IX, I will have to see the actual quote and a verifiable source since you have proven yourself so unreliable thus far to provide accurate historical accounts.

The Inquisitions (Roman, Medieval and Spainish) endured for centuries

Yes 3 centuries approximately.  The mid 1200's to the mid 1500's

- the Spanish Inquisition had to be suppressed by Napoleon as late as 1809!.

But the Pope had terminated it in the mid 1500's it was the local government authorities that continued it against Papal instruction.  It was later revived temporarily with the proviso that there was to be no torture or killing.

In his History of the Inquisition, Canon Llorente, who was Secretary to the Inquisition in Madrid from 1790-92 and who had access to the archives of all the tribunals, estimated that about 300,000 condemned were burnt at the stake - including Protestants, Jews and Moors.

I would like to see a specific verificable reference to this text as its veracity is questionable.

We also have to remeber that those who were killed during the Inquisition were killed by the civil authorities for treason.  

The Catholic Church limited the treatment of the accused to torture which was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth.

It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs.

How many victims were handed over to the civil power cannot be stated with even approximate accuracy.  It is a matter for historians to argue and choose which numbers best fit thier inherent biases as you have clearly done in your amatuer historical research.

We have nevertheless some valuable information about a few of the Inquisition tribunals, and their statistics are not without interest. At Pamiers, from 1318 to 1324, out of twenty-four persons convicted but five were delivered to the civil power, and at Toulouse from 1308 to 1323, only forty-two out of nine hundred and thirty bear the ominous note "relictus culiae saeculari". Thus, at Pamiers one in thirteen, and at Toulouse one in forty-two seem to have been burnt for heresy although these places were hotbeds of heresy and therefore principal centres of the Inquisition. We may add, also, that this was the most active period of the institution. These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raylmund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials (Vacandard, op. cit., 237 sqq.).

The Medieval Inquisition was given permanent status by Pope Paul III in 1542, as the first of Rome's Sacred Congregations, the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition. Not one of the eighty Popes from the thirteenth century disapproved of the Inquisition. The persecution, torture and killing of 'heretics' has never been repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church.  

Again the reinstatement of Medieval Inquisition is directed at Catholics within the Church and its permanent status is in no way similar to the original Inquisitions as the civil authorities are being kept completely out of the process and again no torture being allowed.

The Church has denounced the acts of the Inquisition as extreme, even though they occurred in different times under different sensibilities than we hold today.  However they were no worse than the persecutions under the Protestants during the Reformation.

That such intolerance was not peculiar to Catholicism, but was the natural accompaniment of deep religious conviction in those, also, who abandoned the Church, is evident from the measures taken by some of the Reformers against those who differed from them in matters of belief. As the learned Dr. Schaff declares in his "History of the Christian Church" (vol. V, New York, 1907, p. 524),

"To the great humiliation of the Protestant churches, religious intolerance and even persecution unto death were continued long alter the Reformation. In Geneva the pernicious theory was put into practice by state and church, even to the use of torture and the admission of the testimony of children against their parents, and with the sanction of Calvin. Bullinger, in the second Helvetic Confession, announced the principle that heresy could be punished like murder or treason."

This does not make what the Catholic Church did right but it reflects that those were different times and that they were not alone in their errors.

[Corpus]

Dawn,

Nonetheless there is compelling evidence that suggests that it is controlled by Freemasonry

Please provide more details.

There may be anti-Catholic bigotry but the Masonic Lodge accepts brethren from all faiths and there are many Catholics who are Freemasons.

Not so. As Clement XII stated very clearly in the constitution In Eminenti, Catholics are under penalty of excommunication ipso facto for simply joining or even promoting a masonic society.

But in the end, we still don't have a better understanding of why the freemasons would wish to draw inspiration from one of the most highly recognized symbols of Roman authority, i.e. St. Peter's, given Rome's consistent and public opposition to freemasonry.