Board index ‹ The Occult

[Ostraca]

Haha I know! The divine source (God) is both is existence and things that don’t exist. He/They (I say that bc obviously god doesn’t have a gender ) is in you and I, and in the ground we walk upon. In the starry night we see every day, and in the morning sunrise. God is in the phone I’m typing on. God is everything, yet nothing. The comprehensible, and the un-comprehensive. The subject to grasp is immaculate and we with our brains, at least in the year of 2020 and in this human life shell cannot even begin to grasp it. The Bible/Torah is simply a book of laws that were inspired by God in order to keep the earth a place of order and security, but also keep us from spiritually advancing. The Bible condemns spiritual practices because they enlighten us. There are people who have a ton more knowledge than we do that don’t want us to thus control us with a book. This is my point of view of course, but it is so. Because the more knowledge we have, the more divine we get. And Jesus, who could or could not have been an actual historical figure, is the sun. Yes; the sun as in the thing that rises every morning. The sun AND Gods son. That’s why they say Jesus will defeat darkness once and for all, aka the sun rises every morning and it is no longer dark outside. The once and for all part is the theory that the sun will eventually destroy the earth in fire. In the Old Testament, God did say supposedly that he/they would never destroy the earth in water again. But fire; that is a possibility. Another theory is we will go into nuclear war but this is less likely since people back then didn’t know of nuclear technology.

[jimwalton]

> The divine source (God) is both is existence and things that don’t exist.

I'm trying hard. Be patient with me. One of the sources of your divine sense and power is things that don't exist?

> God is everything, yet nothing.

You lost me. This sounds like A = non-A. If God is everything, there is no diversity and no distinction. If God is therefore also nothing, then god is both meaningless and without influence, right?

> The Bible/Torah is simply a book of laws that were inspired by God in order to keep the earth a place of order and security, but also keep us from spiritually advancing.

This is an odd perspective to me. It sounds reductionistic. The Bible says it was given to show us the vast and glorious eternal magnificence of God, and yet you have reduced that to say it's "simply a book of laws...to keep the earth a place of order and security," but at the same time it keeps us from advancing.

By contrast, J.I. Packer expresses my thoughts well: "The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, that can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God.... There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity—a subject so vast that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Our plumb line cannot sound its depth, our eye cannot discern its height, and our thoughts are humbled by its breadth. While the subject humbles the mind, it also expands it. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect and magnify the soul."

> The Bible condemns spiritual practices because they enlighten us.

Wow, I disagree with this. (Sorry.) The Bible condemns spiritual practices that lead in false directions.

> Because the more knowledge we have, the more divine we get.

This sounds like a Gnostic idea, that knowledge is the path to enlightenment. My experience and study lead me to a different conclusion, because there are many people of uber-intelligence that are most certainly not enlightened. It shows me that knowledge by itself doesn't enlighten. There is something else in the equation.

That something else, by my perspective, is God. Knowledge must find its foundation in divine reality. Power must be grounded in its only non-corrupting expression, namely God. Goodness cannot be personal, because as we see in the news every day, some people define goodness as cruelty. Therefore we must go behind personal preference to an objective standard.

> And Jesus, who could or could not have been an actual historical figure

It's quite well established that Jesus was an actual historical figure. There is enough corroboration of the biblical account from extra-biblical sources that his historical existence cannot be reasonably questioned.

> Jesus...is the sun

How does this square with his historicity and the lack of such astrological teaching and associations in his words and acts? Hmm. I'm curious what you'll say.

> God did say supposedly that he/they would never destroy the earth in water again. But fire; that is a possibility. Another theory is we will go into nuclear war but this is less likely since people back then didn’t know of nuclear technology.

In our world, following the news, this is easily a reality. But the ancients could have seen a nuclear war yet lacked the vocabulary to describe it. So we get apocalyptic imagery and poetic symbolism as literary tools to describe it. For instance, Revelation 8.7-11 say,

"The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water—the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter."

With such language, it could be nuclear war, but it's hard to tell, y'know.

[Ostraca]

Astrology has been studied by the Jews, Asians, and middle eastern for such a long long time. Even less advanced people have taken note of the stars and planets around them. Astrology and numerology is prevalent in the Bible throughout. For example: the fish. Ya know, the Christian fish you see on Christian people’s bumper stickers in correlation to the last supper. Here’s a mind blower: Jesus “came” in the age of Pisces. The symbol of Pisces is, yep, you guessed it! A fish. When Jesus “dies” it is in response to us entering a new age: the age of Aquarius aka enlightenment. There is no concrete evidence that supports Jesus being an actual figure or a metaphor. Many as we know to be metaphorical figures of gods and goddesses were also born to a virgin by some supernatural force. The ideas are transformed into the other from cultural mythology, this time just into one big book. The practice of witchcraft is forbidden because it does indeed (I’ve been practicing for over 10 years) lead to enlightenment and spirituality, not because it leads us to sin like the Bible says. I’m jewish; I don’t worship other gods and commit idolatry or do anything to hurt someone.

[jimwalton]

> Astrology has been studied by the Jews, Asians, and middle eastern for such a long long time. Even less advanced people have taken note of the stars and planets around them.

Yes, I know. It's an ancient practice. Once I decided to read my horoscope every day for about a year to see what I could learn. The only thing I learned was that it was only right about twice out of that whole year. It left a bad taste in my mouth about the accuracy and legitimacy of astrology.

> Astrology and numerology is prevalent in the Bible throughout.

I know numerology is, and I know that many people have claimed that astrology is, but it just doesn't bear out upon closer examination. To put an astrological template on the Scripture turns out to look cool on the surface, but it loses any credibility with even the slightest examination.

> Ya know, the Christian fish you see on Christian people’s bumper stickers in correlation to the last supper. Here’s a mind blower: Jesus “came” in the age of Pisces. The symbol of Pisces is, yep, you guessed it! A fish.

Of course I've seen the fish. Sure, let's examine this a little deeper. First of all, fish was not served at the Last Supper. That drains quite a bit of water from your theory right from the starting line. Then you say "Jesus came in the age of Pisces," but when he came is unknown. If you're talking about his birth, the season of his birth is unknown, though the best guesses are the fall (which is not Pisces). If you're talking about when He started His ministry, we just don't know. There are no seasonal markers. The wedding at Cana (Jesus's first miracle) is traditionally put in January, though the text doesn't say. But January is not Pisces either.

As to the Age of Pisces, there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement about when the age started and when it will end. So, I dunno, but it sounds like a pretty shaky theory.

> When Jesus “dies” it is in response to us entering a new age: the age of Aquarius aka enlightenment.

But isn't the Age of Aquarius still coming? Of course, some say it started back in the 1990s, but others say it's coming in the 22nd c., and other say it will be in 2600. I don't get how Jesus's death is a response to entering the Age of Aquarius. I'm trying to understand, but it just seems all contradictory and contrived. (shrug my shoulders)

> I’m jewish; I don’t worship other gods and commit idolatry or do anything to hurt someone.

Yes, I got the idea that you used your powers as forces for good rather than harm.

[Ostraca]

Sorry, not the last supper! Meant in Matthew. And yes its confusing about the times we are in, but they (astrologers in the time of Jesus) did believe it was the age of Pisces back then.

[jimwalton]

> not the last supper! Meant in Matthew.

OK, thanks for the clarification. But what do you mean by "Meant in Matthew"? Do you mean the feeding of the 5,000, where He multiplied bread and fish? (I'm going to guess that's what you were after.)

That miracle is the only miracle besides the resurrection that is mentioned in all 4 Gospels. It is the peak of Jesus's ministry and is meant to declare unquestionably that Jesus is the Messiah, God Himself, come in the flesh. It portrays Him as the new Moses (pertaining to the bread), the bread of the Passover, and the host of the eschatological banquet (the bread).

So saying, the bread is the particular and primary symbol of that event. The fish is virtually meaningless. As recorded in John, Jesus used to occasion to proclaim, "I am the Bread of Life!" (Jn. 6.35, 48) In John 6:25-59, Jesus explicates what He means to come across by means of that sign, and as you read it, you'll see it has nothing to do with the fish.

I would be curious to hear your reaction to Jesus's words in John 6:25-59. Would you do me the pleasure of reading it and giving me your reactions? It should only take you a few minutes.

> (astrologers in the time of Jesus) did believe it was the age of Pisces back then.

Yeah, I wouldn't know anything about this, but I'd be pleased to read about it. What's the source of this information so I can learn something here?

Thanks for talking with me. I'm enjoying the conversation.

[Ostraca]

I read John 6-25-50, and when Jesus says “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” I’m assuming he speaks in a metaphorical tone.

[jimwalton]

Yes, He is speaking metaphorically. My points were several:

There is no emphasis on the fish, which was your point (relating it to astrology and Pisces). It's all about the bread (Jn. 6.26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35), never about the fish.

You're right that it's a metaphor. As defined by Jesus, the bread is a metaphor of life (6.33), and a symbol that Jesus is the new Moses who brings true liberation and leads his people to the place of rest. Bread (breaking bread; eating together) in the ancient world was a symbol of fellowship and relationship. Jesus is the source and sustenance of life, and the giver of life to those who will receive it (6.29, 35).

Ravi Zacharias makes some interesting points:

"Notice the power implicit in the claim 'I am the Bread of Life' (Jn. 6.35). At the heart of every major religion is a leading exponent. As the exposition is studied, something very significant emerges. There comes a bifurcation, or a distinction, between the person and the teaching. Mohammed, to the Qur’an; Buddha, to the Noble Path; Krishna, to his philosophizing; Zoroaster, to his ethics.

"Whatever we may make of their claims, one reality is inescapable. They are teachers who point to their teaching or show some particular way. In all of these, there emerges an instruction, a way of living. It is not Zoroaster to whom you turn, it is Zoroaster to whom you listen. It is not Buddha who delivers you, it is his Noble Truths that instruct you. It is not Mohammed who transformed you; it is the beauty of the Qur’an that woos you.

"By contrast, Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with the message (Colossians 2.9). In him is not just an offer of life's 'bread'; He *is* the bread (Jn. 6.35). Being a Christian is not just a way of feeding and living; it is a way of relating and being.

"Our greatest hunger, as Jesus described it, is for a consummate relationship that combines the physical and the spiritual, that engenders both awe and love, and that is expressed in celebration and commitment.

"In other words, that hunger is for worship. But worship is not accomplished only by a transaction uttered in a prayer or a wish. Worship is a posture of life that takes as its primary purpose the understanding of what it really means to love and revere God."