Bible Study - From a non-religious kiwi

[Circular Square]

Talking about Solomon, he's a very peculiar figure. In one sense he prefigures Messiah, because of his wealth, wisdom, the glory of his kingdom, to the point that the Queen of Sheba visits him because he is so famous. But he also made massive mistakes, violating the Law in all his wisdom (or perhaps he was trying to search out foolishness if you believe he wrote Ecclesiastes), building high places for idols and setting the stage for the constant theme of rebellion "not like David his father". Even with God-given wisdom, I don't find it hard to believe that a thousand women could make a fool out of him.

 

[Admin Dissipate Swordfish]

I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation

Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)

 

[The Great Chandler]

I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation

Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)

Even though most Christians refute demonology, it do be cool though.

 

[Little oak tree]

I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation

Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)

Maybe there's no "enemy" and people just separate parts they don't personally like of the work of God as "work of the Devil"

 

[Mothra1988]

I wholly agree with this. You can say most of it is an allegory of faith, rather than just simply true events. This reminds me of a Chinese Tao saying from Laozi:

"Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao."

I see it the same way with the Bible. How can you be sure the wisdom of human writers are the same wisdom from God? I'm not trying to sound like a heretic, but it's not a bad idea to differentiate between the ideals of God and the shackled insecurities of man.

The Bible isn't supposed to be wholly allegorical. Although you can do some accounting for how writers in the 1st century and hundreds of years before that would describe things out of their comprehension, that's mostly a postmodern irreligious mindset imo. If most people had any inkling of how fucked up the spirit work really was, they wouldn't have as hard of time getting that the Bible contains truth. But most people are more comfortable with their scientism than having to deal with the fact the world really is a lot more scary than what Bill Nye told them as kids.

Even though most Christians refute demonology, it do be cool though.

Who does really? I think the message from Christians is don't get involved with it or give it attention. Maybe they wouldn't support all the technical definitions and those could be fanfiction, but the New Tesatement defnitely backs it up on most levels. The fact is it's very real, and any atheist that confront it will be shaken out of their beliefs almost immediately.

I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation

Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)

I'm probably half "open" so I have spirits trying to communicate or harass me from time to time. It's obvious some of these things out there aren't really human-derived like ghosts (although communication with human and animal spirits is common), so I have no problem with believing they could be the manifestation of fallen angels and their spawn since I've yet to hear any other good explanations for why these things exist on earth.

The thing about "black magic" is it often works on blood sacrifice, in the case of Santaist edgelords usually small animals, which ties directly into parallels in the Jewish religion before the destruction of the 2nd Temple. That was one of the big tells for me this is all connected, that blood sacrifice has real power just like the Bible said it did.

 

[Circular Square]

blood sacrifice has real power just like the Bible said it did.

Though blood sacrifice may be efficacious in attracting the demonic, once done it also attracts the wrath of God. If God didn't spare the sons of Aaron who carried strange fire in the sanctuary, he will not spare those who spread violence like the giants of Noah's day, eradicating them with a flood of fire.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I always wondered what is the normal religious explanation for children being born with some fatal condition. I sort of justify it with god not being "hands on" with the physical world.

Talking about Solomon, he's a very peculiar figure. In one sense he prefigures Messiah, because of his wealth, wisdom, the glory of his kingdom, to the point that the Queen of Sheba visits him because he is so famous. But he also made massive mistakes, violating the Law in all his wisdom (or perhaps he was trying to search out foolishness if you believe he wrote Ecclesiastes), building high places for idols and setting the stage for the constant theme of rebellion "not like David his father". Even with God-given wisdom, I don't find it hard to believe that a thousand women could make a fool out of him.

I don't think there is a single biblical figure (except maybe Job, but with him it's the point) that is perfect. There is always a flaw to show that you can never reach perfection.

 

[Circular Square]

There is always a flaw to show that you can never reach perfection.

Definitely, but it's peculiar because one would think one's closeness with God can/will remain the same (ensures some security from falling). But as with the Fall, so all sin separates us from the Almighty.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Definitely, but it's peculiar because one would think one's closeness with God can/will remain the same (ensures some security from falling). But as with the Fall, so all sin separates us from the Almighty.

I think the opposite, the closer you are to god, the higher the risk of committing sin out of over confidence and the more catastrophic the results. David's sin has assured he'll never build the temple, while Solomon's sins has doomed Judea.

 

[DaBigBopper]

@wtfNeedSignUp I actually want to ask you this considering you are a Christ-killing Jew who practices Blood libel under the full moon whilst snacking on gentile foreskins.

I consider the story of the Prodigal Son in the New Testament to effectively be the story of Jacob/ Israel in miniature in some ways. Why the fuck do Jews seem to hate the fuck out of Esau in their rabbinical texts? From what I know he gives shelter to his brother after thinking him dead for 20 years and then he basically is never mentioned again.

Also, I'm pretty sure Joshua is basically the only guy next to Job who really never fucks up and his entire death message is "GATE KEEP HARDER EVEN WITH YOUR OWN KIDS."

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

@wtfNeedSignUp I actually want to ask you this considering you are a Christ-killing Jew who practices Blood libel under the full moon whilst snacking on gentile foreskins.

I consider the story of the Prodigal Son in the New Testament to effectively be the story of Jacob/ Israel in miniature in some ways. Why the fuck do Jews seem to hate the fuck out of Esau in their rabbinical texts? From what I know he gives shelter to his brother after thinking him dead for 20 years and then he basically is never mentioned again.

Also, I'm pretty sure Joshua is basically the only guy next to Job who really never fucks up and his entire death message is "GATE KEEP HARDER EVEN WITH YOUR OWN KIDS."

From a short check, the problem with Esau is that he is a hairy ginger that was dumb enough to sell his inheritance for a momentary gain. Also yeah Joshuah is relatively alright flaw wise, he's primarily a second fiddle to Moses.

 

[EyeGuy]

Why the fuck do Jews seem to hate the fuck out of Esau in their rabbinical texts? From what I know he gives shelter to his brother after thinking him dead for 20 years and then he basically is never mentioned again.

The long and short of it is that Genesis depicts Esau as the progenitor of Edom, a Semitic people that lived to the southeast of Israel and who had a very turbulent relationship with them, to put it lightly. Eventually, through various historical coincidences (such as Obadiah's comparison of Edom to an eagle), Edom became identified in Rabbinic tradition with the Roman empire, and that identification was later carried over to Christian civilization as a whole.

 

[DaBigBopper]

From a short check, the problem with Esau is that he is a hairy ginger that was dumb enough to sell his inheritance for a momentary gain. Also yeah Joshuah is relatively alright flaw wise, he's primarily a second fiddle to Moses.

From what I remember, Jacob didn't even get most of the inheritance. Rebecca basically spirited him away because Esau was pissed when he stole the birthright blessing and Issac was also pretty pissed. The whole Lentil soup bit was never really honored and really only Rebecca ensures the blessing gets passed to Jacob. Esau basically gets everything and Jacob gets a taste of his own medicine when working for his Mother's cousin. Esau warmly welcomes Jacob back, forgives his transgressions, and refuses any gifts Jacob gives him because he's worried about his nieces and nephews.

The long and short of it is that Genesis depicts Esau as the progenitor of Edom, a Semitic people that lived to the southeast of Israel and who had a very turbulent relationship with them, to put it lightly. Eventually, through various historical coincidences (such as Obadiah's comparison of Edom to an eagle), Edom became identified in Rabbinic tradition with the Roman empire, and that identification was later carried over to Christian civilization as a whole.

Oh, so it's just Rabbi's getting butthurt over nothing and twisting themselves into knots to validate some obscure bullshit? I swear Moses or Joshua basically joined the remnants of Esau's family back into the camp of Israel sometime in Exodus.

I've been noticing a few Bible stories that have weird Rabbinical commentary that comes out of fucking no where when I've been diving into some of the history. Like it literally is one Rabbi is just an ultra kike and says that polygamy is okay even though Leah is unhappy and Reuban wants to cuck Jacob with Rachael's servants.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I've been noticing a few Bible stories that have weird Rabbinical commentary that comes out of fucking no where when I've been diving into some of the history. Like it literally is one Rabbi is just an ultra kike and says that polygamy is okay even though Leah is unhappy and Reuban wants to cuck Jacob with Rachael's servants

It's not a few, virtually every fucking sentence in the old testament will have multiple interpretations, historical anecdotes and folklore stories mixed with it as a result of 2000 years of kvetching.

 

[DaBigBopper]

It's not a few, virtually every fucking sentence in the old testament will have multiple interpretations, historical anecdotes and folklore stories mixed with it as a result of 2000 years of kvetching.

I mean a few seem to literally be against what a story or Pslam could be saying, but one Rabbi had enough clout to basically force an interpretation that goes against what the story is saying. It happens a fuck ton in Judges.

 

[EyeGuy]

Oh, so it's just Rabbi's getting butthurt over nothing and twisting themselves into knots to validate some obscure bullshit? I swear Moses or Joshua basically joined the remnants of Esau's family back into the camp of Israel sometime in Exodus.

You're probably thinking of something else. There's never a reintegration of Esau's family into Israel.

I've been noticing a few Bible stories that have weird Rabbinical commentary that comes out of fucking no where when I've been diving into some of the history. Like it literally is one Rabbi is just an ultra kike and says that polygamy is okay even though Leah is unhappy and Reuban wants to cuck Jacob with Rachael's servants.

Well, polygamy is "okay", as evidenced by the multiple biblical laws that take it as a given (e.g. Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17). It's definitely portrayed as a bad idea, though. The rabbinic understandings can seem a little strange at times, but they usually reflect a deeper understanding of the text then people give them credit for, and it's pretty easy to show that their modes of interpretation have precedent in the Bible itself (e.g. revisionist histories for didactic purpose such as Ezekiel 20, or harmonizing conflicting passages like in 2nd Chronicles 35:13).

 

[DaBigBopper]

You're probably thinking of something else. There's never a reintegration of Esau's family into Israel.

Well, polygamy is "okay", as evidenced by the multiple biblical laws that take it as a given (e.g. Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17). It's definitely portrayed as a bad idea, though. The rabbinic understandings can seem a little strange at times, but they usually reflect a deeper understanding of the text then people give them credit for, and it's pretty easy to show that their modes of interpretation have precedent in the Bible itself (e.g. revisionist histories for didactic purpose such as Ezekiel 20, or harmonizing conflicting passages like in 2nd Chronicles 35:13).

Yeah, some of the Rabbinical commentaries can be pretty good, it's just a lot of them just seem like kvetching bullshit. I typically read Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox commentaries, Lutherans are a mix of retards and Germans so for every well-researched and reasoned commentary you'll get 700 retard scrawls.

I read Reform Jew stuff and Anglican stuff when I want to get angry.

 

[EyeGuy]

I typically read Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox commentaries,

I'm curious, which Jewish ones do you read? My go-to goy commentator is Daniel Block, who I think is some sort of Calvinist.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

One thing I think most people forget about the Bible is that it's not a normal book. Rather, it's a collection of many books comprising numerous different genres. The Song of Songs (or the Book of Songs/Song of Solomon) is a piece of erotic literature spaced between Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom. All three books are vastly different in intent and composition. However, I think one of the most fascinating things about the Bible is that it's a rather miraculous group of text, as it's the most cross-referenced piece of literature in the world.

Below are two images visually showing references between books in the Bible.

Spoiler: Images

Ver archivo adjunto 3565789
Ver archivo adjunto 3565790

We have still yet to find every single cross reference in the Bible. If you do some more digging into the matter, you'll find a vast wealth of information regarding the complexities of this singular collection. Not even other holy books compare, to my knowledge.

When I was new to Christianity, a piece of advice someone gave me was that almost all Bible verses have two to three other verses that back up what it's saying. These diagrams prove this is very true.

 

[EyeGuy]

When I was new to Christianity, a piece of advice someone gave me was that almost all Bible verses have two to three other verses that back up what it's saying. These diagrams prove this is very true.

Well...


Both types of charts are mostly BS, if we're being honest.