in my opinion, Jung was correct, but short sighted. Psychology is indeed identical to Alchemy, as he so diligently demonstrated (the book is really quite thorough),

but Jung failed to see that the modern empiricist (I mean one who makes deductions about nature based upon his observations, such as the scientist, physicist, mathematician, etc) is not different from the alchemist,

because he studies what he can not know, namely nature. In the same way as the alchemist, the modern empiricist projects his psyche onto his subject, and so what he describes in his theory is really his own imagination.

Now, if he seeks to study God through observation and reason, this is an identical pursuit, and so the theologian falls to the same fate, attributing the very characteristics of his imagination to God

and is perhaps immediately useful (purification of alloys), but is ultimately fruitless (turning lead into gold).

I do not seek to ascertain the substance (Ousia) of God (quantum waves? according to Only...), but to know his identity. Only seeks to teach us about his substance, and so I am very confident that he is wrong.

Holy Holy Holy Lord! God of Power and Might! Heaven and Earth are full of your glory!

@Andrew I seek to share the gift of prophecy, and for one to attain the gift they must understand the Hebrew meaning to the word spirit and not the English meaning. They must understand what it means to circumcise their spirit.

They must speak in the spirit, and believe what they have said will come true.

In order that a person does not die because of the power of the gift of prophecy. It is important that a person understands how Existence uses the Laws of Motion to return what has been said.

"I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:3 NKJV)

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. " (1 Corinthians 14:1 NKJV)

"For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged." (1 Corinthians 14:31 NKJV)

And the reason for all of this, and why I do this?

"But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus[c] the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you." (1 Corinthians 14:24-25 NKJV)

Because there is ONE truth not 20,000, and that is Jesus Christ. And I want to share what I know which is him who is in me. That is his substance. And if you feel that I am wrong, then so be it. Feel that way, Because Christ has a body, and that is the body of Christ.

I'm not here to convince you of this. It is clearly stated that those that do not believe that Christ has come in the flesh is the Anti-Christ. And it is Christ that deals with them not me.

@JimG. Amen! He is forever blessed

@Onlyheisgood. I in no way ever deny that Christ came in the flesh, God with us, was crucified, buried, and raised in the body on the third day, that he appeared to the Apostles and ate with them and taught them and many others, and ascended to fill the cosmos.

I do deny that quantum mechanics can teach us about God

and his substance, because we know he subsists in Messiah, and science does not teach us this, but the very spoken word of God.

@Andrew The imagery here is great.

@Andrew And you even made me laugh.

@Andrew But you lost me in your logic right about here.

It could be because I do not know enough about Jung's alchemy metaphors.

@Andrew I do understand this. You are saying that the substance of God cannot be known. I think I agree, but not for the reasons you have laid out thus far (which I admittedly do not understand).

I suppose that is sound reasoning to say that Only is wrong.

@Andrew Then how is this scientist in error? "Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof)" (youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA)

@fredsbend What I mean is that the physicist studying the subatomic particle (for example) is not different than the alchemist. Clearly, he can make some observations about nature and "confirm" his theories, but he is not really confirming anything real, because the tools he is using are imaginary (vectors, operators, symmetry groups, etc.), just like the alchemical symbols.

He is unable to know whether the substance he studies behaves as the objects of his imagination, or whether the objects exist within his imagination.

Ultimately though his imaginary tools are unable to completely describe the substance he studies, and as he pushes them toward their functional horizon they fail. See "the ultraviolet catastrophe" as one example

@fredsbend Not exactly. I do think the substance of God can be known, but not in the sense of Tertullian.

That is, not in the sense that the Father, Son, and Spirit share a divine-substance

or are co-eternal persons of one nature or substance

And it certainly can not be ascertained by reason

@fredsbend I can sympathize. I began talking about visions and dreams with another participant of Christianity.SE and stumbled across Jung's Man and His Symbols many months ago. He mentions alchemy quite a bit, and so I discovered his later writings Alchemy and Psychology and Alchemical Studies. Alchemy an esoteric practice, perhaps the most esoteric, and its content is deceiving. Jung refers to it as "the yoga of the west".

@Onlyheisgood. This person presents "the cosmological argument" for the existence of God. I'll let you do the research on the history of that argument if you haven't already. His error is a logical leap- that scientific observations prove the God of the Bible. They do not.

They don't even prove that God exists, or that the universe had a beginning, they only support the hypothesis that the universe had a "beginning" (I'm using this word very loosely- just because something was not and then was does NOT mean it had a definite beginning.

An "open interval" is a simple example) as predicted by the physical theories of the 20th century. He also oversimplifies God, which is what I criticized you for earlier, identifying an unfathomable object and jumping to the conclusion "this is God". He says (I paraphrase) "the force that caused the big bang had these four properties, and God has these four properties, so this force is identically God."

But God has more than those four properties, and the observations of microwave background radiation are silent on the identity and character of God. And that is what I have been saying- that science does not teach us about God. It teaches us about the objects of our imaginations, in this case "the universe", as it exists within human understanding.

Think about it for w while, and you might see that "the universe" as it is described in a science book is a product of our imaginations, because it is an ideal description of a system that satisfies the constraints of our empirical observations.

and doesn't even actually satisfy them- our best scientific theories fail to consistently or completely describe our universe.

if they are not sufficiently powerful to describe the things of the universe, which are tangible how can they possibly describe God!? They can't! Like I said, alchemy is immediately useful (global positioning system) but ultimately fruitless (a complete description of the universe).

@Andrew Then how about this, do you agree that the first word in the bible is correctly represented by the phrase "In the small head"? Seeing as how the First letter represents the Prefix "In". The Suffix determines the word as its diminutive form. And the Root meaning "Head".

Holy Holy Holy Lord! God of Power and Might! Heaven and Earth are full of your glory!

Words are God, the words that come out of our mouth.