God did not teach us these things

[Kelly2363]

4 hours ago, Alive said:

For the record: I read Heiser's 'Reversing Hermon' and found it scripturally compelling. I don't agree with everything of his I've seen or read, but his premise in that book is solid, near as I can tell.

I don't think I agree with anyone entirely.

:-)

 

It is important to state openly that the issue is not an issue of accuracy as to the claim of divine beings - as expressed in Psalm 82 and cited by the Lord in John 10:35 to defend Himself against an accusation of blasphemy because being a mere man - He made Himself equal with God. That is not the issue - so any argument that reverts around that claim is frankly futile and inevitably misleading. 

The issue is not even the complexity of the claim that these divine beings (elohim) rebelled against God and became the teachers of men. The issue is the validity and purpose of expressing those claims to the church. I know, because I began to study the occult from the age of seven years old - when I was in the church and had access to many books that today would be difficult to find. What we have now are prototype libraries that reflect the development of occult thinking and ambition in all societies across the industrial world - And the book of Enoch whilst still held in contempt in scientific circles was treasured and loved in occult circles in the USA and the UK over 150 years ago. 

This OP was to cite 1 Enoch and the part cited had to do with how men came to know how to smelt metals and read astrological meanings into the terrestrial from the celestial. It expressly cites sorcery and how to understand its meaning. What we now call science is a rationalisation based on observable and reputable observations - but the occult is about science - philosophy and religion. It is a syncretic ambition by men and angels to remove from any true need to know God and to speak of divine beings instead. Anything that lends itself to that effect is an abomination. 

blavatsky-on-the-book-of-enoch.pdf

Edited September 6, 2021 by Kelly2363
Spelling

[Kelly2363]

11 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Gibberish to me... 

Aye - it may well be brother - but it won't be gibberish to everyone in the OP. 

[Justin Adams]

5 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

The issue is not even the complexity of the claim that these divine beings (elohim) rebelled against God and became the teachers of men.

Only a few of the Divine council fell to sin. The rest give us succor and protection as stated in the NT.

[Justin Adams]

2 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

Aye - it may well be brother - but it won't be gibberish to everyone in the OP. 

Sorry. I meant the take expressed out of both sides of the mouth... 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Kelly2363]

1 minute ago, Justin Adams said:

Only a few of the Divine council fell to sin. The rest give us succor and protection as stated in the NT.

Thats not the point is it? The point is that the church kept these things hidden for millennia precisely because it understood the gravity of the risk attached to expressing essentially occult (hidden things) to the men who would use them to corrupt society and drive science for generations leading to the man of Sin. What is visible in the Scripture even of itself is capable of informing the hidden agenda of occultists - but what is visible in the books of Enoch are pure occult knowledge. And so when a professor decides to give it a substance that was never permitted - apart from a few in the early church - by utilising an argument that exposes the hidden ambitions of Satan to so many believers that cannot even walk a single day in the spirit - then that is a very serious and likely harmful thing to do. 

[Alive]

7 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

What we now call science is a rationalisation based on observable and reputable observations - but the occult in about science - philosophy and religion. It is a syncretic ambition by men and angels to remove from any true need to know God and to speak of divine beings instead. Anything that lends itself to that effect is an abomination. 

Having some difficulty reconciling the last two sentences to what I know and have witnessed. Those of us 'In Christ' are thoroughly aware of the need to 'know God'.

In general, I have always since the earliest days of my walk---been sensitive to the danger of glorifying the enemy. In fact--I see it a lot on the forum and grouse at it. Understanding is not that.

Paul knew that it was necessary to understand the battle--however his discussion of such is viewed.

When I was a young preacher, the Lord specifically led me into a situation with a demon possessed individual and proved to me the reality of such things. He very clearly wanted me to understand that it is no joke. The lesson learned and imparted into me--was the ability to recognize. But He also taught me to avoid dwelling on such things. Knowledge--tuck it away--until such time as His will is plain in any possible circumstance.

[Kelly2363]

40 minutes ago, Alive said:

Having some difficulty reconciling the last two sentences to what I know and have witnessed. Those of us 'In Christ' are thoroughly aware of the need to 'know God'.

In general, I have always since the earliest days of my walk---been sensitive to the danger of glorifying the enemy. In fact--I see it a lot on the forum and grouse at it. Understanding is not that.

Paul knew that it was necessary to understand the battle--however his discussion of such is viewed.

When I was a young preacher, the Lord specifically led me into a situation with a demon possessed individual and proved to me the reality of such things. He very clearly wanted me to understand that it is no joke. The lesson learned and imparted into me--was the ability to recognize. But He also taught me to avoid dwelling on such things. Knowledge--tuck it away--until such time as His will is plain in any possible circumstance.

 

Then just read the publications of the Theosophical Society and the raft of scientists who have embraced its meaning in the last 40 years. Or ask yourself why so many believers now find it increasingly difficult to accept the biblical account of the creation of Adam and have embraced a lie that occultist expressly held to be true for centuries from every corner of the globe. Not just a corner here or there - but the entire globe. The church largely called these things superstition - and Justin hates that fact and asserts that some men including right back to the fourth century have suppressed supernatural realities. Dear God - are we mad? Do we want to see supernatural realities or can we settle miracles performed in the name of Jesus and in the power of His name? 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Kelly2363
Added the name of Jesus to the last sentence.

[Alive]

1 minute ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

Then just read the publications of the Theosophical Society and the raft of scientists who have embraced its meaning in the last 40 years. Or ask yourself why so many believers now find it increasingly difficult to accept the biblical account of the creation of Adam and have embraced a lie that occultist expressly held to be true for centuries from every corner of the globe. Not just a corner here or there - but the entire globe. The church largely called these things superstition - and Justin hates that fact and asserts that some men including right back to the fourth century have surpassed supernatural realities. Dear God - are we mad? Do we want to see supernatural realities or can we settle miracles performed in the name of and in the power of His name? 

I recognize--of course--as believers do--that the unregenerated are in darkness. They don't represent the 'Church' and its members. I also understand how worldly notions and philosophy affects 'christendom'.

I'm not picking up what you are laying down brother.

[Kelly2363]

9 minutes ago, Alive said:

I recognize--of course--as believers do--that the unregenerated are in darkness. They don't represent the 'Church' and its members. I also understand how worldly notions and philosophy affects 'christendom'.

I'm not picking up what you are laying down brother.

 

What do you make of this?

 

Isaac Newton is arguably accredited with writing the most important work of modern science, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was first published in 1687. What is not known generally is that like Pythagoras of the ancient world, Isaac Newton was also an occultist. What follows is a partial transcript of a speech made by John Maynard Keynes in 1946 to celebrate the tercentenary of Newton’s birth in 1642.

“I believe that the clue to his mind is to be found in his unusual powers of continuous concentrated introspection. A case can be made out, as it also can with Descartes, for regarding him as an accomplished experimentalist. Nothing can be more charming than the tales of his mechanical contrivances when he was a boy. There are his telescopes and his optical experiments, These were essential accomplishments, part of his unequalled all-around technique, but not, I am sure, his peculiar gift, especially amongst his contemporaries. His peculiar gift was the power of holding continuously in his mind a purely mental problem until he had seen straight through it. I fancy his pre-eminence is due to his muscles of intuition being the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted. Anyone who has ever attempted pure scientific or philosophical thought knows how one can hold a problem momentarily in one’s mind and apply all one’s powers of concentration to piercing through it, and how it will dissolve and escape and you find that what you are surveying is a blank. I believe that Newton could hold a problem in his mind for hours and days and weeks until it surrendered to him its secret. Then being a supreme mathematical technician he could dress it up, how you will, for purposes of exposition, but it was his intuition which was pre-eminently extraordinary - ‘so happy in his conjectures’, said De Morgan, ‘as to seem to know more than he could possibly have any means of proving’. The proofs, for what they are worth, were, as I have said, dressed up afterwards - they were not the instrument of discovery.” 

“Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty - just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate. He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore-ordained, the riddle of the elements and their constitution from an original undifferentiated first matter, the riddle of health and of immortality. All would be revealed to him if only he could persevere to the end, uninterrupted, by himself, no one coming into the room, reading, copying, testing all by himself, no interruption for God’s sake, no disclosure, no discordant breakings in or criticism, with fear and shrinking as he assailed these half-ordained, half-forbidden things, creeping back into the bosom of the Godhead as into his mother’s womb.”

In speaking about Newton’s chest of papers which were opened after his death Keynes writes: “Another large section is concerned with all branches of apocalyptic writings from which he sought to deduce the secret truths of the Universe - the measurements of Solomon’s Temple, the Book of David, the Book of Revelations, an enormous volume of work of which some part was published in his later days. Along with this are hundreds of pages of Church History and the like, designed to discover the truth of tradition. A large section, judging by the handwriting amongst the earliest, relates to alchemy - transmutation, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life. The scope and character of these papers have been hushed up, or at least minimised, by nearly all those who have inspected them. About 1650 there was a considerable group in London, round the publisher Cooper, who during the next twenty years revived interest not only in the English alchemists of the fifteenth century but also in translations of the medieval and post- medieval alchemists. There is an unusual number of manuscripts of the early English alchemists in the libraries of Cambridge. It may be that there was some continuous esoteric tradition within the University which sprang into activity again in the twenty years from 1650 to 1670. At any rate, Newton was clearly an unbridled addict. It is this with which he was occupied ‘about 6 weeks at spring and 6 at the fall when the fire in the elaboratory scarcely went out’ at the very years when he was composing the Principia - and about this he told Humphrey Newton not a word. Moreover, he was almost entirely concerned, not in serious experiment, but in trying to read the riddle of tradition, to find meaning in cryptic verses, to imitate the alleged but largely imaginary experiments of the initiates of past centuries. Newton has left behind him a vast mass of records of these studies. I believe that the greater part are translations and copies made by him of existing books and manuscripts. But there are also extensive records of experiments. I have glanced through a great quantity of this at least 100,000 words, I should say. It is utterly impossible to deny that it is wholly magical and wholly devoid of scientific value; and also impossible not to admit that Newton devoted years of work to it.”

[Alive]

11 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

What do you make of this?

 

Isaac Newton is arguably accredited with writing the most important work of modern science, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was first published in 1687. What is not known generally is that like Pythagoras of the ancient world, Isaac Newton was also an occultist. What follows is a partial transcript of a speech made by John Maynard Keynes in 1946 to celebrate the tercentenary of Newton’s birth in 1642.

“I believe that the clue to his mind is to be found in his unusual powers of continuous concentrated introspection. A case can be made out, as it also can with Descartes, for regarding him as an accomplished experimentalist. Nothing can be more charming than the tales of his mechanical contrivances when he was a boy. There are his telescopes and his optical experiments, These were essential accomplishments, part of his unequalled all-around technique, but not, I am sure, his peculiar gift, especially amongst his contemporaries. His peculiar gift was the power of holding continuously in his mind a purely mental problem until he had seen straight through it. I fancy his pre-eminence is due to his muscles of intuition being the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted. Anyone who has ever attempted pure scientific or philosophical thought knows how one can hold a problem momentarily in one’s mind and apply all one’s powers of concentration to piercing through it, and how it will dissolve and escape and you find that what you are surveying is a blank. I believe that Newton could hold a problem in his mind for hours and days and weeks until it surrendered to him its secret. Then being a supreme mathematical technician he could dress it up, how you will, for purposes of exposition, but it was his intuition which was pre-eminently extraordinary - ‘so happy in his conjectures’, said De Morgan, ‘as to seem to know more than he could possibly have any means of proving’. The proofs, for what they are worth, were, as I have said, dressed up afterwards - they were not the instrument of discovery.” 

“Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty - just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate. He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore-ordained, the riddle of the elements and their constitution from an original undifferentiated first matter, the riddle of health and of immortality. All would be revealed to him if only he could persevere to the end, uninterrupted, by himself, no one coming into the room, reading, copying, testing all by himself, no interruption for God’s sake, no disclosure, no discordant breakings in or criticism, with fear and shrinking as he assailed these half-ordained, half-forbidden things, creeping back into the bosom of the Godhead as into his mother’s womb.”

In speaking about Newton’s chest of papers which were opened after his death Keynes writes: “Another large section is concerned with all branches of apocalyptic writings from which he sought to deduce the secret truths of the Universe - the measurements of Solomon’s Temple, the Book of David, the Book of Revelations, an enormous volume of work of which some part was published in his later days. Along with this are hundreds of pages of Church History and the like, designed to discover the truth of tradition. A large section, judging by the handwriting amongst the earliest, relates to alchemy - transmutation, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life. The scope and character of these papers have been hushed up, or at least minimised, by nearly all those who have inspected them. About 1650 there was a considerable group in London, round the publisher Cooper, who during the next twenty years revived interest not only in the English alchemists of the fifteenth century but also in translations of the medieval and post- medieval alchemists. There is an unusual number of manuscripts of the early English alchemists in the libraries of Cambridge. It may be that there was some continuous esoteric tradition within the University which sprang into activity again in the twenty years from 1650 to 1670. At any rate, Newton was clearly an unbridled addict. It is this with which he was occupied ‘about 6 weeks at spring and 6 at the fall when the fire in the elaboratory scarcely went out’ at the very years when he was composing the Principia - and about this he told Humphrey Newton not a word. Moreover, he was almost entirely concerned, not in serious experiment, but in trying to read the riddle of tradition, to find meaning in cryptic verses, to imitate the alleged but largely imaginary experiments of the initiates of past centuries. Newton has left behind him a vast mass of records of these studies. I believe that the greater part are translations and copies made by him of existing books and manuscripts. But there are also extensive records of experiments. I have glanced through a great quantity of this at least 100,000 words, I should say. It is utterly impossible to deny that it is wholly magical and wholly devoid of scientific value; and also impossible not to admit that Newton devoted years of work to it.”

Frankly---nothing. What does this have to do with us who have been called out of darkness into His marvelous Light.

I'm not getting your point. Can you elucidate briefly?