It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Occult versus Esoteric - The Correct Meanings

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2017 @ 06:42 PM
I wanted to refine my comments on the hexagram to make a more distinct connection with Israel and Saturn in antiquity.

To do so I had to look at Hindu Indic lore and found it in south India, called a Mandala, manda is the Mandic-Aramaic word for Gnosis or Knowledge for the Mandaean Nazarenes.

Manda has been associated with Saturn by someone lately but I don't remember how and don't recall them making a connection with the Mandaeans so I won't say it is a fact, but a so called Ummah of Manda was mentioned.

In Hindu the upward facing triangle is called Shakti and the other Shiva. Shiva is almost identical to Sheva (Sheba, Saba, Shva) and one is called "Om" the other "Hrim" in Sanskrit.

Om is the middle syllable of Sol-Om-on.

Hiram of Tyre and another Hiram helped build his Temple and I think both were Phoenician. Tyre I believe and maybe Sidon for Hiram Abi.

The Hexagram is also called "Nara-narayana" and "Moksha" which remind me of Nazarene and maybe Mishkan (Tabrnacle).

3-4 century archeological artifacts from a Galilean Synogogue have the hexagram on it.

1,008 AD the Leningrad codex of the Masoretic text has a hexagram on it, the one that replaced the word "God" with "Israel."

I believe that is sufficient evidence to establish a link between religions of the ancient world, use of the hexagram and its association with Saturn.

But to drive home the point, it was Tacitus who first said that Judaism was connected to the worship of Saturn, and it is because they worship on Saturns day or the Shabbath, Shabbatai is the Hebrew WORD for the planet Saturn, so theu can't not know there is a connection.

That said to make a much evolved religion relegated to the worship of a planet is too extreme for my tastes, and many an imbecile assume that Saturn, because of only the similar sound even though one is Hebrew and the other Latin, is the equivalent of Satan.

Comparitive mythology can not make this connection using anything written or oral regarding tradition of either cultures to suggest that the obscure Adversary of the Old Testament or the devil of the New have anything to do with Saturn who is actually an adaptation of the Canaanite Illu, Phoenician to Greek to Roman, and the character of Satan is not El/YHVH but a servant with no free will other than that granted, subservient, and two characters can't be one just to satisfy a coincidence in sound.

Saturn is a planet, possibly it has occult power over the earth, I would not know if it did though, not for a fact.

It isn't evil, and just because your religion evolved from paganism like every religion that is now not, doesn't condemn you as a pagan.

Although you would not know it from the internet and it's easily duped millions who see a cube and think, "Satan."

It is a popular image, I will admit that, in movies and advertising and everywhere else, but it's a cube. Not a device of satanic power.

I don't see why the rich can't appreciate sacred geometry without being labeled satanists, there are much better reasons for calling them more accurate terms, but they don't care about Satan.

posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:45 AM
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
I am certain it was a deliberate mockery because it is said, though not true, that the Jews had a custom of letting one prisoner go on the passover.

They don't have this tradition with a human or on passover, it is on the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur in the OT. Obviously intentionally symbolic of the supposed atoning for sin allegedly accomplished on the cross as to fit a Pauline theology and make it look prophetic even. Of course Azazel is translated "scapegoat" in your less honest translations and when it should say Azazel, not the goat sacrificed to Azazel which is the scapegoat.

Also it turns a red string white if Israels sins are forgiven.

"Make your sins white as snow."

The tradition of letting a prisoner go is not authentic and sounds like a Roman custom, like Oskar Schindler said, "I pardon you",..."That is power Amon, that's what the Roman Emporers had...this is not power." Or whatever that Nazi character's name was, Goeth.

But it is not a recorded Jewish custom to pardon criminals at passover.

Yes, it looks like they’ve tried to make the Passover crucifixion look prophetic in regards to atonement…

Added to which; why would the Romans even follow the Jewish tradition anyway…which I know is besides the point, because it’s not even a Jewish tradition on Passover to begin with…

Personally, I think the whole thing was a set up…even down to the fact of having 2 men with both the same name “Jesus”…It’s like a magic act…if the crowd shouts for Jesus, you just give them the Jesus, you don’t wish to execute…

Jesus was innocent of all charges, so they had to find a way to get rid of him…

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
The only answer is the most obvious one, Jesus was made into a scapegoat, literally in the Gospels, and the other Jesus (Barabbas/Barabban some say, which changes the meaning to son of Masters, and might explain why a Barabbas is in H&R in Syriac, or it could be a misspelled Barnabas because in a western codex of Acts, I think Bezae, but I will check, it has Joses Justus, the defeated candidate for Apostle, as Joseph Barnabas Justus, meaning Joses brother of Jesus and James, Judah-Thomas, ASLO surnamed "Zaddik" or "The Just/Righteous One" like James is called, and Jesus, by James in his Epistle I believe.

Peace be upon Jesus and the 12, which I want to believe includes Barnabas but it was altered to install a nobody because Barnabas dissed Paul for Mark and for Peter, seperate occasions, so they "demoted" him, is my theory.

If Barabbas was already or did become an Apostle of Jesus, he would certainly have to go by a different name…because of the negative connotations applied to the name “Barabbas”

As for Barnabus he is referred to as an Apostle in “The acts of Barnabas” and in the NT…and is clearly strongly acquainted with James.

Many texts have him as accompanying Paul on occasions, but in the “epistle of Barnabas”, he doesn’t mentioned any of the New Testament writings. He does mention atonement however, although I think this was possibly edited into the text at a later date, because of his strong leanings towards judgement based on works…

A whole thread could be written on Barnabas alone…

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
Symmachus the Ebonite, who is mentioned with Nazarene followers, is the only recorded name of an actual Ebionite, except James and his "Poor Saints in Jerusalem."

Ebion was made up, I think by Iraneus, so these lies are told for the reason all lies are told, to hide the truth.

Funny, you would think they would have chosen a less conspicuous name…

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
I take it the truth is Jesus(pbuh), wasn't God, was only begotten at Baptism in the way King David was, quoting him in Psalms actually in both Gospel of the Hebrews and earliest Luke MSS both, "this day I have begotten you."

Yes, Jesus only ever admits to being the Messiah and the son of God in the NT…I believe in John 10 the Pharisees misunderstood what Jesus was saying, and wrongly accused him of claiming to be God…when Jesus was really only pointing out, that he was a son of god by quoting Psalm 82…

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
And "My Mother the Holy Spirit" is another quote.

Peter calls the Holy Spirit "She" in Syr. H&R.

Yes, the meeting between Father/Spirit and Son/Soul is what births the Son into the Kingdom…the label for this meeting is termed the “Holy Spirit”…The “Holy Spirit” births one into the Kingdom, which is why it is referred to as Mother and She…IMO

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
Syriac is Aramaic, a different dialect though. Clement is a superstar in the Syriac Christian Church which has an odd tradition of ascribing to his writings, including the 1 Clement to Corinth Epistle, of speaking against Paul, in the Syriac 1 Clement it says he causes contention and should step down as a leader if he means peace, not in the other languages.

Same goes with the "Secret books of Clement" in Syriac or Arabic, book 8 of Kitab al Magall, all next to impossible to find in books, though I have one on pdf and one bookmarked from Amazon so the book 8 is the hardest to find because it calls Paul a forger and says not to trust him.

Would love to see a link to that quote…the one where he calls Paul a forger…

- JC

edit on 10-5-2017 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:22 AM
a reply to: Disturbinatti

I had to step out of the conversation for a bit. I am completely ignorant in regards to both Ghazali and Arabi. Never heard of them until Disturbinatti made mention.

I often make posts describing El and YHWH as separate beings, with special emphasis on the following verses:

[Bold brackets are my emphasis]

Psalm 82:1-8

The gods (elohim) stand in the congregation of El. In the midst of the gods (elohim) He [El] judges.

“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed? Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked? They [mankind] know nothing, neither will they understand. They walk in darkness. All the foundations of the Earth are shaken." [The elohim asked El]

"I have told you gods (elohim) that you are all sons of Elyon. But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.” [Replied El to the elohim]

Rise up, O God (Elohim), judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Version from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint

"When Elyon (Most High) allotted peoples for inheritance,...

When He divided up the Sons of Adam,...

He fixed the boundaries for peoples,...

According to the number of the Bene Elohim (Sons of El).

But YHWH’s portion is His people,

Jacob (Israel), His own inheritance."

Deuteronomy 6:4

"Hear, oh Israel. YHWH is our God. YHWH is one,"

Psalm 29:1

"Ascribe to YHWH, oh Bene Elim (Sons of EL), ascribe to YHWH glory and strength."

Psalm 89:6

"For who in the skies can be compared to YHWH? Who among the Bibne Elim (Sons of EL) is like YHWH?"

Isaiah 14:13-14
You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of El (אֵ֖ל [God]); I will sit enthroned on the mount (be-har [בְּהַר־]) of assembly, on the utmost of (be-yarkete [בְּיַרְכְּתֵ֥י]) Mount Zephon (tsaphon [צָפֽוֹן׃]).

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like Elyon (לְעֶלְיֽוֹן׃ [Most High]).”

Isaiah 24:21

In that day the YHWH will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below.

I tend to follow Sanchuniathon's interpretation that Elyon is a different being than both El and YHWH, when I draw my comparative religious correlations:

• Most High
El Elyon (Judaism)
Elyon (Canaanite)
Anu (Mesopotamian)
Anu (Hurrian)
Uranus (Greek)
Caelus (Roman)

Succeeded or Usurped by:

• God the Father
(Elohim [singular, proper] / Anunnaki / Olympians)

El / Elohim (Judaism)
El (Canaanite)
Enlil (Mesopotamian)
Kumarbi (Hurrian)
Cronus (Greek)
Saturn (Roman)

Succeeded or Usurped by:

• Son of God
(B'nei Elohim / Sons of El / Igigi / Titans)
[Sons of God] / [70 Sons of El]

YHWH (Judaism)
Baal Hadad (Canaanite)
Marduk [Son of Ea/Enki] (Mesopotamian)
Teshub (Hurrian)
Zeus (Greek)
Jupiter (Roman)


• Elohim [plural, proper] / Divine Council Leaders
Elyon, El, YHWH (Bible)
Elyon, El, Baal (Canaanite)
Anu, Enlil, Ea (Mesopotamian)
Zeus, Poseidon, Hades (Greek)

• Divine Courtship
(El & Asherah), (YHWH & Asherah)
(El & Athirat), (Baal & Baalat)
(Anu & Ki), (Enlil & Ninlil), (Marduk & Sarpanit)
(Uranus & Gaia), (Cronus & Rhea), (Zeus & Hera)

• elohim [plural, improper]
[Assembly of gods]

edit on 5/11/17 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:29 AM

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Sahabi

Originally posted by Sahabi
The Mind is said to be greater than the Throne, because the Throne is fixed and static, whereas the Mind is fluid and dynamic. We may also take the Throne to represent physicality, and the Mind to represent the greater immaterial.

In my opinion the Throne of God is a concept about God, to envisage God being higher and above all…because God obviously doesn’t need an actual chair or a real physical Throne.

The mind has the ability to envisage the Throne of God; (Gods Infiniteness) only the mind of man can connected to the higher mind of God to envisage his Throne. Without the mind the Throne would not be conceivable, therefore the mind is greater.

- JC

I also take the Throne to be symbolic and allegorical. The One Absolute, in my opinion, is far beyond our anthropomorphic conceptual attributes.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 11:49 AM
a reply to: Willtell

originally posted by: Willtell
Lets get real deep here...

The great Ibn Arabi, known as The Greatest Sheik was a renowned Sufi Master.

He formulated a doctrine called waḥdat al-wujūd "Unity of Existence" or "Unity of Being that basically says everything is God!

In averse to this is another school of thought, waḥdat ash-shuhūd, “meaning "Apparentism" or "Unity of Witness", holds that God and his creation are entirely separate.”

Personally, I agree with the first proposition.

I think ultimately, there’s nothing but God.

I am a proponent of the Unity and Oneness of all. One existent happening,... One cause-and-effect,... One energy/matter,... One mankind,... One consciousness,... One Mind,... One spirit,... and One God that all emanates from, Who immanently dwells within all, and Who is beyond and transcendent of all.


The Quran says

God's throne is upon water

This concept has many different layers of meaning and interpretation. Beyond the various exo/eso-teric religious interpretations,... I tend to relate "water" to the (1) primordial chaos abyss before creation,... (2) mental realm prior to thought, perception, awareness,... and (3) literal waters of life; waters of womb and/or egg.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 12:02 PM
Another nice thread Sahabi.

Thinking about this thread reminded me about some of the stories people tell each other in a more casual sense.Often older friends of mine, have repeated stories to me about certain events.In my younger years, I felt like they were doing this more purely for the nostalgia it evoked.With some more experience under my belt,I get the impression that they may have been trying to share deeper meanings then I understood at the time.Perhaps, a modern day form of parable...

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

Greetings Sahabi

Originally posted by Sahabi
I tend to understand my existence and reality in terms of a Panentheistic Monism. That, is to say; God is within all, all is within God, and God is transcendent of all.

I kind of have a Panentheistic view as well, in that God is without, as well as within all…But IMO the aspect of God which is “higher”; that which sees all and knows all, exists and overseas ALL reality…this is what believe Jesus referred to as the Father in the NT…

My knowledge of the Quran is pretty limited, compared to the NT and OT, but I see signs within certain passages contained within the Quran, that have clear esoteric symbolism…

Do you think a Panentheistic view can be derived from an esoteric understanding of the Quran…?

Just wondering, because I think you said in another post, that you used to be a Muslim…and I was curious as to why you didn’t just become a Sufi Muslim…

- JC

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:20 PM
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Never let the left hand know what the right hand is holding if the left hand is out to do evil.

I see us left handed individuals being targeted here, I feel triggered to respond us lefties are just like anyone else really, but sometimes we think differently and aren't very good with can openers and the like. Tehe

Seriously though I've never thought of that old saying in the same way you put it. I thought it was more of a control thing, like keeping your two underlings out of the loop...?

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:36 PM
a reply to: Joecroft

Peace be to you Joecroft!

Do you think a Panentheistic view can be derived from an esoteric understanding of the Quran…?

Yes, the Qur'an may be interpreted according to this view. For example:

Suratul-Ikhlas (The Purity)
Suratul-Tawhid (Oneness)

Say; "He is Allah, the One.
Allah, the Eternal and Absolute.
He begets not, nor was He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.

Suratul-Saad (The Letter Saad)

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man from clay: "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My Spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."

Surah as-Sajdha (Prostration)

Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye!

Together, these verses show the Absolute Oneness (Pan) of God (Theism),... illustrate that mankind shares Spirit with God (En),... and proclaim God's transcendence. Panentheism.


Just wondering, because I think you said in another post, that you used to be a Muslim…and I was curious as to why you didn’t just become a Sufi Muslim…

According to my understandings, I can see the Perennial Philosophy throughout all the world religions that I have studied, including Islam. Additionally, I see a common mysticism throughout these systems (holy communion [commune + union = unity]).

Instead of turning to Sufism, I left Islam for many reasons. Mainly, I no longer accept the Qur'an as being infallible,... I do not accept Islam as being God's final nor perfect message,... and I do not agree with Muhammad's Caravan Raids or military campaigns against the Jews of Arabia. Although there are many things about Islam that I respect, admire, and agree with,... that which I disagree with is serious enough for me to disassociate myself from Islam altogether.

edit on 5/11/17 by Sahabi because: Added "transcendence" quality

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Sometime our words are inadequate to express the actuality of a thing, but sometimes, the purest truth is ever-present right behind the veil of the words, if we could only just pierce the superficialities and noise.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:29 PM
a reply to: surfer_soul

That probably was its intended meaning, I just adapted it for a purpose, to make a point.

It's my understanding that people of the "Left Hand Path", to which I intended to make no reference, deliberately selected the concept based on the superstitions or philosophical notion of the left side representing evil and the right side, good.

Not to say "We are evil" but more so to say they reject convention and conventional religion, especially. It is likely if not for the superstion of the left side and even hand itself, left handedness specifically, it would be called something else.

In Islam God controls every direction, he has an angel on his left and one on his right, Michael and Gabriel. Same in Judaism but opposite.

In Judaism evil is represented by "Sitra Ahra" or the Other Side, of Lilith, Naamah and Samael, all the evil spirits.

So the notion is very much Christian, that the left represents evil, and like 666 is used by the CoS just because it is considered evil to Christians, I imagine that Crowley or the original person who used the term "Left Hand Path" had a like mind, as Crowley, aka beast 666, just got a kick out of it and didn't actually care much about a literal Satan, if at all.

Either way I have no desire to attack anyone's philosophy if it or they don't attack mine, didn't mean to but apologize if it seemed so.

And if you do oppose my religion and it's philosophy, as I understand it or as you do apart from knowledge of my understanding if it, or together with, I actually would not be bothered by it much if at all.

It's not like I have not read everything that the internet has amassed to slander Islam already, the propaganda and application of the deeds of a mysterious few to a very well known and peaceful many, 1.5 billion in fact.


posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:34 PM
a reply to: Joecroft

I can help you out with that.

Download this:

That should do it.

Funny you mentioned E. of Barnabas.

I just downloaded a new translation that, besides claiming spurious all anti-Judahite remarks about observance to festivals and Torah and Sabbath keeping, maintain the, at least to that MS., the mention of atonement like you said. I would agree with you it is not original as it was an odious concept to accept the sacrifice of a human as an all time replacement for Yom Kippur. I think they would rather have kept the concept of Baptism as intended for the remission of sin, and be content with that. Plus Spirit and fire, puts you in a Spiritual state of not needing to be atoned for, that seems to me what Jesus(pbuh) meant, and John the Baptist.

It is in the oldest complete Bible, Sainaiticus, with Clement 1, 2 and Hermas.

His status as the losing candidate means he was eligible, Joses Barnabas Justus, in the Western MS. of Acts I mentioned, means he could have replaced the killed Apostle John, the first to die after Matthias selection and Barnabas would have been still eligible.

It's also documented Barnabas split from Paul out of loyalty to Mark, who was a disciple of Simon-Peter. Then Paul calls both hypocrites for their loyalty to James but plays it like they were being intolerant, but it is only him who says it, Luke portrays Peter as an accomodating voice of reason at the Jerusalem Council on circumcision and seems to regard him as the "Chosen by God... Apostle to the gentiles" and Paul "Forbidden by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia", and not the chosen lone apostle to the gentiles.

At Pentacost the language each disciple and Apostle recieve are their destinations for preaching, obviously not to Hebrew or Greek speaking Jews.

There is no evidence that anyone other than Paul considered himself the sole individual responsible for preaching outside of the Hebrews, and much against it.

edit on 11-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 09:42 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

I am surprised that you have never heard of Al-Ghazali, even more about Arabi. Did you only read Qur'an and the Sunnah as a Muslim?

I am sure you have at least heard of Ibn Kathir or the Tafsir Al-Jalalayni?

Anyhow, previously I had mentioned that I was reading the 'Liber de Causis" from a Latin from Arabic translation in English, and I had mentioned first Cause, second Cause, etc.

I also had mentioned that I didn't see Hermetic (as such texts were classified in Arabic, or Alchemical or just philosophy of the Greeks) in Ghazali but today I read what is the equivalent of the 'Causis' insistence that the first Cause is always stronger than the second and so on, which is actually only from the first chapter of Causis, but I remembered it as I was reading what seems like its application, even if not, to Allah.

It could be it is just so obvious that any philsopher would speculate the same thing, I can't say, I do know it would explain why Aquinas was a fan of Ghazali, he saw his belived "Book of Cause" he said was from the philosophy of Proclus, in Ghazali.

Speculation of course, but I can not ignore the resemblance. It's uncanny.

I wonder if you had known of Ghazali would you still be a Muslim today? Such literature is the best part of Islam, it is almost never ending. Muslims have been prolific authors, much like Jews with Midrashim we have Tafsir and the literature of Sufis to compete with their mystical literature too, both of which I enjoy reading.

I read a good Midrash on the reunion of Isaac and Ishmael, at Abrahams funeral, which happens in the Bible with no explanation.

It was explained that Isaac and Ishmael were not enemies, but could have been if they didn't make peace which was done at the funeral of Abraham.

Ultimatey it is inevitable that Ishmael and Isaac reconcile again, hopefully not at anyone's funeral this time, as Abraham would have loved to see his two sons together before he died., I am sured, and would today too.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:38 PM
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Assalaamu alaikum akhi.

My main focus was on Qur'an, tafsir, ahadith, and seerah. I also own works from Ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Kathir, Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, 'Abd al-Aziz ibn Baaz, Saleem bin al-Hilaalee, and rounded-off with Ahmed Deedat. I followed the Salafi maddhab by strict literalism,... a far cry from where I stand today. Who knows where I would be if I would have paid more mind to the way of the Suf, rather than on hardline fundamentalism.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:40 PM
a reply to: Joecroft

You asked about pantheism and Islam and are they compatible.

Let me explain it thus:

God is without substance, or not made of any material or substance, matter, because all matter degrades, is not eternal, is created and requires a Creator, God. Matter is an originated phenomena, and has an origin. God is eternal and transcends all, is independent of all, all is dependent on Him. He is without body.

Everything that exists is posterior to God, He is the only One who is eternal and everything came from Him but is seperate from Him.

"Is there any doubt concerning Allah, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth"
Abraham 11

"Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens one over the other, and made the moon a light in their midst, made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?" Noah 15:18

And of course is the Statement of Faith, Shahada:

There is no god but God, Mohammed is His Messenger.

The First Pillar of Islam.

Pantheism is the belief that all is God and pretty much nothing exists but God in the most extreme examples. At least as I understand it. I do not know the academic definition and usually there is disagreement, but a pan theon is a collective of gods, pan theism must be a belief that god is the collective of existence or the worship of a pantheon itself, which is polytheism so I would guess the former.

Neither of which are compatible with a religion that de-deified the Prophet and Messiah who had been deified by the Romans, won't even accept the notion of a literal begotten son of God.

If I could find a way to allegorize what Arabi said about idol worship being the same as worshipping God, as would be a person or a stone, I would. But I am not willing resort to sophistry or use poor eisegesis to do so, and it is the only way.

So as important as the Unity of God and His independent existence is to Islam, His being the "Cause"(Al Waqi'ah 58:73) of all that is, and His being the only Eternal Cause that has no origin, everything that originates or has an origin is from Him and also NOT Him.

That is the best I can answer, if you need more quotes I can do that. I think this makes sense, it is all supported by the Qur'an, and Islamic theology.

Sufis allegorize a lot. It's possible that they express some pantheistic sounding ideas.

"First, Last, Visible, Invisible." (Ghazali, Jerusalem Epistle, Pillar 3: Knowledge of Essence of God)

However it had already been explained that everything that exists is visual proof of the EXISTENCE of a Creator, as an origin needs an original and First Cause.

So you can't SEE God, but He IS visible in His creation, which can be studied to learn about how God functions but not what He looks like as He doesn't have an appearance, or one that can be described, known.

But everything of substance can be observed, one way or another, God, can not and is not made of substance.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:52 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

Salafism, Taymiyyah, I definitely get your conversion, why you would. They are basically one with the Wahhabis.

I have learned a few things from Deedat, I have a book that quotes him as having a discussion with a Greek scholar and Christian about John 1 being deliberately translated wrong to make the Logos God, but it doesn't say that in the oldest Greek MSS., it was an enjoyable anecdote because the Christian was forced to admit it but said " I did not do it", but it wasn't like he was telling everyone about it so he passed the buck.

Although he claims Arabic is "the oldest language in the world." Which, if true, could only mean spoken as Cannanite and Sumerian cuneiform are older for sure, and therefore impossible to prove.

Aramaic/Phoenician is my guess for oldest language. Assyrian is similar/Syriac too.

You would have had a better experience in a regular Sunni or even Shia sect, Sufism would have been right up your alley I imagine.

Although Sufism is not for Muslims only, you can do it on your own. I don't do the disciple-Master thing, so I chose Ghazali because I can learn without being told what to do, and nobody does.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:56 PM
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Hello again Brother.

We were discussing Panentheism, as opposed to Pantheism.

Panentheism (Wiki)

Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.

In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.

Pantheism (Wiki)

Pantheism derives from the Greek πᾶν pan (meaning "all, of everything") and θεός theos (meaning "god, divine"). Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 11:11 PM
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Deedat taught me many nuances for engaging in religious debates. His style is a bit aggressive for my taste, but he showed the importance of context and etymology.

Oldest language in the world? I think it is far older than anything held in academia. If we listen in silence, with an open heart, we can hear the animals talking to one another, and sometimes even the insects. As you said, all of creation proclaims His Glory through their existence. So if the insects and animals can talk to each other, then mankind has spoken to one another at our earliest of beginnings.

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 11:16 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

Even the original "Elohist" and "Yahwist" didn't view their respective gods as equals, and the Deuteronomist didn't envision YHVH as "Most High.

The Zohar takes it back and makes them "Mercy(fem.) and Judgement (mas.) and then attributes "Wisdom" to the "Shekhina" of which a higher and lower exist of each. Wisdom created Earth, Understanding established Heaven, which is different than creating, says he Zohar.

The Shekhina is the ''Presence" of God and the angel of it "Metatron" or Enoch as "Youth" or "Little Shaddai" and is in charge of the angels, taking on a "Logos" type persona.

So if one reads the Zohar literally they would think Judaism has gone polytheistic but the presence is actually a de anthropmorphism that refers to anytime it occurs in the Bible, except with Moses.

It also say "David made himself Hashem" translated "reknown" but means "the name."

So the "Men of renown, mighty men of old."

Actually means "Men of Hashem."

And Nimrod also said let us make ourselves a name(Hashem, reknown).

Hashem is the YHVH in Judaism.

Interesting stuff.

Shema also means "chariot" as in Gilgamesh.

Pronounce it a little different and it means Heaven.

So I think Nimrod was saying, "Let us make a god/heaven for ourselves."

And not "name" or "reputation." Which he already had.

edit on 11-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 11:24 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

I guess Islam is "panentheistic" by that definition, which is actually very accurate and according to Islamic theology.

It sounds like a type of monotheism.

But regarding pantheism it looks like my guess definition was pretty much accurate so if I missed the difference between panantheism it is because I have never seen the word in my life, this is my first time hearing of it.

Which is good. I know many theisms, akways good to know another.


top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in