Personally, I'm not so sure that the good guys win in the end as you seem to be so sure of. For myself, I find that I can take nothing for granted and find myself questioning things that are given to me as being unquestionable. For example, Paul the Apostle was only a man, and not everything he said can be considered sacred; I think if he was alive today he would be horrified that his letters to various churches is today considered to be Holy Writ!
As to the issue of John of Patmos and John the Apostle being one and the same person, I'd say the burden of proof is on you. I think if you seriously study the issue you won't like what you find.
It's interesting that the rest of the introduction of the KJV that you posted only serves to underscore my point: Here we have a clear indication of a man (MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE) being deified much like the Pope of the Universal Church was. And nobody bats an eyelash at it. Furthermore, we have language such as "our Sion" and "Occidental Star" which is unmistakably masonic.
And I saw that page "King James Was NOT A Freemason", but find it utterly unconvincing since there is documentation all over the place that shows he was (and not just the oblique references in the introduction of the KJV). Just one example:
King James - The Founder of Freemason Lodges - Moriel Ministries
And yes, it does matter if he was a mason or not because people are always saying how masonry (read: current incarnation of the Mystery Religion) was bereft of influence. But most people just don't care that much about history. Any wonder why they're doomed to repeat it?
An interesting side note: Yesterday I attended a service of John Rutter's Requiem at a major Presbyterian church in downtown Austin. As I was entering the sanctuary I noticed an inscription on the pillar to my right depicting a square (with legs pointing to 45 and 135) overlaid with a compass. Yes indeed, masonry has no influence.
As to the issue of John of Patmos and John the Apostle being one and the same person, I'd say the burden of proof is on you. I think if you seriously study the issue you won't like what you find.
It's interesting that the rest of the introduction of the KJV that you posted only serves to underscore my point: Here we have a clear indication of a man (MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE) being deified much like the Pope of the Universal Church was. And nobody bats an eyelash at it. Furthermore, we have language such as "our Sion" and "Occidental Star" which is unmistakably masonic.
And I saw that page "King James Was NOT A Freemason", but find it utterly unconvincing since there is documentation all over the place that shows he was (and not just the oblique references in the introduction of the KJV). Just one example:
King James - The Founder of Freemason Lodges - Moriel Ministries
And yes, it does matter if he was a mason or not because people are always saying how masonry (read: current incarnation of the Mystery Religion) was bereft of influence. But most people just don't care that much about history. Any wonder why they're doomed to repeat it?
An interesting side note: Yesterday I attended a service of John Rutter's Requiem at a major Presbyterian church in downtown Austin. As I was entering the sanctuary I noticed an inscription on the pillar to my right depicting a square (with legs pointing to 45 and 135) overlaid with a compass. Yes indeed, masonry has no influence.
Comment