Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread

[Severinus]

Alright then. Philip, feel free to post your thoughts.

[Jayne]

Alright then. Philip, feel free to post your thoughts.

Just remember, you were warned and dismissed it as a "personal feud".

[coffeeandcigarette]

So maybe if everyone could stop this bickering we could enjoy that.

Are you aware of the context? Are you aware of the OP's views on matters?

Do you think jumping in without contextual understanding and telling others what to do makes sense? You are now a part of the "bickering" and you have apparently picked a side. Did you mean to do that?

If you want to be on the side of heretics and blasphemers, that is your call, but if you did not examine the context of this discussion, you might want to think about exactly what is being discussed before dismissing it as "bickering". Your posting on the forum is not privileged: you are a poster making comments just like us.

As a matter-of-fact I am well aware of the context of this. You decided to barge into this thread and bring all your baggage with you. You couldn't just enjoy this thread as a stand alone, oh no, it was far to tempting to bring all your angst here and start in on Phillip. You never even gave him a chance to start something neat for us, you decided to ruin it with your pettiness. You complain about other people not posting, but when they try, you pull this crap. Get over yourself. He was not even trying to start a thread in which he "interprets scripture"
on some kind of soap box. He was trying to start a thread where people can simply comment and discuss various passages. I can see how this would offend you, seeing as the only scripture you like is the gospel of Paeniteo.

Now then...

[TerrorDæmonum]

As a matter-of-fact I am well aware of the context of this.

If you really are, then you were silent in the face of blasphemy and false accusations, and are supporting them and contributing your own. Those are grave sins by their nature.

You decided to barge into this thread and bring all your baggage with you.

What baggage? I am not the one posting blasphemies and novelties  on the forum.

You couldn't just enjoy this thread as a stand alone, oh no, it was far to tempting to bring all your angst here and start in on Phillip.

Start in? Do you see what he has written? You said you did, and you apparently support it. That is disgusting.

You never even gave him a chance to start something neat for us, you decided to ruin it with your pettiness.

Pettiness?

You complain about other people not posting, but when they try, you pull this crap.

What are you talking about?

I can see how this would offend you, seeing as the only scripture you like is the gospel of Paeniteo.

How dare you write this.

If you truly are fine with blasphemies and false accusations and you are willing to do such things yourself, I can only denounce the grave sins I see and not commit them myself.

[Christina_S]

Good thing GiftofGod and Boniface VIII aren't around at the moment. I think they'd have a stroke or their heads would blow off if they saw this thread topic...

If we're trying to go chronologically, I've been going through Genesis lately with Fr. Mike Schmitz's Bible in a Year podcast. I've always found it funny how in the story of Joseph and his brothers, it gets rolling in Genesis 37, then in chapter 38 it cuts to Judah and Tamar's drama, and then chapter 39 continues the story. It makes me think, "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you our latest breaking story..."

[TerrorDæmonum]

've always found it funny how in the story of Joseph and his brothers, it gets rolling in Genesis 37, then in chapter 38 it cuts to Judah and Tamar's drama, and then chapter 39 continues the story. It makes me think, "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you our latest breaking story..."

Not that I am an expert on the text, but it is very common for ancient writers to write this way. They often wrote chronologically (events told in order) regardless of how continuous the narrative is in other senses.

This can result in massive "tangents" in ancient writers who seem to be distracted by events unrelated to what they were writing about, but it is very deliberate. There were other conventions, but this was extremely common.

There is also the issue of ancient texts not having footnotes, due to how they were written, so commentary is inserted into the text directly. You can get a very good example of both of these ways of writing by reading the The Jewish War. It has a single author and it is a more modern text so you don't have to worry about redaction and style changes. Josephus is telling the events of a single war, with background information, but reading it straight through results in very gripping military events being interrupted by things that are hardly relevant to the story (mostly a lot of details about Herod and his family and other political tidbits). If one sees them as inserted "footnotes", and the order of events being told as chronologically as possible, it all makes sense.

Of course, it does look very disjointed if one is not used to it.

[Jayne]

Good thing GiftofGod and Boniface VIII aren't around at the moment. I think they'd have a stroke or their heads would blow off if they saw this thread topic...

They may have somewhat overstated their case, but they made some good points about how laity can abuse Scripture.  This thread is a good example in support of that position.

Scripture is the Word of God in which he reveals Himself to us.  It is not for "fun".  It is not a game to amuse us.

He was trying to start a thread where people can simply comment and discuss various passages. I can see how this would offend you, seeing as the only scripture you like is the gospel of Paeniteo.

One does not simply "comment and discuss various passages".  Understanding Scripture with the mind of the Church requires skills and knowledge (which, due to his posting history, we have no reason to think that Philips has.)  Personal interpretation of Scripture can very easily go wrong, even in good conditions.  It is highly imprudent to do it for "fun".

Paeniteo is exemplary for his ability to summarize Catholic teaching without interjecting his personal opinions.  He cites authoritative sources and gives clear explanations.  His posts on doctrine are one of the best aspects of this forum. 

For some reason, coffeeandcigarettes rejects what is good and encourages what is bad.   

[coffeeandcigarette]

For some reason, coffeeandcigarettes rejects what is good and encourages what is bad.

Firstly ma'am, "fun" is used colloquially as something that is enjoyable. I find scripture study to be very enjoyable and therefore fun. I did not mean anything else. Secondly, how do you know we would not be citing good sources, and encouraging traditional understandings of scripture? You are just pulling a bunch of crap out of nowhere and slinging it at people. I have never in my life encouraged what is bad, what an insane thing to say. I have never done so on this forum, and I certainly have not done so in life either. Nor have I ever rejected what is good. I think this post was really quite uncalled for and extremely rude.

I am going to quote you to end this post, ironically:

"Why do you have to twist everything to see evil in people you don't get along with?  Why do you keeping making up bad things about people even when there is no evidence?"

[Jayne]

For some reason, coffeeandcigarettes rejects what is good and encourages what is bad.

Firstly ma'am, "fun" is used colloquially as something that is enjoyable. I find scripture study to be very enjoyable and therefore fun. I did not mean anything else. Secondly, how do you know we would not be citing good sources, and encouraging traditional understandings of scripture? You are just pulling a bunch of crap out of nowhere and slinging it at people. I have never in my life encouraged what is bad, what an insane thing to say. I have never done so on this forum, and I certainly have not done so in life either. Nor have I ever rejected what is good. I think this post was really quite uncalled for and extremely rude.

Philip has been a member here for over 3 years.  I have seen many examples of his comments on Scripture, more than enough to be aware that he does not cite good sources or have a traditional understanding.  (You claimed you were familiar with the context, so you should know this too.)  I have plenty of evidence for this. It is imprudent or worse to encourage him to have "fun" like this. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings about Philip.

Meanwhile, you reject Paeniteo's posts full of sound doctrine, as you make up nonsense about "the gospel according to Paeniteo".  Your comments to him were rude and uncalled for, worse than what I said to you.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

In order for an edifying discussion of Scripture to take place, there needs to be some sort of structure or ground rules in place to ensure that it is done in conformity to Catholic teaching.  Calling it "fun thoughts"  virtually invites the opposite.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying Scripture study, but most heresies in history were started by people misinterpreting the Bible.  This study is not something to undertake lightly.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Meanwhile, you reject Paeniteo's posts full of sound doctrine, as you make up nonsense about "the gospel according to Paeniteo".  Your comments to him were rude and uncalled for, worse than what I said to you.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I never rejected his posts about scripture, I simply said that if we treated each new thread as an opportunity to have kind, civil conversations each other instead of rehashing old issues and grudges, that this forum would be a nicer place. I didn't make up "nonsense" saying "gospel according to Paeniteo, I was kidding that he likes his own input too much. No one was accusing him of heresy or actually writing a gospel...? You on the other hand said I "reject the good, and encourage the bad." You have no evidence of this at all, you just like dragging people to your own tribunal and playing judge and jury. You really need to stop with these outlandish accusations. You are poisoning the forum, and making it intolerable for others.

[Jayne]

Meanwhile, you reject Paeniteo's posts full of sound doctrine, as you make up nonsense about "the gospel according to Paeniteo".  Your comments to him were rude and uncalled for, worse than what I said to you.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I never rejected his posts about scripture, I simply said that if we treated each new thread as an opportunity to have kind, civil conversations each other instead of rehashing old issues and grudges, that this forum would be a nicer place. I didn't make up "nonsense" saying "gospel according to Paeniteo, I was kidding that he likes his own input too much. No one was accusing him of heresy or actually writing a gospel...? You on the other hand said I "reject the good, and encourage the bad." You have no evidence of this at all, you just like dragging people to your own tribunal and playing judge and jury. You really need to stop with these outlandish accusations. You are poisoning the forum, and making it intolerable for others.

I have plenty of evidence.  If I posted specific examples, you would complain that it was "rehashing old issues".   A person with a posting history like Philip's starting a thread for "fun thoughts" on Scripture is not an opportunity for "kind, civil conversations".

You just wrote a post in which you rehashed your old issues and grudges against me while scolding me for doing what you yourself are doing.  You appear to lack self-awareness.

If you really want a thread for discussing Scripture, I suggest you think about how to set it up instead of attacking me.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I never rejected his posts about scripture, I simply said that if we treated each new thread as an opportunity to have kind, civil conversations each other instead of rehashing old issues and grudges, that this forum would be a nicer place.

That was a really bizarre way to promote "kind, civil conversations".

[Philip G.]

Exodus 24:18 "And Moses, entering into the midst of the cloud, went up into the mountain, and he was there forty days, and forty nights". 

There is a reference to this passage at the bottom of the page.  It directs the reader to deuteronomy 9:9.  "When I went up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, and I continued in the mount forty days and nights, neither eating bread nor drinking water."

When I first read the passage in Exodus, I thought how unusual it was/is to separate the daytime from the night time when speaking of "days".  My first thought was, could the emphasis on nights along with days possibly mean that Moses kept vigil all forty days?  If Moses did keep vigil at night, it would certainly warrant such an emphasis in my opinion.  Because, most humans do not keep vigil at night.  They sleep at night.

When you read deuteronomy, the word that might suggest this is the word "continued".  It is not in my opinion a solid argument, but it is certainly worth the speculation in my opinion.  If I am not mistaken, Christ would go up into a mountain at night to "pray".  Are there any other scriptural examples of holy/just men keeping vigil on a mountain at night to suggest that Moses did so?

I am not (yet) of the opinion that moses didn't sleep for forty days and forty nights.  But it sure is a fun speculative thought!

[Kaesekopf]

Our Slave Master, who art in Heaven?

Why do you think it's permissible to mock the Scriptures?

Week long ban.

[Philip G.]

I have a thought about Exodus 32:1-2.  "And the people seeing that Moses delayed to come down from the mount, gathering together against Aaron, said, Arise, make us gods, that may go before us, for as to this Moses, the man that brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what has befallen him.  And, Aaron said to them, take the golden earrings from the ears of your wives, and your sons and daughters, and bring them to me."

Recall my OP with exodus 21:6.  I cannot help but think that there is a connection between the fact that perpetual hebrew servants who "had their ears bore through with an awl before the Gods", when they went to sin and make a god/idol, Aaron required that they not only remove their gold ear rings, but that the idol be made of the removed gold ear rings.  It appears to be drawing a clear parallel between idolatry, and a certain form of perpetual servitude/slavery.  Because, you cannot have ear rings, without a hole through your ear.  And, hebrews don't have a hole through their ears, unless they are a servant/slave. 

Is it possible that the uprising was spear headed by the hebrew slaves?  In St. Thomas More's book "Utopia", the slaves wore golden ear rings, and other golden jewelry.  The chains that bound them were even made of gold. 

I think these biblical passages and support material is a testament to the risk posed by the practice of slavery in all forms.  Slaves simply lack faith.  Moses was on the mount, and it was by all appearances the hebrew servants who lacked faith, and whipped up the community into the sin of idolatry. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the gold ear rings were a creation by the slaves.  It likely represents a "mark" distinguishing the two classes.  If slavery does not engender a kick down kiss up society, it will be the opposite.  It will be a kiss down, kick up society.  I mean, they did "force" Aaron to make unto them their Idol.  Aaron was wise enough to make it from their ear rings, lest he kiss down his fellow country men.  Aaron has mercy on the wives, and the children.