Godfrey Higgins ANACALYPSIS Agreements and Disagreements
Anacalypsis by godfrey higgins:
After the God Reveals The Mystery Of Creation was completed, but before I wrote the Introduction – I was introduced to the writings of Godfrey Higgins, Esq.
He authored, ANACALYPSIS – an Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of The Saitic Isis, or an Inquiry Into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and Religions, Vol I & II, London, 1836 – Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, Paternoster Row.
I read his material very carefully and found it quite instructional. However, I disagreed with him on one major point.
Higgins, however, would have his readers believe the Workings of the Supreme Being are impossible for a mortal human being to fathom. His basis for this impossibility is
“…we can only form an idea of what we call time by means of our idea of circle or cycle. We know or believe from our senses that events proceed in succession: how can we believe that events will proceed or succeed, forever, without a stop? We may say we think they will, but of this, we can form no idea, as we shall find, if we examine the course of our ideas closely. The Indians, meditating upon these matters, came at last, after the end of each cycle, to place the First Cause, as well as the Creator, in a state of absolute quietude; but what would this be, if continued, but Atheism? “
To avoid this, they made him rest a given time, then begin and enact anew the former order of things, to create happiness – begin a new cycle. I shall be told, that this will deprive man of free will, and perhaps God too. I cannot help this. It is not my fault that this theory of the ancients is attended with a dangerous result. My declaration of their opinion or faith does not change it or make it. If my reader will try some other theory he will soon find himself in an equal difficulty; and this arises from the fact, that we here come to the extreme of our faculties. If we go farther, we go beyond the power of the human understanding, and then, if we talk at all, we necessarily talk nonsense, as all the profound metaphysicians, like Berkeley, and the professors of the Vedanta philosophy, do.”
(Vol. I, Pg. 226-227)
The “Work” I transcribed definitely contradicts what Higgins felt.
What I was instructed to write is a complete description of the Supreme Being including how and why we were created and what we must accomplish in order to return to Heaven and be At Oneness with the Creator there.
I agree with Higgins that for a mortal human being to perceive what is presented would have been impossible. There would be a need for Divine Intervention connected to this Work. I don’ take credit for what is presented, only that I was chosen to present it.
This Work emanates from a Divine Source and, based upon the method of presentation to me, I can only conclude it was given through firsthand knowledge, learned from experience by, The Supreme Being.
do you agree with Higgins – Can We Understand God?
Let me know in the comments or on Facebook
Next on the Blog: