#biblical studies

[finisconoratopus]

hello November!

follow this month's playlist :)

[catcher-in-the-reeds]

Some of the books I'm in the middle of reading right now

[entanglingbriars]

I'm having an ongoing discussion with some followers about the Bible and I feel like it's a good idea for me to just publicly state my position so people know what they're getting into when talking about biblical stuff with me:

The Bible is an entirely human creation. It was written by humans, edited by humans, and compiled by humans. Numinous experiences may have inspired parts (or even all) of the Bible, but it is not the Word of God and contains errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, and lacunae.

Similarly, the Bible does not speak with a unified voice. The authors of the different books of the Bible had very different ideas about who and what God is, how people should relate to God, what is and isn't moral, the nature of the Incarnation, the purpose of Jesus' ministry, and the nature of the afterlife.

We do not have access to any original manuscripts (or even fragments of manuscripts) written by the hand or scribe of the original authors.

The errors in the Bible include factual errors and errors in matters of morality and ethics.

The Bible is an extremely important book and worthy of far more serious study than most people give it credit for.

There are passages in the Bible that I find extremely moving and believe contain real and important insights into the nature of the world and humanity.

For Judaism, the Torah does not have ultimate authority. Tradition, including Scripture, gets a vote, not a veto.

Biblical literalism is a relatively recent concept and was first invented to justify the enslavement of Africans.

The historical-critical method is currently the best method we have for understanding what the Bible says and why it says it.

[dyschron1cle]

To be a Blind man is to be a Happy man

do we really need to get smarter

The human desire for knowledge acquisition is always a treasure, particularly as it fills the gaps that experience does not, but has it always been encouraged?

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it, you will certainly die. ”.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Genesis 2:16-17, NIV.

The Abrahamic God is unhappy with the first man on earth, Adam, and Eve’s decision to indulge in the ‘fruit of knowledge’ following his prior warning.

The fruit led Adam and Eve out of Eden and into physical and emotional turmoil, for instance, Adam’s need for treacherous labor and Eve’s pain of childbirth, both pertaining to survival.

But that doesn’t entice me as much; the emotional turmoil does. “Disconcerted by nudity” would imply that gaining human consciousness is an impediment?

Despite your beliefs, the Lord in all forms of mythology and religious dogma represents an authority providing the perfect cookie-cutter advice to help the average layman achieve a happy and fulfilling life.

The Myth of Pandora’s Box (Fun fact: Actually a jar!, A mistranslation error that stuck around.)

Refers to Pandora, the woman created by the Greek gods as instructed by Zeus to “punish” the titan Prometheus and mankind, as the titan had stolen fire and given it to the people.

The gods, during creation, “gifted” her with four gifts: beauty from Aphrodite, skills and craftsmanship from Hermes, and curiosity and a tricky nature.

Pandora, due to her curiosity although warned by Zeus, opens the jar/box/pithos

Lo and behold, evil spirits that contain the struggles of mankind!

Disease and illness

Pain and suffering

Death and mortality (or awareness of it)

Hard labor and exhaustion

Misery, grief, and sorrow

Chaos and misfortune

Curiousity is treated as naive and with inevitable negative consequences.

Daoism is an ancient Chinese philosophical spiritual system that centers on living in harmony with the “dao,” or “the way,” which is understood as the natural flow and order of the universe.

At the heart of Daoist thought is the idea that reality works best when left in its natural state.

The Tao Te Ching argues that human beings often create problems and disparities by trying too hard to control life, define it rigidly, or force outcomes through planning and ambition. From this perspective, “ignorance” is not praised as stupidity, but rather as choosing a happier life.

A person who is too focused on categorizing, judging, and manipulating everything may lose touch with the natural flow of life, while someone who lives simply and intuitively is closer to harmony. This can be combatted with ‘’Wu Wei,’‘ directly translating to non-action or effortless action in which a person responds to life with a natural balance without striving for too much to avoid disturbance.

Common trope?

The concept “Wu Wei” appears in early Daoist texts like the Tao Te Ching (6th–4th century BCE) and was fully developed and expanded later in texts like the Zhuangzi (4th–3rd century BCE). The myth of Pandora’s Box appears in the Greek poet Hesiod in the late 7th or 8th century BCE in his epic poems Theogony (c. 750-700 BCE) and Works and Days (c. 700 BCE). Proponents argue that the first mention of Adam and Eve was when Moses wrote the Exodus from Egypt, roughly in 1450-1400 BCE. Conversely, post-exilic biblical scholars believe that it was written prior to the proponent’s assumption, in the 5th or 6th century BCE.

Whatever view you subscribe to, the common themes between the three tales linger throughout society and how we as a populace navigate through life.

So why does every way of life advise you to avoid the constant strive for knowledge you do not need?

I reckon that an overconsumption of knowledge leads to an unfulfillment in life because of multiple factors.

“Don’t place temptation in someone’s path if you wouldn’t want them to fall.” Nothing seems to satisfy them anymore…no matter how far they go, thickening their greed for unattainable goals.

A study published in the journal “High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities” (Karpinski et al., 2016) examines the correlation between high intelligence and higher reporting of mental health conditions (anxiety, depression, ADHD, etc.) and physical conditions (allergies, autoimmune issues, and asthma).

The study was a survey-based study with a sample of 3,715 members of American Mensa

(people with IQ 130+, so very high intelligence), which was then compared with the average population.

The results revealed that highly intelligent people had reported the following:

higher rates of anxiety and mood disorders (RR 1.20 - 223.08).

increased likelihood of ADHD and autism-related traits

More physical health issues like allergies and autoimmune diseases (RR 1.84 - 4.33).

The study concluded with an “explanation” asserted by the researchers.

Hyperbody and Hyperbrain theory

The theory suggested by Karpinski proposes the idea that individuals with high intelligence may have a more reactive and sensitive brain, piggybacking on the key concept of “overexciteabilities” (originally from Kazimierz Dabrowski’s theory), which refers to heightened intensity of how some individuals process and interpret the world around them.

These overexcitabilities can often be intellectual, such as overanalysis, which is aggravated by supporting ones such as emotional (strong and intense feelings), sensory (heightened sensitivity to sounds, sights, or physical stimuli), and sometimes imaginational (rich and vivid mental activity); meaning their minds are more active, reflective, and prone to overthinking, which can contribute to anxiety or rumination, therefore leading to depression.

In the Bhagavad Gita a common mention is an individual’s “dharma,” which translates to duties in a large cosmic order. Dharma emphasizes stability and continuity, meaning individuals are encouraged to act within existing structures rather than challenge them. I argue that as a person is more aware of his dharma or duties in correlation with injustices and inequalities in life, it may lead to him feeling helpless or pathetic within a structural context where he lacks individual agency—much like a rock thrown into a pond is unlikely to cause erosion.

This is apparent in the contemporary global reaction to political instabilities,

Research supports the assumption that socio-political awareness may have negative effects on mental well-being only when people perceive themselves as having no influence on the situation. For instance, Xue Yang et al. (2020) conducted a population-based study involving 420 adults from Hong Kong, whose perceptions regarding political and social situations as well as emotional and depressive symptoms were assessed using a questionnaire. As a result, the authors discovered that respondents expecting socio-political conditions such as increased inequalities, instabilities, and even conflicts were prone to experience greater symptoms of depression as well as lower levels of life satisfaction. However, it is important to note that this link between variables was indirect, as it could be explained by psychological mediators such as frustration, emotional distress, insecurity, and inability to change the socio-political situation due to lack of self-efficacy. Thus, being aware of problems in society did not lead to psychological problems per se but rather when coupled with an inability to do anything about them.

Throughout different cultures and societies, there persists an ambiguity surrounding whether knowledge serves to either free or oppress the human mind. In myths, philosophy, and even contemporary psychology, knowledge is consistently portrayed as something that offers insight and yet at the same time causes unease. Instead of asking if ignorance is happiness, perhaps the issue should be if humans are capable of bearing the burden of knowledge.

Maybe we should stop reading and put our phones down.

Brainrot AI slop for everybody!

Dunces are happier after all.

- Andrea Gonsalves (Dirth)

[holystormfire]

[nardialrose]

“Getting a lot of Boss Baby vibes from this” moment

[yisraelthebarregesh]

Given his origin, satan should align himself with Light, Good, Virtue, and Truth, since his primary function, as we have seen, is to detect and expose the slightest defects in these qualities. However, it is impossible to consider satan as an exclusively "luminous" figure—his behavior contradicts this too profoundly. [...]

Jesus, in contrast, consistently belongs to the side of Light. This is emphasized particularly actively in the Gospel of John: Jesus is the true Light, which enlightens every person (John 1:9). John the Baptist, in turn, was not the light, but was sent to bear witness to the Light (John 1:8). A "witness to the Light" is an apt functional description of the Morning Star, i.e., the planet Venus. Venus is very close to the Sun, so it appears in the eastern sky before sunrise, and in the western sky after sunset. In the latter case, it was called Hesperus in Greek, and in Latin by the similar words Vesper and Hesperus. Venus, when it appears in the morning, was called Phosphorus or Eosphorus in Greek, and in Latin — Lucifer; in both languages, these words mean "Light-Bringer." In other words, Lucifer is not the light itself, but heralds the light. Consequently, one could suppose that the best candidate for the role of a being likened to the Morning Star is John the Baptist.

But, as we saw when discussing the Gospel of Luke, the Baptist seems to be defined as a herald of the "pre-Luciferan period," whereas Lucifer is the Messiah himself. Zechariah says of the infant John:

"And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will visit us from on high to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace." (Luke 1:76-79)

Above, I translated "the rising sun" (Anatole) as "the star that heralds the day." But it turns out that Anatole not only heralds the light but also gives light, meaning it can be the rising sun itself.

On the other hand, Anatole might not be related to the dawn and the sun, but simply to the east. In the Gospel of Matthew, the Magi come apo Anatolon, that is, from the east—the direction of not only the sunrise but also the rising of stars. They are seeking the King of the Jews, for they saw his star "in the east" (Matt. 2:2). The appearance of such a star was one of the signs of the Messiah in Balaam's prophecy: "A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab." (Num. 24:17)

In the Book of Revelation, the functions of Lucifer are more definitively ascribed to Jesus, although in the first passage this is less obvious, as Jesus does not "give the Morning Star" but promises it as a gift. Relaying the message of the Son of Man to his followers in the church of Thyatira, and denouncing the so-called "deep things of satan" (Rev. 2:24), John says:

"To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations... I will also give that one the Morning Star. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Rev. 2:26-29)

Some commentators assure us that the Morning Star is Christ himself, since, as we will see later in Revelation, Jesus defines himself in this very way. But perhaps a different logic should be applied here. If we accept that the Morning Star is Christ, then in the quoted passage, Christ is effectively saying: "I, Jesus, give you Jesus." A much more natural reading in this context would be: "I give you myself as the Morning Star."

An alternative explanation is to view this passage in the spirit of Jesus' speech during the Last Supper in the Gospel of John, where He says He will send His Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the Advocate (Paraclete). Supporting this interpretation is the fact that in Revelation, the Son of Man continually mentions the Spirit: "Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (Rev. 2:29). Thus, His message is presented as the true message of the Spirit, addressed not only to the church in Thyatira but to all the churches.

The Book of Revelation concludes with a description of the New Jerusalem, where there will be no more night. "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 22:5) Then, the narration in John's voice shifts to the direct speech of the One who revealed these things to him, and once again, for the third time in Revelation, the words of Jesus sound forth, unaccompanied by any introductory remarks:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." (Rev. 22:16)

This is tantamount to the declaration: "I, Jesus, am Lucifer." And since the Morning Star is called "bright" (Lampos), it is not only the herald of the Light but is itself the Light.

Finally, similar imagery is used in the Second Epistle of Peter—presumably the latest book included in the New Testament. The author, Pseudo-Peter, states that he heard the voice of God on the Mount of Transfiguration: "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (2 Peter 1:17-18), and says that these words of God confirm the words of prophecy. He then continues:

"...And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star [Lucifer] rises in your hearts..." (2 Peter 1:19)

The likely meaning of this image is that the prophets provide only a faint light until Jesus comes in the fullness of Light. The imagery is introduced somewhat awkwardly, as it suggests that the Morning Star has already risen in the hearts of faithful Christians, replacing the fainter lamps. On the other hand, the metaphor is quite realistic, as it states that dawn will precede the rising of the Morning Star, though it doesn't emphasize that the light of dawn appears first, naturally followed by the light of the sun.

Conclusion: Lucifer, that is, the Morning Star (the planet Venus at the moment it appears at dawn and seems the brightest of the stars), is a consistently positive image with firm associations to Jesus the Messiah.

— Satan: a biography by Henry Ansgar Kelly

[brandyfuckingrockwell]

Some light reading