It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did King David take orders from Satan…???

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing


VHB:
Lets look at the dictionary definition of 'dem-i-urge' "New World" second college edition. (dem'e'urg') n. Gr. demiourgos, one who works for the people skilled workman, creator ;demos, (the people) plus ergos, worker, (see ERG) 1. [often D-] a) in Plato's philosophy, the deity as creator of the material world in Gnostic philosophy; a deity subordinate to the supreme deity, sometimes considered the creator of evil. 2. GR. History: a magistrate in certain states, 3. a ruling force or creative power. I see your theorem as being definitely plausible Akragon. Waving "HI JOE" at you! (you know I am not a scripture junkie).


Joecroft (templeman): Are you another one of these “demiurgian theorists”, you guys really get around…lol
Has it ever crossed your weary mind, that if the demiurge is correct, then the higher God did a pretty bad job of keeping the lesser god under control…jeeezz…maybe he was on vacation or something, during the really bleak periods lol
(HI Waves back!)- JC

Me? I admit to NOTHING but you have to agree the theory/premise of the demiurge is very provocative and not that easily dismissed; how can you disagree with Plato. My mind is never weary, jumping with electro magnetic impulses (all over the place, as an abstract non-linear thinker). I don't ENTERTAIN the idea of 'demiurge' because I would be giving it a serious 'looksee' (notice it) and do not want (by concentrated PEERING) to contribute any growth (energy) to that obvious negative expression. You on the other hand could and should take a closer look. God has done a terrible job lately just keeping stasis, the status quo in the world right now, probably distracted as is teeing up right now at St. Andrews.
edit on 27-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Joecroft


Joecroft: Still going with the demiurge theory eh…?



Akragon: More or less... As I did post in a later reply... It is either a false god, or men with agenda's fabricating god

Yes. The demiurge is a false God using mans intrinsic primal NEED to know its creator; thereby defining Itself in relation to a creator God. This false God fabricates itself using the human (this is the God that wants you to pray to it) in order for Itself to become more 'solidified'. Joe calls it a lesser being. I would call it a being that was created by a higher entity and 'let loose' and apparently is allowed to exist (bald headed stepchild) for a reason; to introduce the potential to create polarity and within that creates 'a possibilty' for great change/growth. God is not interested in entropy and the resulting decline, it is more interested in 'profitability' (god is a capitalist). "Has man fabricated a God" would be an interesting thread.
edit on 27-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Me? I admit to NOTHING but you have to agree the theory/premise of the demiurge is very provocative and not that easily dismissed; how can you disagree with Plato.


“I admit to nothing”…well, good luck with trial lol

“have to agree”!!!…what do you mean, I have to agree…? Or else the lower God will eat me for breakfast…

But your right about one thing, I shouldn’t be disagreeing with Plato, “Sooo Crates” maybe, but not Plato…

But just what exactly did Plato say in regards to the demiurge…?


Btw - I only waved back out of courtesy an all…you seem strangely familiar some how, could it be your handle name hmmm or could it be your avatar hmmm not sure…LOL


- JC



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing


VHB:

Me? I admit to NOTHING but you have to agree the theory/premise of the demiurge is very provocative and not that easily dismissed; how can you disagree with Plato.



Joecroft: “I admit to nothing”…well, good luck with trial lol

“have to agree”!!!…what do you mean, I have to agree…? Or else the lower God will eat me for breakfast…

When I stand before my creator defending my life (soul destination determination I suppose) I will actually be looking at myself; God is me I am God. So, pass go (might contribute $200.00 to the 'watcher' fund). I am certain the lower God will continue to eat "FruitLoops" for breakfast throughout eternity (as it always has done).



Joecroft: But your right about one thing, I shouldn’t be disagreeing with Plato, “Sooo Crates” maybe, but not Plato…
But just what exactly did Plato say in regards to the demiurge…?


He said the demiurge is a deity responsible as creator of the physical world subordinate to the prime creator; its actually (surprise) the Gnostics think it can/is responsible for the creation of evil.



Joecroft: Btw - I only waved back out of courtesy an all…you seem strangely familiar some how, could it be your handle name hmmm or could it be your avatar hmmm not sure…LOL JC



Courtesy returned in kind. My Handle name is VERY common, (collie dog head avatar is in stasis-cant figure out how finesse it) you may have mistaken me for an imposter.





edit on 27-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
When I stand before my creator defending my life (soul destination determination I suppose) I will actually be looking at myself; God is me I am God. So, pass go (might contribute $200.00 to the 'watcher' fund).


Standing before your own God/self, is right up there with trying to bite your own teeth lol…




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
He said the demiurge is a deity responsible as creator of the physical world subordinate to the prime creator; its actually (surprise) the Gnostics think it can/is responsible for the creation of evil.


Yes but did Plato believe in it, or was he just describing it etc…?

I personally thinik the Gnostics were trying to reconcile with a God in the OT which was committing atrocities and so forth, and imagine a truer higher God above that one…

I’ve kind of moved on from the flesh being evil; the flesh is only evil when you don’t live in the knowledge of the Spirit, it’s that lack of knowledge which leads to the evils of this world IMO…

I mean take the Gospel of Judas for example, there’s a verse in there which talk about other kingdoms which exist in a boundless realm; I’m pretty sure we will go on existing in bodies within other kingdoms/mansions, so it’s not really the body/flesh that is evil per se IMO…





Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Courtesy returned in kind. My Handle name is VERY common, (collie dog head avatar is in stasis-cant figure out how finesse it) you may have mistaken me for an imposter.


Phew; the old “lassie come home”, avatar test, worked like a charm…

It’s REALLY you, you have returned!!! lol… bring out the fattened calf; open up the vintage wine, maybe even crack open an egg and chop down a tree…

And yes your handle name is not common, but your signature, location and mood are, apparently lol

- JC



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing


VHB
When I stand before my creator defending my life (soul destination determination I suppose) I will actually be looking at myself; God is me I am God. So, pass go (might contribute $200.00 to the 'watcher' fund).



Joecroft: Standing before your own God/self, is right up there with trying to bite your own teeth lol.

I would call it the 'final confrontation' (shoot out at the OK Corral scenario).



VHB:
He said the demiurge is a deity responsible as creator of the physical world subordinate to the prime creator; its actually (surprise) the Gnostics think it can/is responsible for the creation of evil.



Joecroft: Yes but did Plato believe in it, or was he just describing it etc…?

He was philosopher, so was "pondering the possibility" of such a thing and unfortunately thought it was worthwhile enough an idea HE actually DOCUMENTED his RANDOM thoughts.


Joecroft: I personally think the Gnostics were trying to reconcile with a God in the OT which was committing atrocities and so forth, and imagine a truer higher God above that one…

What is an OT? If you do not define it I cannot answer you.


Joecroft: I’ve kind of moved on from the flesh being evil; the flesh is only evil when you don’t live in the knowledge of the Spirit, it’s that lack of knowledge which leads to the evils of this world IMO…
I mean take the Gospel of Judas for example, there’s a verse in there which talk about other kingdoms which exist in a boundless realm; I’m pretty sure we will go on existing in bodies within other kingdoms/mansions, so it’s not really the body/flesh that is evil per se IMO…

Flesh is not evil. If anything adrenal glands are to blame as they produce the hormones that act upon the brain that causes the flesh to do things it might regret. The Kingdoms exist in boundless relentlessness. Of course you will go on existing in eternity as you have tirelessly with perseverance; self defined an 'identity' known as YYY that is ETERNAL/FOREVER. Body is not evil its just a temporary physical vessel (specifically designed for this experience 3D on Earth).

VHB:
Courtesy returned in kind. My Handle name is VERY common, (collie dog head avatar is in stasis-cant figure out how finesse it) you may have mistaken me for an imposter.



Joecroft: Phew; the old “lassie come home”, avatar test, worked like a charm…

It’s REALLY you, you have returned!!! lol… bring out the fattened calf; open up the vintage wine, maybe even crack open an egg and chop down a tree…
And yes your handle name is not common, but your signature, location and mood are, apparently lol
- JC

IAM as always the same sure footed path (no sneaky drop offs or hair pin turns ahead). Consistently irreverent.
edit on 27-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Demiurge, Satan, Baal, Yahweh, etc. aren't real "entities" but figments of men's imaginations. They are personifications of the evil that men commit and the lies they push. The demiurge/Satan aren't actual things, just concepts created in the mind. Just as "Father" is a concept of the mind, they are all labels put onto concepts by men, even "God" is a man-made concept, though all of these labels do represent things that are very real, as in man's ego or his humbleness etc.

There isn't any "outside" force acting on the world, it is all us in one way or another in my opinion. Seeing these concepts as actual entities separate from our minds is superstition in my opinion.

Just my two cents.

Not just two cents. Man can create its own destiny and that includes ideas concerning a God creation. Is God Man-made? why not, man is very creative. Even if a 'figment of imagination' enough believe so, a random God pops into existence. Concepts are very powerful particularly if enough beings are riding the same 'thought train'. No labels apply. Man could very well be another concept that doesn't actually exist outside this 3D Earth experience. Did God allow for the creation of the physical man (probably). Did man create the idea of a God? probably (otherwise would not exist).God is sneaky, it never shows itself yet exists SCREAMS OUT I AM HERE exemplified by all that surrounds one, NATURE, ecosystems (the perfection of this balance). It is the universe (AUO) that is actually in charge.
edit on 27-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
He was philosopher, so was "pondering the possibility" of such a thing and unfortunately thought it was worthwhile enough an idea HE actually DOCUMENTED his RANDOM thoughts.



Ah, I see, he was just pondering the idea, was he?, so he never stated he believed in the “demiurge”; which means I was never disagreeing with Plato at all! Which is good to know, because I’m a big fan of his work…



Originally posted by Joecroft
I personally think the Gnostics were trying to reconcile with a God in the OT which was committing atrocities and so forth, and imagine a truer higher God above that one…




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
What is an OT? If you do not define it I cannot answer you.


Define the Old Testament…how long have you got lol

Nobody ever asked me that before…hmmm… a Biblical collection of books, supposedly containing information about the nature of God, but in reality, written in code, to conceal the real deeper mystical meanings of life…




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Flesh is not evil. If anything adrenal glands are to blame as they produce the hormones that act upon the brain that causes the flesh to do things it might regret. The Kingdoms exist in boundless relentlessness.


“adrenal glands” lol hilarious… I bet Plato never thought of that one…



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Of course you will go on existing in eternity as you have tirelessly with perseverance; self defined an 'identity' known as YYY that is ETERNAL/FOREVER. Body is not evil its just a temporary physical vessel (specifically designed for this experience 3D on Earth).


I think I originated from the Aeons of the Aeons of the Aeons, possibly seven Aeons back, and that I’m one of the ancient spiritual entities, just a hunch…According to one Gnostic text everyone has an original name, which will at some time be revealed to them…



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
IAM as always the same sure footed path (no sneaky drop offs or hair pin turns ahead). Consistently irreverent.


It’s normally better to have people describe yourself, it’s a lot more humble lol that way…still you’ve described yourself very accurately IMO…so well done…

It seems my coded message of calf, wine, egg and tree did not fall on deaf ears…

- JC



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: ImaFungi



Originally posted by ImaFungi
"Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary";[1] Arabic: شيطان shaitan, meaning "astray" or "distant""
- wiki

So the 2nd bolded quote of yours can mean "adversary" rose up against Israel.

I think because the bible is a mishmash of myths and stories, the concept of early uses of evil angels and satan as a singular entity, maybe was a part of early myths, and then the words evolved to mean generally, and so in other parts the word was intended that way.


Thanks, that’s an important aspect to point out; Satan is indeed an adversary and not necessarily the individual entity known as Satan, in every instance throughout the OT


The problem I pointed out in an earlier post, still exists though, because if 1 Chronicles 21:1 is a rewrite (and most believe it is) from the original, found in 2 Samuel 24:1, then the Lord, should not be seen as an adversary at all, especially if God is actually acting in a righteous manner in the original Samuel 24:1 verse…?


- JC





in the one quote it doesnt mention satan, it mentions the lord getting angry right, which occurs a lot in the old testament.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




Originally posted by ImaFungi
in the one quote it doesnt mention satan, it mentions the lord getting angry right, which occurs a lot in the old testament.


Yes, but in that particular verse (2 Samuel 24:1) in my personal opinion, the LORD is angry for a righteous reason (unless you see it differently ?) because of an Evil taking place; but of course how David reacts to that evil, is what is unrighteous IMO;

But my overall point is that the rewritten verse (1 Chronicles 21:1) has it as Satan or the Adversary inciting David to act, which makes it unrighteous anger, that incites David to act, instead of the Lord. And on top of that, Gods name has been taken out of the story…

Either…

(1) God was righteous in being angry, in the original verse before the rewritten version.

or…

(2) Gods anger was unrighteous in the original verse (2 Samuel 24:1) and the rewritten version reflects that.



But (2) wouldn’t make any sense, because God is not an enemy or unrighteous…

And (1) requires an explanation for the rewritten version putting Satan/Adversary centre stage…


- JC


edit on 28-2-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: ImaFungi




Originally posted by ImaFungi
in the one quote it doesnt mention satan, it mentions the lord getting angry right, which occurs a lot in the old testament.


Yes, but in that particular verse (2 Samuel 24:1) in my personal opinion, the LORD is angry for a righteous reason (unless you see it differently ?) because of an Evil taking place; but of course how David reacts to that evil, is what is unrighteous IMO;

But my overall point is that the rewritten verse (1 Chronicles 21:1) has it as Satan or the Adversary inciting David to act, which makes it unrighteous anger, that incites David to act, instead of the Lord. And on top of that, Gods name has been taken out of the story…

Either…

(1) God was righteous in being angry, in the original verse before the rewritten version.

or…

(2) Gods anger was unrighteous in the original verse (2 Samuel 24:1) and the rewritten version reflects that.



But (2) wouldn’t make any sense, because God is not an enemy or unrighteous…

And (1) requires an explanation for the rewritten version putting Satan/Adversary centre stage…


- JC



David reacts by taking census? Which i am not sure what that means, I assumed going door to door and checking on people.

The way I interpreted was that the area, is it Israel, was undergoing a spell of unrighteousness, as in satan had some of the people of israel in grips, members of israel were becoming adversarial, so this forced David to take action. So evil, satan, adversary, caused David to attempt to combat the situation. Thats how i initially read the quotes in op.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




Originally posted by ImaFungi
David reacts by taking census? Which i am not sure what that means, I assumed going door to door and checking on people.

The way I interpreted was that the area, is it Israel, was undergoing a spell of unrighteousness, as in satan had some of the people of israel in grips, members of israel were becoming adversarial, so this forced David to take action. So evil, satan, adversary, caused David to attempt to combat the situation. Thats how i initially read the quotes in op.


Yes, well said, and that’s partly what I outlined in some of my other posts; and I see it similarly to you, but my question still remains the same…which is…

Why did the original verse, (2 Samuel 24:1) have it as the Lord being the one who incites David, and why was it then changed to Satan/Adversary being the one who incites David instead, in the rewritten version…?

That’s the question that my OP is asking…I’m looking for a explanation that explains the change/difference etc…

From my OP below…



Originally posted by Joecroft
Anyone have an coherent explanation for these 2 verses below, that actually works and makes sense…???



- JC



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing


Joecroft:

I personally think the Gnostics were trying to reconcile with a God in the OT which was committing atrocities and so forth, and imagine a truer higher God above that one…

Why would Gnostics reconcile themselves to even bother admitting by (contesting) ALL/ANY scripture that is valueless. NO RECONCILIATION possible as that scripture is not recognized as being even close to a truism at all. God does not commit atrocities, Man (as its proxy *given the gift of freewill*) does. You misunderstand the definition; Gnostic nomenclature, what it means: (to be in knowledge of all things---salvation through gnosis). Jesus was a huge proponent of this; his teachings were of this discipline (Christ Consciousness) as the Hindi also describe it. It is a force. It is a viable awareness that is tangible. This was Jesus's gift to mankind.
edit on 28-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Why would Gnostics reconcile themselves to even bother admitting by (contesting) ALL scripture that is valueless. NO RECONCILIATION possible as that scripture is not recognized as being even close to a truism at all.



Well, it was Marcion who couldn’t reconcile the God of the Old Testament as being good, because of the atrocities and such, so he envisioned that there must be higher a God, and thus the “demiurge” was born…

The term was later taken up by various Gnostic groups, including Christian Gnostic ones. Although to be fair, the definition has gone through different changes since, and each group seems to have it’s own take; but essentially the key concepts remain very similar.

The main definition, appears to be with the creator of the material world being seen as evil etc… where as the one true higher God is seen as ALL good…




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
God does not commit atrocities, Man (as its proxy *given the gift of freewill*) does. You misunderstand the definition;


But there are different definitions of the “demiurge”, since it’s inception by Marcion, and even the Platonic and Neo-Platonic and within different Gnostic sects, Christian or otherwise, the definition takes on slightly different meanings etc…although the fundamental premise, is generally similar throughout…




Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Gnostic nomenclature, what it means: (to be in knowledge of all things---salvation through gnosis). Jesus was a huge proponent of this; his teachings were of this discipline (Christ Consciousness) as the Hindi also describe it.


I totally agree with you, although I don’t know much about the Hindi religion; that’s one religion, I was hoping to finally get around too one day…



- JC



edit on 28-2-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I did not read all of the replies in this thread...so I'm not sure if what I'm about to say has been said already or not. The way I see this matter is....if we see Satan as the "justice" side of God then we can understand why he is called the accuser of the brethren. Justice apart from mercy can be cruel and unforgiving. Qualities that would be attributable to Satan and yet they are as much a part of righteousness as is mercy. Psalm 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

So in my eyes for God to apply unforgiving "justice" to Israel is allowing Satan ( the justice side of God ) to rise up against them. I think of the two covering Cherubs over the mercy seat as representing the justice side of God and the mercy side of God.

As far as why the God of the old testament seemed to be much more cruel and unforgiving. I believe it stems from God using a progressive order of methods to bring about righteousness. The old testament law of an eye for an eye ..is poetic justice with no provision for mercy. We can see these attempts tried in various ways....Samson was a man endowed with super human strength and actuated by the spirit of God. Yet he failed to bring about lasting righteousness ( I believe because of broken promises made to Delilah by Samson ). Later we see Solomon endowed with supernatural wisdom and that also failed ..

I realize that God must have known that these attempts would fail...yet because he had an onlooking audience of finite beings (angels) he had to play out these scenarios and exhaust all reasonable possibilities( for their sakes) before offering Jesus as a sacrifice.

As far as what I see regarding the census...By having the fighting men of Israel numbered it would cause David to trust in the power of his fighting force ..rather then in God's protection. And by the same token if he knew his forces were out "numbered" it could cause his heart to fail and create fear. God did not want David to ever trust in the arm of flesh and by numbering his forces it was defining the strength of that arm of flesh...so to speak.


edit on 5-11-2015 by HarryJoy because: add



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy
Good for you for tackling it; just skimmed it myself and the eyes are now pinwheels spinning (yellow/black) B-movie style. Hey Joe; need an answer. I learn from scripture wars.
edit on 5-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarryJoy
I did not read all of the replies in this thread...so I'm not sure if what I'm about to say has been said already or not. The way I see this matter is....if we see Satan as the "justice" side of God then we can understand why he is called the accuser of the brethren. Justice apart from mercy can be cruel and unforgiving. Qualities that would be attributable to Satan and yet they are as much a part of righteousness as is mercy. Psalm 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Satan as Lucifer; just the enlightener telling the human it is now in knowledge and has 'freewill'?


HarryJoy: So in my eyes for God to apply unforgiving "justice" to Israel is allowing Satan ( the justice side of God ) to rise up against them. I think of the two covering Cherubs over the mercy seat as representing the justice side of God and the mercy side of God.

I am not understanding your version of a Gods justice applying to Israel (because of the theft of sacred knowledge from Egypt, lying about it and misusing it).



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
As 'spaghettied' in the OP question...pared down to the blindingly obvious...

...neither was 'written' by a Source...
...and neither was 'inspired' by a Source...

OP question sounds like - 'What is the difference between a bucket?'...

Å99



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99
As 'spaghettied' in the OP question...pared down to the blindingly obvious...

...neither was 'written' by a Source...
...and neither was 'inspired' by a Source..edit.




The writers of such scripture should have been 'Vetted" by the RCC .These could all be content notes; 'make believe' script writing for the future Grandiose Epics..Masada, Ben-Hur, Ten Commandments, Spartacus, The Robe, Jesus Christ Superstar that have a more important purpose as funster 'FILMATICS" influencing common movie goers (no idea of diabolical intent); subliminally force feed a message as entertainment.
edit on 6-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: akushla99
As 'spaghettied' in the OP question...pared down to the blindingly obvious...

...neither was 'written' by a Source...
...and neither was 'inspired' by a Source..edit.




The writers of such scripture should have been 'Vetted" by the RCC .These could all be content notes; 'make believe' script writing for the future Grandiose Epics..Masada, Ben-Hur, Ten Commandments, Spartacus, The Robe, Jesus Christ Superstar that have a more important purpose as funster 'FILMATICS" influencing common movie goers (no idea of diabolical intent); subliminally force feed a message as entertainment.


Hahaha...vetted.as it is, the proofreading ain't over yet...obviously...staff's having a problem with continuity...

:thumbs up:

Å99




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join