"Just this morning, right before posting this, I read (in Dimensions of Job, ed: Nahum N. Glatzer) that the Zohar (“Book of Splendor,” written in Spain by Moses de Leon in the 13th century):
makes Job the symbol of the man who failed to be “cognizant of both good and evil. . . . As Job kept evil separate from good and failed to fuse them, he was judged accordingly: first he experienced good, then what was evil, then again good. For man should be cognizant of both good and evil, and turn evil itself into good. This is the deep tenet of faith” (p. 23)."
All of that Jewish mysticism, or Kabbalah magick, is in opposition to the teachings of Jesus. These are the Jews that hated Jesus and wanted Him dead. It was Crowley's go to anti-Christ philosophy. Not something you want to trust your eternal soul to, or even your intellectual capacity to reason. It's all the same Gnostic BS that pervades most spiritual teachings other than Christianity. Taoism, Hinduism, Mysticism, Occultism, Buddhism, Theosophy, Paganism, Shamanism, Kabbalah, etc., etc., etc., all BS, like the Zohar. All inspired by the fallen sons of God, the false gods of the nations who were deceiving the people to worship them instead of the Most High God of the Bible.
I was hoping your Christian zealotry might find a better context here besides constant push back against new perspectives & blind proselytizing. Apparently it hasn't. Neither of your comments has added anything to the discussion besides further proof of the huis clos of faith-based religious orthodoxy.
Gnosticism has been battling Christianity for 2000 years. They are hardly new perspectives. It was clear you were not listening and I will not support a gnostic view infiltrating Christianity. So I became more stern. Unfortunately, I felt I was wasting my time and effort.
I'm not an ancient languages scholar, but it seems to me, through the context of the story as a whole, it is supposed to be understood that, "Although I may die by serving Him, I trust it is all for the Good."
“He may well slay me, I may have no hope. Yet I will argue my case before Him.” Sounds like Satan's words and attitude. The worst part is he sounds proud of it.
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Yeah, alright, I get that."
I don't think you do get it.
"But, if we are not just nothing without God but also nothing if not God, surely fearlessness must be wisdom’s end?"
We are not God.To think we are God is complete disrespect for God. Fear of the Lord means reverent respect for the Lord. As long as you try to fit Christianity into the gnostic occult philosophy you've followed your entire life is how long you will disrespect Christianity and God. That's gnosticism's purpose. To lead people away from Jesus. I know you think enlightenment is a noble goal worthy of the intelligent. If enlightenment ends in "no self", who is going to enjoy this final destination that the self is so desperate to attain?
Christianity does not end in the imaginary state of enlightenment you've been programmed to pursue like a crack addict your entire life, as many have. I've been sincerely devoted to Jesus for about 7 years now. All it has done for me is a feeling of innocent recognition that I remember as a child. No enlightenment, or unusual feel goods. Just the knowing that it is the right thing to do, without a doubt.
Versions of Gnosticism predate Christianity and seem to have adapted to the ruling religion. One could argue that Zoroastrianism is a form of Gnosticism. Mani appears to be just a successor of the philosophy updated for the time.
Since the Bible records that mankind had been divided into nations at the Tower of Babel event and then subject to be ruled by sons of God, who later fell from Grace and began to rule unjustly, it only makes sense that Gnosticism - the view of the fallen sons of God - came before Christianity. Christianity is a polemic setting the record straight from all of the deceiving worldviews and religions that had arisen by that time. A polemic against the philosophies/worldviews of the fallen sons of God, which had permeated everything up until Jesus came to save Mankind from the deceptions and lies.
That would be the Tanakh's recordings and we know well that some of it was borrowed from Mesopotamian cultures, the obvious example would be the parallel between Gilgamesh and Noah.
Why believe in any book or text as the Truth. Needless to say The Truth is alive, as is life, hence language is inadequate to capture it. Even if possible, the reader may very well not comprehend as intended. Why convolute the process?
As far as the New Testament is concerned, we have the Nicaean edit from the 4th Century. The four Gospels included do not entirely correspond in their account. According to Mark, one could argue that Jesus never claimed to be The Son of God but rather a son of God. Other parts of the scripture sometimes read similarly, where Jesus is quoted as saying that we could all be like him. In this instance, it does rather sound like enlightenment (or some version thereof, being awake to the lies of the temporal world) attainable by all who are worthy.
As I'm sure you know, there are approximately 30 New Testament apocrypha. Can't quite see why they lack legitimacy, other than that they never made the final cut for political purposes of the day. It needs to be taken into account that when Christianity eventually became the de facto state religion of the Roman Empire, it served political needs of the ruling elite. As such, later editions are (even more) suspect.
Even if we are to trust the councils responsible for the final say, translations must be a cause for concern. Firstly, original authors wrote to their contemporaries, and context is everything. The oldest extant New Testament is in Greek from 10th Century. What did the original material claim? Also true for the apocrypha!
I can't see how one can expect the New Testament to be the Word of God considering the lack of original/source material (historical), political chicanery, the many questionable translations and loss of context over time.
As an aside, there might be a chance that the Jews of the time borrowed from the East Mediterranean cults to satisfy their daily political needs, which in all cultures since time immemorial, had a spiritual dimension.
Why would God choose a miserable oppressed people, on a periphery of an Empire yet to be, divided amongst themselves to pen His divine... I'm genuinely at a loss what He would have aimed to achieve.
In short, why would The Most High, The Creator, write a book through individuals who never understood his Son? Individuals, who never seemed to understand His Son according to their accounts (if the Gospels were written by them?)
If anything, for me, belief in sacred texts, such as The Bible, or any of the competing religious books are just proof of mental slavery (tautology?) which have always come about as tools for socio-political manipulation (potentially from stone age religious communities/secret societies onwards). Not to say there isn't anything valuable to be found, but rather that the trust in the texts is proof of obedience to authority, which must be contrary to the Truth, because The Truth is experiential and doesn't require an intermediary.
If believing in the Bible as the Word of God works for you in your daily life, you have my full support. Sincerely. I'm just voicing the reasons why it doesn't work for me.
Sorry bro, I put in an hour and I was just scratching the surface. It would have taken me all day to put forth all I wanted to say. So, I just found some representations of my point of view. I don't know who Craig is though.
"Just this morning, right before posting this, I read (in Dimensions of Job, ed: Nahum N. Glatzer) that the Zohar (“Book of Splendor,” written in Spain by Moses de Leon in the 13th century):
makes Job the symbol of the man who failed to be “cognizant of both good and evil. . . . As Job kept evil separate from good and failed to fuse them, he was judged accordingly: first he experienced good, then what was evil, then again good. For man should be cognizant of both good and evil, and turn evil itself into good. This is the deep tenet of faith” (p. 23)."
All of that Jewish mysticism, or Kabbalah magick, is in opposition to the teachings of Jesus. These are the Jews that hated Jesus and wanted Him dead. It was Crowley's go to anti-Christ philosophy. Not something you want to trust your eternal soul to, or even your intellectual capacity to reason. It's all the same Gnostic BS that pervades most spiritual teachings other than Christianity. Taoism, Hinduism, Mysticism, Occultism, Buddhism, Theosophy, Paganism, Shamanism, Kabbalah, etc., etc., etc., all BS, like the Zohar. All inspired by the fallen sons of God, the false gods of the nations who were deceiving the people to worship them instead of the Most High God of the Bible.
Fail.
I was hoping your Christian zealotry might find a better context here besides constant push back against new perspectives & blind proselytizing. Apparently it hasn't. Neither of your comments has added anything to the discussion besides further proof of the huis clos of faith-based religious orthodoxy.
Gnosticism has been battling Christianity for 2000 years. They are hardly new perspectives. It was clear you were not listening and I will not support a gnostic view infiltrating Christianity. So I became more stern. Unfortunately, I felt I was wasting my time and effort.
1 Corinthians 10:21
Ciao
“Though he slay me, yet I will trust him,”
I'm not an ancient languages scholar, but it seems to me, through the context of the story as a whole, it is supposed to be understood that, "Although I may die by serving Him, I trust it is all for the Good."
“He may well slay me, I may have no hope. Yet I will argue my case before Him.” Sounds like Satan's words and attitude. The worst part is he sounds proud of it.
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Yeah, alright, I get that."
I don't think you do get it.
"But, if we are not just nothing without God but also nothing if not God, surely fearlessness must be wisdom’s end?"
We are not God.To think we are God is complete disrespect for God. Fear of the Lord means reverent respect for the Lord. As long as you try to fit Christianity into the gnostic occult philosophy you've followed your entire life is how long you will disrespect Christianity and God. That's gnosticism's purpose. To lead people away from Jesus. I know you think enlightenment is a noble goal worthy of the intelligent. If enlightenment ends in "no self", who is going to enjoy this final destination that the self is so desperate to attain?
Christianity does not end in the imaginary state of enlightenment you've been programmed to pursue like a crack addict your entire life, as many have. I've been sincerely devoted to Jesus for about 7 years now. All it has done for me is a feeling of innocent recognition that I remember as a child. No enlightenment, or unusual feel goods. Just the knowing that it is the right thing to do, without a doubt.
Hi Bruce,
Versions of Gnosticism predate Christianity and seem to have adapted to the ruling religion. One could argue that Zoroastrianism is a form of Gnosticism. Mani appears to be just a successor of the philosophy updated for the time.
Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
Hi Cedomir,
Since the Bible records that mankind had been divided into nations at the Tower of Babel event and then subject to be ruled by sons of God, who later fell from Grace and began to rule unjustly, it only makes sense that Gnosticism - the view of the fallen sons of God - came before Christianity. Christianity is a polemic setting the record straight from all of the deceiving worldviews and religions that had arisen by that time. A polemic against the philosophies/worldviews of the fallen sons of God, which had permeated everything up until Jesus came to save Mankind from the deceptions and lies.
Yes, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. Why?
Hi Bruce,
That would be the Tanakh's recordings and we know well that some of it was borrowed from Mesopotamian cultures, the obvious example would be the parallel between Gilgamesh and Noah.
Why believe in any book or text as the Truth. Needless to say The Truth is alive, as is life, hence language is inadequate to capture it. Even if possible, the reader may very well not comprehend as intended. Why convolute the process?
As far as the New Testament is concerned, we have the Nicaean edit from the 4th Century. The four Gospels included do not entirely correspond in their account. According to Mark, one could argue that Jesus never claimed to be The Son of God but rather a son of God. Other parts of the scripture sometimes read similarly, where Jesus is quoted as saying that we could all be like him. In this instance, it does rather sound like enlightenment (or some version thereof, being awake to the lies of the temporal world) attainable by all who are worthy.
As I'm sure you know, there are approximately 30 New Testament apocrypha. Can't quite see why they lack legitimacy, other than that they never made the final cut for political purposes of the day. It needs to be taken into account that when Christianity eventually became the de facto state religion of the Roman Empire, it served political needs of the ruling elite. As such, later editions are (even more) suspect.
Even if we are to trust the councils responsible for the final say, translations must be a cause for concern. Firstly, original authors wrote to their contemporaries, and context is everything. The oldest extant New Testament is in Greek from 10th Century. What did the original material claim? Also true for the apocrypha!
I can't see how one can expect the New Testament to be the Word of God considering the lack of original/source material (historical), political chicanery, the many questionable translations and loss of context over time.
As an aside, there might be a chance that the Jews of the time borrowed from the East Mediterranean cults to satisfy their daily political needs, which in all cultures since time immemorial, had a spiritual dimension.
Why would God choose a miserable oppressed people, on a periphery of an Empire yet to be, divided amongst themselves to pen His divine... I'm genuinely at a loss what He would have aimed to achieve.
In short, why would The Most High, The Creator, write a book through individuals who never understood his Son? Individuals, who never seemed to understand His Son according to their accounts (if the Gospels were written by them?)
If anything, for me, belief in sacred texts, such as The Bible, or any of the competing religious books are just proof of mental slavery (tautology?) which have always come about as tools for socio-political manipulation (potentially from stone age religious communities/secret societies onwards). Not to say there isn't anything valuable to be found, but rather that the trust in the texts is proof of obedience to authority, which must be contrary to the Truth, because The Truth is experiential and doesn't require an intermediary.
If believing in the Bible as the Word of God works for you in your daily life, you have my full support. Sincerely. I'm just voicing the reasons why it doesn't work for me.
deft about turn at the end there Ced! Trans: "If you want to live your life as a mental slave, who am i to say it's a bad idea!?"
Hi Ced,
Way too much to explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWxBBsopNk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKBGdv07nQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QM7anD5vSI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh0OTg1eM1c
Hi Craig,
Not fair for you to lob YT videos at me after all my efforts (typed on a phone at that!). We don't want to get involved in a URL death match :)
I'll give them a listen, if they prove to carry any weight.
Sorry bro, I put in an hour and I was just scratching the surface. It would have taken me all day to put forth all I wanted to say. So, I just found some representations of my point of view. I don't know who Craig is though.
I do respect your effort. Thanks.
Later.