Masonic lodges in Scotland have been completely infiltrated by a Northern Irish terrorist gang, and anti-terror police are now engaged in a massive campaign to root the rogue members from the ranks of Scottish Freemasons.
Members of the outlawed Ulster Defense Association managed to hold secret strategy sessions within the Masonic temples and even held huge fundraising parties inside the lodges, all under cover of being regular members of the secret society.
"The UDA is one of Ulster's most brutal paramilitary organizations," Scotland's Sunday Herald reported this week.
"Using the cover-name the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) it waged a campaign of sectarian assassination against Northern Ireland's Catholics. One of its most notorious 'brigadiers,' Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair, fled to Ayrshire after his expulsion from Belfast following an internecine loyalist feud."
"I was horrified to find out that this had been going on," said one lodge official, provincial grand master David Wishart.
It's hardly the first time the esoteric order has been used by those wanting political change, whether peaceful or violent.
Freemasons trace their secret society back to the time of King Solomon and the Pharoahs. But history only leads as far back as the early 1300s, when documents first revealed the London Masons Company and a Masonic lodge at York in Northern England.
Masonic lodges have become the headquarters of many underground groups over the centuries, including the freethinking Bavarian Illuminati formed by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, the anti-royalists who plotted the French Revolution of 1789, and the American intellectuals who instigated the Revolutionary War against England.
Masonic rituals are the source of everything from Aleister Crowley's satanic magick to the feminist Wicca movement. There's even a mystical Boy Scout-style youth group called the Order of De Molay, named after the last grand master of the Knights Templar who was burned at the stake by French King Philip the Fair.
As a movement dedicated to "the doctrine of religious and intellectual tolerance" and natural rights of mankind, Freemasons were regularly targeted by kings and popes, with statutes and edicts delivered over the centuries that demanded the closing of Masonic temples.
But these days, conspiracies hatched within the private walls of Masonic lodges are less likely to be about the edification of humanity.
Besides the current outrage in Scotland, U.K. lodges have been caught up in all manner of unseemly activities -- including brutal police departments in which every cop was a Mason. The abuses were so widespread that in 1998 a new law was unveiled by Home Secretary Jack Straw demanding judges, police and prosecutors declare their membership in secret fraternities.
One of the most notorious recent abuses of a Masonic lodge occurred in Italy, where neo-fascist elites created the P2 lodge. From 1965 to 1981, the lodge directly controlled Italian politics and much of the European banking industry, not to mention the Vatican. Anyone who got in their way was ritually murdered.
As gruesome ritual murders, bloody Vatican intrigue, assasinations, banking scandals, bizarre CIA torture schemes and the usual political corruption have hardly vanished in Italy, the P2 lodge most likely still exists under a new cover.
America laughs at Shriners
The secretive Freemasons have a weird problem in America. While there's never been more popular interest in "the craft," not many people actually want to join the ritualistic fraternity. (An upcoming Dan Brown book about Masons in America and a sequel to the popular "National Treasure" movie are just two of the big-money entertainment projects covering the history of U.S. Freemasons.)
The Shriners, an Freemasonry spinoff best known for financing burn wards and driving little tiny cars while wearing Fez hats, are a good example of the decline of Masonry in the United States.
Their numbers have dropped by half, to just 411,000 members. In 1980, there were nearly a million Shriners.
The secret fraternity has been holding marketing meetings to come up with ways to lure younger men to the organization -- because at the rate Shriners are dropping dead, there won't be any in a few years.
But Americans don't join such esoteric clubs these days, both because Americans have become increasingly isolated and lonely during the past 20 years, and also because those few who still take part in social activities find the Shriners to be ridiculous.
American Freemasonry hit its peak in 1959, when 4 million U.S. men belonged to the brotherhood, while hundreds of thousands of their wives belonged to Masonic sisterhoods.
Today, there are only 1.5 million U.S. Freemasons, and the iconic Masons' lodges on every Main Street in America are mostly empty today, with major lodges in big cities generally converted to concert halls or event centers.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Is Masonry A Religion?
The answer to this question depends upon whom you ask. The Grand Lodge of Indiana publishes a small tract titled Freemasonry, A Way Of Life. This tract, given to outsiders, says, "Though religious in character, Masonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for one." This would be good, except the story changes after a man has become a Mason. For example, the Indiana Monitor says, "Freemasonry is a charitable, benevolent, educational, and religious society." The Kentucky Monitor goes even further when it states, "...as Masons we are taught that no man should ever enter upon any great or important undertaking without first invoking the blessing of Deity. This is because Masonry is a religious institution..." Albert Pike (a 33rd Degree Mason), one of the most celebrated Masonic scholars, claims that "every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion." (Morals and Dogma, p. 213). This book was published under the auspices of the Supreme Council of the Thirty-Third Degree of the Scottish Rite.
The problem is that the Lodge lies to candidates before their initiation. "Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hereticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it ... So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters away." (Morals and Dogma, p. 105). Can you imagine a sane man joining any organization if he knew they were going to "intentionally" mislead him?
Another Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey (a 33rd Degree Mason), claims the only reason to defend Masonry is because of its religious element. "I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains for its origin and for its continued existence, that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good." (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 727).
The Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist church has issued a report urging men not to join the Masonic Lodge since it is a "competitor of Christianity." The report also states, "There is a great danger that the Christian who becomes a Freemason will find himself compromising his Christian beliefs or his allegiance to Christ, perhaps without realizing what he is doing." (Evansville Courier, June 13, 1985). If the Methodist church can understand this, why can't some of my brethren? Listen to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
The problem is that the Lodge lies to candidates before their initiation. "Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hereticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it ... So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters away." (Morals and Dogma, p. 105). Can you imagine a sane man joining any organization if he knew they were going to "intentionally" mislead him?
Another Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey (a 33rd Degree Mason), claims the only reason to defend Masonry is because of its religious element. "I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains for its origin and for its continued existence, that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good." (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 727).
The Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist church has issued a report urging men not to join the Masonic Lodge since it is a "competitor of Christianity." The report also states, "There is a great danger that the Christian who becomes a Freemason will find himself compromising his Christian beliefs or his allegiance to Christ, perhaps without realizing what he is doing." (Evansville Courier, June 13, 1985). If the Methodist church can understand this, why can't some of my brethren? Listen to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
The Lost Tribes of Israel
Around 926 b.c., the kingdom of Israel split in two. Up to that point, all twelve tribes of Israel (plus the priestly tribe of Levi) had been united under the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon. But when Solomon’s son Rehoboam ascended to the throne, the ten Northern tribes rebelled and seceded from the union. This left only two tribes?Judah and Benjamin (plus much of Levi)?under the control of the king in Jerusalem. From that time on, the tribes were divided into two nations, which came to be called the House of Israel (the Northern ten tribes) and the House of Judah (the Southern two tribes).
This situation continued until around 723 B.C., when the Assyrians conquered the Northern kingdom. To keep conquered nations in subjection, it was Assyrian policy to break them up by deporting their native populations to other areas and resettling the land with newcomers. When the House of Israel was conquered, most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border. They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria.
These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as "the lost tribes of Israel."
A movement called "British Israelism" claims to have found the ten "lost tribes," however, and in some very unlikely places.
For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Church of God." Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.
British Israelism was not Armstrong’s only eccentric view. Among other things, he believed in Saturday rather than Sunday worship and, most seriously, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed that individual humans could be added to the Godhead.
After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church of God did a serious review of the doctrines it had taught up to that point and moved to a more biblically and theologically orthodox position. Today, the organization is basically another Evangelical Protestant church (they have even been admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals), though with a few distinctive practices. Many of their congregations still worship on Saturdays, for example, but they no longer regard keeping the Jewish Sabbath and feasts as points of doctrine. They have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, denied that created beings can become part of the Godhead, and acknowledged that other churches contain true Christians. They have also rejected the distinctive idea behind British Israelism?the claim that the lost tribes of Israel are to be specially identified with the Anglo-Saxons.
Unfortunately, there are still advocates of British Israelism out there (including some groups that split off from the Worldwide Church of God when it underwent its doctrinal renewal), and, though the book is out of print, Herbert W. Armstrong’s The United States and Britain in Prophecy continues to circulate.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy teaches the notion that the Lost Tribes of Israel are really the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, which is to say the British and Americans of British extraction.
This exotic doctrine had been around for decades before Herbert W. Armstrong founded his church in 1933, and it appeals, naturally enough, to those of British heritage. After all, who wouldn’t want to be a member of the "chosen race" (assuming there is one)? And according to Armstrong, that’s precisely what the Anglo-Saxons are?God’s chosen race, where can be found the direct descendants of King David and, even today, the true "heirs" to King David’s throne.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy opens with this epigraph: "The prophecies of the Bible have been grievously misunderstood. And no wonder! For the vital key, needed to unlock prophetic doors to understanding, had become lost. That key is a definite knowledge of the true identity of the American and British peoples in biblical prophecy." Only the first sentence of this epigraph is strictly correct, and a good share of the "grievous misunderstanding" is by people who put faith in the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong.
The Argument Begins
"We know Bible prophecies definitely refer to Russia, Italy, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt of today. Could they then ignore modern nations like Britain and America? Is it reasonable?" This is how the argument begins, and notice what kind of argument it is. If these "lesser" countries are mentioned in Scripture, would it be fair for God to ignore us, important as we are? (We won’t examine here the highly dubious premise that Russia is mentioned in Scripture.) You might call this an "appeal to pride."
Never fear, says Armstrong. "The fact is, [the British and Americans] are mentioned more often than any other race [sic]. Yet their prophetic identity has remained hidden to the many." Why is that? you ask. Because the Bible doesn’t refer to them by their modern names, but by an ancient name. And what is that name? None other than Israel.
"Hold it!" you say. The people who came from Israel are Jews. Britons and Americans, for the most part, aren’t Jewish. How can one claim otherwise? Easily. Armstrong assures us that, "The house of Israel is not Jewish! Those who constitute it are not Jews, and never were! That fact we shall now see conclusively, beyond refute."
Actually, there is something of a point here. The term "Jew" originated as a way of referring to the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, whether their own tribe was Judah, Benjamin, or Levi. The term appears late in Israel’s history?after the division into northern and southern kingdoms?and it can be fairly claimed that the term does not apply to the members of the ten northern tribes, who are properly known as "Israelites" since they belonged to the House of Israel rather than the House of Judah.
Armstrong asserted: "Certainly this proves that the Jews are a different nation altogether from the House of Israel," claims Armstrong. "The Jews of today are Judah! They call their nation ‘Israel’ today because they, too, descend from the patriarch Israel or Jacob. But remember that the ‘House of Israel’?the ten tribes that separated from Judah?does not mean Jew! Whoever the lost ten tribes of Israel are today, they are not Jews!"
"By the year 721 B.C., the House of Israel was conquered and its people were soon driven out of their own land?out of their homes and cities?and carried captives to Assyria, near the southern shores of the Caspian Sea!" So it was in 721 B.C. that the Lost Tribes got "lost."
The Year Nothing Happened
Had the tribes remained faithful to God, all would have been well, Armstrong explains. "But, if they refused and rebelled, they were to be punished seven times?a duration of 2,520 years?in slavery, servitude, and want." They did rebel, and Armstrong theorizes that their punishment extended from 721 B.C. to A.D. 1800.
And what remarkable thing happened in 1800? Well, if we don’t count the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency of the United States, not a whole lot. In fact, 1800 was a pretty dull year for history. But Armstrong disagrees, saying that from that date, Britain and America became world powers; the former (at that time) politically, and the latter economically (and later, also politically).
According to Armstrong’s scheme, the figure of "2,520 years of punishment" is arrived at by multiplying the "seven years of punishment" by 360?the number of days in the year as it was reckoned by the ancients?on the principle that each "day" of punishment really stood for a whole year of punishment. If you think this is convoluted reasoning, just wait until you read the remainder of the argument in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It’s enough to note here that Armstrong determines from Scripture that the Lost Tribes ended up on islands in the sea, and these islands are northwest of Palestine.
We’re told, for example, that the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah begins with, "Listen, O isles, unto me." Do you see how this suggests the British Isles? Armstrong says, "Take a map of Europe. Lay a line due northwest of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you direct to the British Isles!"
The skeptic might note that the line first comes to the Aegean islands, which are also in the sea?the Mediterranean Sea?but this would mean the Greeks are the Lost Tribes, therefore, the theory would not play into the desires of some British or Americans to identify themselves with the lost tribes.
Linguistic Legerdemain
You want more proof? Armstrong has it. "The House of Israel," he explains, "is the ‘covenant people.’ The Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ is brit [b’rith]. And the word for ‘covenant man,’ or ‘covenant people,’ would therefore sound, in English word order, Brit-ish (the word ish means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and it is also an English suffix on nouns and adjectives). And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the ‘British’? And they reside in the ‘British Isles’!"
This reasoning may impress some, but no linguist would take this seriously. The word "British" is not derived from Hebrew but from the Celtic word Brettas. It’s significant that the Celtic Brettas referred to the Britons, who were inhabitants of England before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons that Armstrong claims were Israelites. One possible reason for Armstrong’s linguistic confusions may be that in Webster’s Diction-ary (for example, in the 3,200-page unabridged edition published in 1932?an edition Armstrong may have had access to) the entry for b’rith (Hebrew: covenant) appears sandwiched between the entries for "Britannic" and "Briticism." Perhaps he simply didn’t read carefully enough and assumed, wrongly, that b’rith must somehow be etymologically connected with the other the words before and after pertaining to things British. Neither does the common English suffix -ish derive from the Hebrew word for man. Instead, it derives from the Greek diminutive suffix -iskos
It was bad enough to suggest that the word "British" is Hebrew, but he also made another claim: If you take the name "Isaac," you see it’s easy for someone to drop the "I" when speaking quickly and to end up with "Saac" as the name of the patriarch. He had descendants, of course, and these may be called "Saac’s sons," from which we get the word "Saxons."
"Is it only coincidence," asks Armstrong, "that ‘Saxons’ sounds the same as ‘Saac’s sons’?sons of Isaac?" This doesn’t even qualify as a coincidence, since Armstrong had to make up the nickname of "Saac" in order for the "coincidence" to exist. In reality, the term "Saxon" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word "seax," which means knife or dagger, not the Hebrew word "Isaac" (Yitskhaq), which means "laughter" (cf. Gen. 17:15?19, 18:9?15).
Another Remarkable Coincidence?
Armstrong found other coincidences. When the Lost Tribes were scattered, he says, they "brought with them certain remarkable things, including a harp and a wonderful stone called lia-fail, or stone of destiny. A peculiar coincidence is that Hebrew reads from right to left, while English reads from left to right. Read this name either way?and it still is lia-fail. Another strange coincidence?or is it just coincidence??is that many kings in the history of Ireland, Scotland, and England have been coronated sitting over a remarkable stone?including the present queen [sic]. The stone rests today in Westminster Abbey in London, and the coronation chair is built over and around it. A sign once beside it labeled it ‘Jacob’s pillar-stone.’"
Here Armstrong’s argument becomes even weaker. After all, one could note that Hebrew and English are not the only languages which, when contrasted, are read in different directions. For example, Arabic is read right to left, while Gaelic is read left to right. What does that prove? Nothing! Just as Armstrong’s muddled reasoning proves nothing at all about a connection between Hebrew and English. If it did, one could just as easily "prove" that the Lost Tribes were also responsible for bringing the Blarney Stone with them. And that’s just plain blarney.
Armstrongism’s Appeal
What makes Armstrong’s notion so attractive to some folks? First, it appeals to their nationalistic vanity: "I’m of English descent, and now I see that I’m right in the thick of things, biblically speaking. Having English blood in my veins makes me special. It puts me above the rest of the crowd." It also perpetuates ethnic prejudice: "Thank God I’m not Italian! I never liked Italians anyway, and now I see they aren’t descended from the Lost Tribes and so are only secondary players in the divine drama?something I always suspected."
At first glance, Armstrong’s argument seems to be based on a sophisticated understanding of Scripture: "Armstrong provides lots of citations, and I can’t find fault with his argument. It’s so convoluted and technical it must be right." But, still, it’s wrong, no matter how satisfying it seems to some.
This situation continued until around 723 B.C., when the Assyrians conquered the Northern kingdom. To keep conquered nations in subjection, it was Assyrian policy to break them up by deporting their native populations to other areas and resettling the land with newcomers. When the House of Israel was conquered, most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border. They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria.
These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as "the lost tribes of Israel."
A movement called "British Israelism" claims to have found the ten "lost tribes," however, and in some very unlikely places.
For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Church of God." Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.
British Israelism was not Armstrong’s only eccentric view. Among other things, he believed in Saturday rather than Sunday worship and, most seriously, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed that individual humans could be added to the Godhead.
After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church of God did a serious review of the doctrines it had taught up to that point and moved to a more biblically and theologically orthodox position. Today, the organization is basically another Evangelical Protestant church (they have even been admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals), though with a few distinctive practices. Many of their congregations still worship on Saturdays, for example, but they no longer regard keeping the Jewish Sabbath and feasts as points of doctrine. They have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, denied that created beings can become part of the Godhead, and acknowledged that other churches contain true Christians. They have also rejected the distinctive idea behind British Israelism?the claim that the lost tribes of Israel are to be specially identified with the Anglo-Saxons.
Unfortunately, there are still advocates of British Israelism out there (including some groups that split off from the Worldwide Church of God when it underwent its doctrinal renewal), and, though the book is out of print, Herbert W. Armstrong’s The United States and Britain in Prophecy continues to circulate.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy teaches the notion that the Lost Tribes of Israel are really the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, which is to say the British and Americans of British extraction.
This exotic doctrine had been around for decades before Herbert W. Armstrong founded his church in 1933, and it appeals, naturally enough, to those of British heritage. After all, who wouldn’t want to be a member of the "chosen race" (assuming there is one)? And according to Armstrong, that’s precisely what the Anglo-Saxons are?God’s chosen race, where can be found the direct descendants of King David and, even today, the true "heirs" to King David’s throne.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy opens with this epigraph: "The prophecies of the Bible have been grievously misunderstood. And no wonder! For the vital key, needed to unlock prophetic doors to understanding, had become lost. That key is a definite knowledge of the true identity of the American and British peoples in biblical prophecy." Only the first sentence of this epigraph is strictly correct, and a good share of the "grievous misunderstanding" is by people who put faith in the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong.
The Argument Begins
"We know Bible prophecies definitely refer to Russia, Italy, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt of today. Could they then ignore modern nations like Britain and America? Is it reasonable?" This is how the argument begins, and notice what kind of argument it is. If these "lesser" countries are mentioned in Scripture, would it be fair for God to ignore us, important as we are? (We won’t examine here the highly dubious premise that Russia is mentioned in Scripture.) You might call this an "appeal to pride."
Never fear, says Armstrong. "The fact is, [the British and Americans] are mentioned more often than any other race [sic]. Yet their prophetic identity has remained hidden to the many." Why is that? you ask. Because the Bible doesn’t refer to them by their modern names, but by an ancient name. And what is that name? None other than Israel.
"Hold it!" you say. The people who came from Israel are Jews. Britons and Americans, for the most part, aren’t Jewish. How can one claim otherwise? Easily. Armstrong assures us that, "The house of Israel is not Jewish! Those who constitute it are not Jews, and never were! That fact we shall now see conclusively, beyond refute."
Actually, there is something of a point here. The term "Jew" originated as a way of referring to the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, whether their own tribe was Judah, Benjamin, or Levi. The term appears late in Israel’s history?after the division into northern and southern kingdoms?and it can be fairly claimed that the term does not apply to the members of the ten northern tribes, who are properly known as "Israelites" since they belonged to the House of Israel rather than the House of Judah.
Armstrong asserted: "Certainly this proves that the Jews are a different nation altogether from the House of Israel," claims Armstrong. "The Jews of today are Judah! They call their nation ‘Israel’ today because they, too, descend from the patriarch Israel or Jacob. But remember that the ‘House of Israel’?the ten tribes that separated from Judah?does not mean Jew! Whoever the lost ten tribes of Israel are today, they are not Jews!"
"By the year 721 B.C., the House of Israel was conquered and its people were soon driven out of their own land?out of their homes and cities?and carried captives to Assyria, near the southern shores of the Caspian Sea!" So it was in 721 B.C. that the Lost Tribes got "lost."
The Year Nothing Happened
Had the tribes remained faithful to God, all would have been well, Armstrong explains. "But, if they refused and rebelled, they were to be punished seven times?a duration of 2,520 years?in slavery, servitude, and want." They did rebel, and Armstrong theorizes that their punishment extended from 721 B.C. to A.D. 1800.
And what remarkable thing happened in 1800? Well, if we don’t count the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency of the United States, not a whole lot. In fact, 1800 was a pretty dull year for history. But Armstrong disagrees, saying that from that date, Britain and America became world powers; the former (at that time) politically, and the latter economically (and later, also politically).
According to Armstrong’s scheme, the figure of "2,520 years of punishment" is arrived at by multiplying the "seven years of punishment" by 360?the number of days in the year as it was reckoned by the ancients?on the principle that each "day" of punishment really stood for a whole year of punishment. If you think this is convoluted reasoning, just wait until you read the remainder of the argument in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It’s enough to note here that Armstrong determines from Scripture that the Lost Tribes ended up on islands in the sea, and these islands are northwest of Palestine.
We’re told, for example, that the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah begins with, "Listen, O isles, unto me." Do you see how this suggests the British Isles? Armstrong says, "Take a map of Europe. Lay a line due northwest of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you direct to the British Isles!"
The skeptic might note that the line first comes to the Aegean islands, which are also in the sea?the Mediterranean Sea?but this would mean the Greeks are the Lost Tribes, therefore, the theory would not play into the desires of some British or Americans to identify themselves with the lost tribes.
Linguistic Legerdemain
You want more proof? Armstrong has it. "The House of Israel," he explains, "is the ‘covenant people.’ The Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ is brit [b’rith]. And the word for ‘covenant man,’ or ‘covenant people,’ would therefore sound, in English word order, Brit-ish (the word ish means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and it is also an English suffix on nouns and adjectives). And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the ‘British’? And they reside in the ‘British Isles’!"
This reasoning may impress some, but no linguist would take this seriously. The word "British" is not derived from Hebrew but from the Celtic word Brettas. It’s significant that the Celtic Brettas referred to the Britons, who were inhabitants of England before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons that Armstrong claims were Israelites. One possible reason for Armstrong’s linguistic confusions may be that in Webster’s Diction-ary (for example, in the 3,200-page unabridged edition published in 1932?an edition Armstrong may have had access to) the entry for b’rith (Hebrew: covenant) appears sandwiched between the entries for "Britannic" and "Briticism." Perhaps he simply didn’t read carefully enough and assumed, wrongly, that b’rith must somehow be etymologically connected with the other the words before and after pertaining to things British. Neither does the common English suffix -ish derive from the Hebrew word for man. Instead, it derives from the Greek diminutive suffix -iskos
It was bad enough to suggest that the word "British" is Hebrew, but he also made another claim: If you take the name "Isaac," you see it’s easy for someone to drop the "I" when speaking quickly and to end up with "Saac" as the name of the patriarch. He had descendants, of course, and these may be called "Saac’s sons," from which we get the word "Saxons."
"Is it only coincidence," asks Armstrong, "that ‘Saxons’ sounds the same as ‘Saac’s sons’?sons of Isaac?" This doesn’t even qualify as a coincidence, since Armstrong had to make up the nickname of "Saac" in order for the "coincidence" to exist. In reality, the term "Saxon" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word "seax," which means knife or dagger, not the Hebrew word "Isaac" (Yitskhaq), which means "laughter" (cf. Gen. 17:15?19, 18:9?15).
Another Remarkable Coincidence?
Armstrong found other coincidences. When the Lost Tribes were scattered, he says, they "brought with them certain remarkable things, including a harp and a wonderful stone called lia-fail, or stone of destiny. A peculiar coincidence is that Hebrew reads from right to left, while English reads from left to right. Read this name either way?and it still is lia-fail. Another strange coincidence?or is it just coincidence??is that many kings in the history of Ireland, Scotland, and England have been coronated sitting over a remarkable stone?including the present queen [sic]. The stone rests today in Westminster Abbey in London, and the coronation chair is built over and around it. A sign once beside it labeled it ‘Jacob’s pillar-stone.’"
Here Armstrong’s argument becomes even weaker. After all, one could note that Hebrew and English are not the only languages which, when contrasted, are read in different directions. For example, Arabic is read right to left, while Gaelic is read left to right. What does that prove? Nothing! Just as Armstrong’s muddled reasoning proves nothing at all about a connection between Hebrew and English. If it did, one could just as easily "prove" that the Lost Tribes were also responsible for bringing the Blarney Stone with them. And that’s just plain blarney.
Armstrongism’s Appeal
What makes Armstrong’s notion so attractive to some folks? First, it appeals to their nationalistic vanity: "I’m of English descent, and now I see that I’m right in the thick of things, biblically speaking. Having English blood in my veins makes me special. It puts me above the rest of the crowd." It also perpetuates ethnic prejudice: "Thank God I’m not Italian! I never liked Italians anyway, and now I see they aren’t descended from the Lost Tribes and so are only secondary players in the divine drama?something I always suspected."
At first glance, Armstrong’s argument seems to be based on a sophisticated understanding of Scripture: "Armstrong provides lots of citations, and I can’t find fault with his argument. It’s so convoluted and technical it must be right." But, still, it’s wrong, no matter how satisfying it seems to some.
Was Hitler a Christian?
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
Nazi Party Meeting Poster 1930's National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Nazi Honour Cross Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
Nazi Party Meeting Poster 1930's National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Nazi Honour Cross Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)