Does God Want Everyone to Know Him?

docphin5

Well-known member
i never asked anyone to take anything i say as fact...

its not unwillingness to give references..
but simply that giving references is not talking to someone
to their soul... back and forth...
My soul prefers to know why and how someone believes what they do. It is not enough for me to hear that someone just believes something to be true. Thats how we ended up with so many religious beliefs that contradict evidence and right reason, because people merely believe what they want to believe.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
My soul prefers to know why and how someone believes what they do. It is not enough for me to hear that someone just believes something to be true. Thats how we ended up with so many religious beliefs that contradict evidence and right reason, because people merely believe what they want to believe.
im not too interested in what reason thinks grin
I want to understand what God says…

reason as a theme was started by plato
…he understands that as an over soul or daemon leading the soul…

in the greek view the soul is a god or demon guiding humans and in fact is Substance , being, first cause, prime mover.. an ugly machine.

…the greek philosophy has no tolerance for anything deemed weak , (such as a human or God who loves!) and their substance reflects that..

so their philosophy (=theology) downplays sensation, experience, feeling and love,
relies on abstract thought instead —— as being. thus, on that pattern, their type gods are unaffected and do not care… their universe is matter, their gaia is matter, all of these are accidental causes. and that a god would love or be affected is scoffed at by them. this is why the greeks so feared fate. many here view God as a mind like that. it’s scary.

reason or mind as daemon is basically
an expression of that greek theology which claims to be neutral, and all modern philosophy comes from that dead root..

from there comes the view of causality moderns know, and often (wrongly) attribute to God…. when what it is, is a description of the satanic reality.

aristotle’s substance / being, which augustine sadly adopted, comes from that. the tao is based on it. egyptian theology is based on it…augustine glued it to christianity. it is the reality (in many forms) of those fallen angels (thoth etc, cf. hieroglyphs) == Egypt.

so its not so simple as, to say, ‘reason’ is how we know stuff. the real question is are we knowing from God or from the mind adam glued to us ?

the choice of reason has to do with theology. reason is a god in greek philosophy, a theological entity, not just a concept. an idea for the greeks is basically a god or a construct-god…. and each represents qualities.

the greek aeons/archons/gods/being/the ‘one’ have everything to do with aristotle’s substance or prime mover and zero to do with christianity.

we see this in hieroglyphs as well, where a glyph indicates when a ‘god’ (read fallen angel!) is referred to or when a construct ‘god’. plotinus from whom augustine got his greek ‘One’ lays out quite well the hypostases of substance, and augustine got it there. as does aquinas in his summa. many church fathers and later theologians were deeply glued to the greek view. Augustine’s project was a huge overlay of pagan theology onto christianity. Because it provided christianity with a logic he explicitly said it lacked. he never understood how God communicates and instead glued plato onto christianity.

the overlay of greek ’reason’ onto christianity has resulted in a mess.

today reason is placed in the front seat with the soul as servant to it.

reason needs to take a back seat and serve the soul in the front seat listening to God.
 
Last edited:

e v e 21

Well-known member
the only plan those evil ‘gods’ (read:demonic entities) ever had for man
was to make eden fall
and to try to keep us away from God.

which (plan) does fail.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
im not too interested in what reason thinks grin
I want to understand what God says…

reason as a theme was started by plato
…he understands that as an over soul or daemon leading the soul…

in the greek view the soul is a god or demon guiding humans and in fact is Substance , being, first cause, prime mover.. an ugly machine.

…the greek philosophy has no tolerance for anything deemed weak , (such as a human or God who loves!) and their substance reflects that..

so their philosophy (=theology) downplays sensation, experience, feeling and love,
relies on abstract thought instead —— as being. thus, on that pattern, their type gods are unaffected and do not care… their universe is matter, their gaia is matter, all of these are accidental causes. and that a god would love or be affected is scoffed at by them. this is why the greeks so feared fate. many here view God as a mind like that. it’s scary.

reason or mind as daemon is basically
an expression of that greek theology which claims to be neutral, and all modern philosophy comes from that dead root..

from there comes the view of causality moderns know, and often (wrongly) attribute to God…. when what it is, is a description of the satanic reality.

aristotle’s substance / being, which augustine sadly adopted, comes from that. the tao is based on it. egyptian theology is based on it…augustine glued it to christianity. it is the reality (in many forms) of those fallen angels (thoth etc, cf. hieroglyphs) == Egypt.

so its not so simple as, to say, ‘reason’ is how we know stuff. the real question is are we knowing from God or from the mind adam glued to us ?

the choice of reason has to do with theology. reason is a god in greek philosophy, a theological entity, not just a concept. an idea for the greeks is basically a god or a construct-god…. and each represents qualities.

the greek aeons/archons/gods/being/the ‘one’ have everything to do with aristotle’s substance or prime mover and zero to do with christianity.

we see this in hieroglyphs as well, where a glyph indicates when a ‘god’ (read fallen angel!) is referred to or when a construct ‘god’. plotinus from whom augustine got his greek ‘One’ lays out quite well the hypostases of substance, and augustine got it there. as does aquinas in his summa. many church fathers and later theologians were deeply glued to the greek view. Augustine’s project was a huge overlay of pagan theology onto christianity. Because it provided christianity with a logic he explicitly said it lacked. he never understood how God communicates and instead glued plato onto christianity.

the overlay of greek ’reason’ onto christianity has resulted in a mess.

today reason is placed in the front seat with the soul as servant to it.

reason needs to take a back seat and serve the soul in the front seat listening to God.
Interesting position given that the Bible identifies Jesus with divine reason (Greek: Logos] and/or Wisdom.

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1)

the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

and

”but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 cor. 1:24)

Therefore, I think you are confused for, contrary to what you assert, listening to divine reason or Wisdom is listening to God. It is his Mind in us manifest as virtues that guides us. The moral philosophers understood this. Paul personified him as the inner “spirit of Jesus“ because that was the name of the type in Hebrew scriptures. Subsequently, christian orthodoxy made him historical.

”God comes to men; nay, he comes nearer, – he comes into men. No mind that has not God, is good. Divine seeds are scattered throughout our mortal bodies; if a good husbandman receives them, they spring up in the likeness of their source and of a parity with those from which they came. If, however, the husbandman be bad, like a barren or marshy soil, he kills the seeds, and causes tares to grow up instead of wheat.” (Seneca)​
 
Last edited:

Rachel Redux

Active member
im not too interested in what reason thinks grin
I want to understand what God says…

reason as a theme was started by plato
…he understands that as an over soul or daemon leading the soul…

in the greek view the soul is a god or demon guiding humans and in fact is Substance , being, first cause, prime mover.. an ugly machine.

…the greek philosophy has no tolerance for anything deemed weak , (such as a human or God who loves!) and their substance reflects that..

so their philosophy (=theology) downplays sensation, experience, feeling and love,
relies on abstract thought instead —— as being. thus, on that pattern, their type gods are unaffected and do not care… their universe is matter, their gaia is matter, all of these are accidental causes. and that a god would love or be affected is scoffed at by them. this is why the greeks so feared fate. many here view God as a mind like that. it’s scary.

reason or mind as daemon is basically
an expression of that greek theology which claims to be neutral, and all modern philosophy comes from that dead root..

from there comes the view of causality moderns know, and often (wrongly) attribute to God…. when what it is, is a description of the satanic reality.

aristotle’s substance / being, which augustine sadly adopted, comes from that. the tao is based on it. egyptian theology is based on it…augustine glued it to christianity. it is the reality (in many forms) of those fallen angels (thoth etc, cf. hieroglyphs) == Egypt.

so its not so simple as, to say, ‘reason’ is how we know stuff. the real question is are we knowing from God or from the mind adam glued to us ?

the choice of reason has to do with theology. reason is a god in greek philosophy, a theological entity, not just a concept. an idea for the greeks is basically a god or a construct-god…. and each represents qualities.

the greek aeons/archons/gods/being/the ‘one’ have everything to do with aristotle’s substance or prime mover and zero to do with christianity.

we see this in hieroglyphs as well, where a glyph indicates when a ‘god’ (read fallen angel!) is referred to or when a construct ‘god’. plotinus from whom augustine got his greek ‘One’ lays out quite well the hypostases of substance, and augustine got it there. as does aquinas in his summa. many church fathers and later theologians were deeply glued to the greek view. Augustine’s project was a huge overlay of pagan theology onto christianity. Because it provided christianity with a logic he explicitly said it lacked. he never understood how God communicates and instead glued plato onto christianity.

the overlay of greek ’reason’ onto christianity has resulted in a mess.

today reason is placed in the front seat with the soul as servant to it.

reason needs to take a back seat and serve the soul in the front seat listening to God.
Then why don't you reject Greek thought/philosophy for the JUDEO Christian thought process? It has to be one or the other.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
even if I provided references, that would not solve the problem.
because many hours of study would still be required of you...

as you know these forums are full of quote walls and tit for tat references.
which does no good.

and I did not understand alone, I met a brilliant scholar and researcher
and we have spent years translating texts together...
from rg veda to hieroglyphs...to scripture
..and we did what you suggested... giving quotes and logical explanations..

what I learned is that people have pre-established beliefs..
and no pages and pages of quotes or proofs
do anything to overcome that
You should provide a starting point or you're wasting everyone's time and not helping at all.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Then why don't you reject Greek thought/philosophy for the JUDEO Christian thought process? It has to be one or the other.
did you not read my post? my whole post, though a short version, was about my rejection of the greek view and a bit of why.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Then why don't you reject Greek thought/philosophy for the JUDEO Christian thought process? It has to be one or the other.
the problem is that the tradition you propose as an alternate to the greek one isn’t really…. as it has been overlaid by the greek view thanks to augustine and for centuries. that’s the mess i mentioned before.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Well, since most of us don't read hieroglyphics and you refuse to provide references, you kind of are.
no soul wastes anyone s time…

and you are free not to talk to me if you don’t want to waste time on me.

as for refusing i am not. it’s a social forum. not one poster has asked for a specific glyph.

for example let’s take the SA glyph.

the first syllable of SAtan.

the glyph means ‘son of osiris’ , divine son, a god of that realm, accursed one etc. depending on the cluster in which it is found = of the satanic realm entities.

it can be found to view by anyone at archive.org in budge’s hieroglyphic dictionary, vol 1 several definitions, posted there in two volumes.
 
Last edited:

e v e 21

Well-known member
if anyone wants to engage in asking more specific details of specific things i said … im here and can.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
no soul wastes anyone s time…

and you are free not to talk to me if you don’t want to waste time on me.

as for refusing i am not. it’s a social forum. not one poster has asked for a specific glyph.

for example let’s take the SA glyph.

the first syllable of SAtan.

the glyph means ‘son of osiris’ , divine son, a god of that realm, accursed one etc. depending on the cluster in which it is found = of the satanic realm entities.

it can be found to view by anyone at archive.org in budge’s hieroglyphic dictionary, vol 1 several definitions, posted there in two volumes.
I didn't say that I was wasting time on you, I said that you waste our time by posting non-Biblical, heretical sounding stuff with no documentation. It gets old.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
I didn't say that I was wasting time on you, I said that you waste our time by posting non-Biblical, heretical sounding stuff with no documentation. It gets old.
I was replying to docphin, not to you (and who you refer to as ‘our’) and telling docphin why the greek view he holds is bad.
so it was a very good use of my
time imo for me to do that. : )

i do see that my responses are not relevant to you
but then —- that makes sense—-
you and docphin have different beliefs.
id never have written that to you.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Redux

Active member
I was replying to docphin, not to you (and who you refer to as ‘our’) and telling docphin why the greek view he holds is bad. so it was a very good use of my time for me to do that. : )
Well, um, you quoted my post.
And I believe I'm free to reply to any post I want to.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Well, um, you quoted my post.
And I believe I'm free to reply to any post I want to.
of course you can .

sorry: i edited my last response

i was trying to be more clear
about the fact that obviously
what i wrote to docphin
was in response to him
and of course i’d never write that to you…
but you don’t hold a greek view
whereas he does
so i think it was a good post i made to him,
all in all. : )
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Interesting position given that the Bible identifies Jesus with divine reason (Greek: Logos] and/or Wisdom.

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1)

the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

and

”but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 cor. 1:24)

Therefore, I think you are confused for, contrary to what you assert, listening to divine reason or Wisdom is listening to God. It is his Mind in us manifest as virtues that guides us. The moral philosophers understood this. Paul personified him as the inner “spirit of Jesus“ because that was the name of the type in Hebrew scriptures. Subsequently, christian orthodoxy made him historical.

”God comes to men; nay, he comes nearer, – he comes into men. No mind that has not God, is good. Divine seeds are scattered throughout our mortal bodies; if a good husbandman receives them, they spring up in the likeness of their source and of a parity with those from which they came. If, however, the husbandman be bad, like a barren or marshy soil, he kills the seeds, and causes tares to grow up instead of wheat.” (Seneca)​
i don’t see where He in scripture identifies with the greek view of ‘reason‘… divine reason and wisdom mean different things in greek philosophy than in scripture, scripture does not need that overlay.

more - scripture expresses no flowery term such as ‘divine reason’!

Christ did not engage in dialectical debates or mention those things… yet he could have… but did not… That overlay of Greek concepts was glued on by theologians, scripture does not need it one bit.

we see in scripture God showing us things by archetypes (parables) such that any simple soul can understand…
 

docphin5

Well-known member
i don’t see where He in scripture identifies with the greek view of ‘reason‘… divine reason and wisdom mean different things in greek philosophy than in scripture, scripture does not need that overlay.
I have been reading Seneca’s moral letters and he makes no distinction between Wisdom, Right Reason, Virtues, and Honor. He uses them interchangeably. As far as Wisdom in Hebrew literature, there is a whole genre of Wisdom literature where Wisdom is personified in heavenly hierarchies involved in the creative processes (See Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomen, etc) Paul writes about her himself and even calls Christ by her name (1 cor 1:24) and he touches on her descent into our chaotic, material world as Folly or Foolishness (1 cor 3:19), also found in the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls.

Quite honestly, I don’t know what you read where you draw your conclusions because what I read says something different.

more - scripture expresses no flowery term such as ‘divine reason’!


Christ did not engage in dialectical debates or mention those things… yet he could have… but did not… That overlay of Greek concepts was glued on by theologians, scripture does not need it one bit.
You may be confusing sophistry with right reason. Even Seneca makes a distinction between so-called sages who make confusing arguments just to sound wise but really aren’t. His style and explanations are simple and clear which he calls right reason versus sophistry used by orators in order to gain power and manipulate people.

we see in scripture God showing us things by archetypes (parables) such that any simple soul can understand…
Obviously, something went wrong because there are too many disagreements over the meaning of scripture for them to be simple to understand. Maybe when the original meaning is expounded then they are simple but deciding on the original meaning is no easy task. It is certainly NOT found by reading scripture in context, as we were taught. Words can carry various meanings, to include symbolic and figurative meanings, which have been lost (or suppressed) over time. Reading gnostic scholars like Elaine Pagels and Einar Thomassen opened my eyes to all the gnostic references in Paul’s letters that orthodoxy tries to suppress. So if one is not asking the right questions then one will never know what the scriptures mean. Consequently people end up believing what they want to believe and then judge others for not believing as they do.

”This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” (1 cor 4:1)
 
Last edited:

e v e 21

Well-known member
I have been reading Seneca’s moral letters and he makes no distinction between Wisdom, Right Reason, Virtues, and Honor. He uses them interchangeably. As far as Wisdom in Hebrew literature, there is a whole genre of Wisdom literature where Wisdom is personified in heavenly hierarchies involved in the creative processes (See Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomen, etc) Paul writes about her himself and even calls Christ by her name (1 cor 1:24) and he touches on her descent into our chaotic, material world as Folly or Foolishness (1 cor 3:19), also found in the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls.

As to wisdom, your context is a problem.

Quite honestly, I don’t know what you read where you draw your conclusions because what I read says something different.


You may be confusing sophistry with right reason. Even Seneca makes a distinction between so-called sages who make confusing arguments just to sound wise but really aren’t. His style and explanations are simple and clear which he calls right reason versus sophistry used by orators in order to gain power and manipulate people.
Why would Seneca , a quasi platonist, be your authority for what God says.
Obviously, something went wrong because there are too many disagreements over the meaning of scripture for them to be simple to understand.

Consider that making God incomprehensible and bringing in popes and pharisees (seneca types) to mediate was and is the evil goal. So that no one would understand the scroll.

Maybe when the original meaning is expounded then they are simple but deciding on the original meaning is no easy task.

ditto what I said. Obfuscators and bullies and experts arrive to make sure no one understands.

It is certainly NOT found by reading scripture in context, as we were taught.
do you mean the sorcery kjv here?

Words can carry various meanings, to include symbolic and figurative meanings, which have been lost (or suppressed) over time.

on purpose.

Reading gnostic scholars like Elaine Pagels and Einar Thomassen opened my eyes to all the gnostic references in Paul’s letters that orthodoxy tries to suppress.

Even satan said something true once, if only to get his lies to stick.


So if one is not asking the right questions then one will never know what the scriptures mean. Consequently people end up believing what they want to believe and then judge others for not believing as they do.

”This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” (1 cor 4:1)

Like satan, who asked Eve ,
Did God really say that?
 
Top