Reading the Bible Fun Thoughts Thread

Started by Philip G., January 28, 2022, 12:03:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Philip G.

A month or so ago I decided to read the bible again from beginning to end.  I have done it at least twice already.  And, although I am already almost done with exodus, I got the idea that commenting about what stands out to me as a I read in a thread would be fun.  Because, every time you read the bible anew there is always something new that stands out to you.

I ask that this not be a thread for any and all to jump in at any point in their reading of the bible to post their own interesting bible snippit.  I want there to be a semblance of chronological order to this.  Of course, if I post something I find interesting, and a conversation ensues, and other bible quotes from other parts of the bible are relevant and therefore brought into the conversation, that is good. 

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

Exodus 21:6. "His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant for ever." 

My thoughts, it is very normal for women to have ear rings.  But, I wonder if the though of being "forever changed by it" as this passage indicates, enters the mind of those get them?  I don't think those who pierce their ears think in this manner, about making a decision that will alter them forever.  I have never had a body piercing, so I cannot say.  But, do you think those who get a mere ear piercing think about?  And, even more so, do you think there are those who do it precisely for this reason?

The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good. 

There are the five senses.  You often see ear rings, nose rings, eye brow rings, tongue rings, and emphasis on rings on the most sensitive parts of the body to parallel the sense of "touch".  It seems there is more significance to the practice, that even ear rings may not be able to escape as a result of its common use.  Biblically speaking, it seems to imply a state of subjection.  And, women are to be subject to their husbands.  But, perhaps the practice is designed to make women subject to someone/something else?  Are they subject to those who take peircings to the extreme?  If so, that would be bad. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 12:03:07 PM
I ask that this not be a thread for any and all to jump in at any point in their reading of the bible to post their own interesting bible snippit.  I want there to be a semblance of chronological order to this.

Have you derailed threads for pages of your own rants before?

Your personal interpretations of scripture are often wrong, and it is very unwise.

I don't think this forum is a place for your own personal published commentary on the scriptures. That would be very unCatholic.

And don't you have some unfinished business to address?


TerrorDæmonum

#3
Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 12:22:06 PM
The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good.

That chapter is clearly treating slavery as a practice that is not condemned. Read the first two verses...you can buy people to serve you.

You are not fit to comment on scripture: it is very dangerous and bad for you and anybody who reads it.

Quote from: 2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

You are using your personal hidden revelations to make judgements and have "insights" that nobody else has. Mental illness leads to such clear and convincing thoughts.

And your own convictions are disordered and inconsistent. If you cannot even explain your own statements, how can you ever hope to make any sensible commentary on any other writings?

red solo cup

Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 12:22:06 PM
Exodus 21:6. "His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant for ever." 

My thoughts, it is very normal for women to have ear rings.  But, I wonder if the though of being "forever changed by it" as this passage indicates, enters the mind of those get them?  I don't think those who pierce their ears think in this manner, about making a decision that will alter them forever.  I have never had a body piercing, so I cannot say.  But, do you think those who get a mere ear piercing think about?  And, even more so, do you think there are those who do it precisely for this reason?

The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good. 

There are the five senses.  You often see ear rings, nose rings, eye brow rings, tongue rings, and emphasis on rings on the most sensitive parts of the body to parallel the sense of "touch".  It seems there is more significance to the practice, that even ear rings may not be able to escape as a result of its common use.  Biblically speaking, it seems to imply a state of subjection.  And, women are to be subject to their husbands.  But, perhaps the practice is designed to make women subject to someone/something else?  Are they subject to those who take peircings to the extreme?  If so, that would be bad.
This is as I  understand it. The ear piercing was a ceremony a slave underwent when he wished remain in his masters service...it was considered an act of love. It harkens to Psalm 40:6 "my ears you have opened."  The awl is a nail of Christ's crucifiction. Paul said he was a slave of Christ.
non impediti ratione cogitationis

Philip G.

Quote from: red solo cup on January 28, 2022, 04:42:39 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 12:22:06 PM
Exodus 21:6. "His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant for ever." 

My thoughts, it is very normal for women to have ear rings.  But, I wonder if the though of being "forever changed by it" as this passage indicates, enters the mind of those get them?  I don't think those who pierce their ears think in this manner, about making a decision that will alter them forever.  I have never had a body piercing, so I cannot say.  But, do you think those who get a mere ear piercing think about?  And, even more so, do you think there are those who do it precisely for this reason?

The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good. 

There are the five senses.  You often see ear rings, nose rings, eye brow rings, tongue rings, and emphasis on rings on the most sensitive parts of the body to parallel the sense of "touch".  It seems there is more significance to the practice, that even ear rings may not be able to escape as a result of its common use.  Biblically speaking, it seems to imply a state of subjection.  And, women are to be subject to their husbands.  But, perhaps the practice is designed to make women subject to someone/something else?  Are they subject to those who take peircings to the extreme?  If so, that would be bad.
This is as I understand it. The ear piercing was a ceremony a slave underwent when he wished remain in his masters service...it was considered an act of love. It harkens to Psalm 40:6 "my ears you have opened."  The awl is a nail of Christ's crucifixion. Paul said he was a slave of Christ.

I have no difficulty interpreting the passage.  What is to confuse?  My interest was its potential application in the modern world in regards to ear rings and body piercings. 

Psalm 40:6 in my douay reads, "my enemies have spoken evils against me, when shall he de and his name perish?"

Quite frankly, you can't just put forward an interpretation like that and not expect it to be shot down.  It is not believable in the slightest.  God does not open up our ears by striking a hole through them. That is in fact contrary to what Jesus did when he "plugged" a deaf man's ears and said "ephrata", which means "be thou opened", as the womb of one of the old testament wives was opened at a place called "ephrata"/"bethlehem".  That is how God works.  The new becomes old, and the old becomes new.  This sort of approach happens to be my interest in the original passage as it is. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

#6
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 28, 2022, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 12:22:06 PM
The spiritually side of the discussion would be evident in the scripture passage.  Whether there is any truth to it in a culturally accepted practice such as simple ear rings is debatable.  But, take the practice piercings to the extreme, and I think one can definitely associate it with something not good.

That chapter is clearly treating slavery as a practice that is not condemned. Read the first two verses...you can buy people to serve you.

You are a judaizer, and a stranger in the land.  Jeremias 34:4, which is a footnote citation of the passage you are referring to says, "At the end of seven years, let ye go every man his brother being a hebrew, who hath been sold to thee, so he shall serve thee six years, and thou shalt let him go free from thee, and you fathers did not hearken to me, nor did they incline their ear.  And, you turned to day, and did that which was right in my eyes, in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and you made a covenant in my sight in the house upon which my name is invocated.  And you are fallen back, and have defiled my name, and you have brought back again every man his manservant, and every maid his maidservant, whom you had let go free, and set t liberty.  And you have brought them into subjection to be your servants and handmaids.  Therefore thus saith the Lord, you have not hearkened to me, in proclaiming liberty to very man to his broher and every man to his friend.  Behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the lord , to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will cause you to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth."

It apparently didn't work among the "fathers", and it didn't work among the jews of this time.  Jesus said of the old covenant law elsewhere, that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that moses allowed the putting away of a wife, but in the "beginning it was not so".  The same is to be said here.  Jesus said to his apostles "do not Lord it over each other".  Meaning, there is to be no slavery among Christians.  There is to be no buying and selling of Christians.  And, if there is to be no buying or selling of Christians, there is to be no buying or selling of any human, because all humans are called to be Christian.   

Jeremias 34:9 "That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a hebrew man or a hebrew woman go free.  And that they should not lord it over them, to wit, over the jews their brethren. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

#7
Exodus 21:16 "He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of the guilt, shall be put to death." 

My take on the concept of the allowance of bondmen and bondwomen in a temporary and limited fashion(six years maximum) is that it is theoretically not all that offensive as a result of the "theocracy" of the old law.  There was no separation of powers.  Moses became the religious leader after slaying a man.  Moses was the church and the state.  As a result, there is really a singular direction the community as a whole takes.  Whether you are subject to your neighbor doesn't matter all that much because all are significantly more subject to Moses/the Judges/the Prince than any of us are in the age of the new covenant in Christ.   There is no comparison between the two.  There is a world of difference.  The new covenant under Christ is comprised of a separation of powers.  There is the secular power, and there is the religious power.  This allows for a greater degree of freedoms, for better and for worse.  Slavery, even mild, simply cannot coexist with this model/life in Christ.

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

TerrorDæmonum

#8
Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 07:36:33 PM
You are a judaizer, and a stranger in the land.

What kind of stranger? You make these statements about me, but you have to explain them. I explain what I claim. Do the same.

Quote from: Philip G. on January 28, 2022, 07:36:33 PM
Slavery, even mild, simply cannot coexist with this model/life in Christ.

Onesimus was a slave and remained a slave. Was St Paul a "judaizer"?

This statement of yours seems to deny Catholic spiritual devotion:

Quote from: True Devotion to Mary
These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

...

No other human state involves belonging more completely to another than slavery. Among Christian peoples, nothing makes a person belong more completely to Jesus and his holy Mother than voluntary slavery. Our Lord himself gave us the example of this when out of love for us he "took the form of a slave". Our Lady gave us the same example when she called herself the handmaid or slave of the Lord. The Apostle considered it an honour to be called "slave of Christ". Several times in Holy Scripture, Christians are referred to as "slaves of Christ".

Granting this, I say that we must belong to Jesus and serve him not just as hired servants but as willing slaves who, moved by generous love, commit themselves to his service after the manner of slaves for the honour of belonging to him. Before we were baptized we were the slaves of the devil, but baptism made us the slaves of Jesus. Christians must be either the slaves of the devil or the slaves of Jesus Christ.

Are you denying Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort and the Catholic devotions he promoted?

Miriam_M

Philip,
I appreciate that you have a different point of view regarding slavery, but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.  There is an infinite inequality between us and God. 

I understand the distinctions you are making between the Old and New Covenants, but the NT writer who best articulated the paradoxes of a Life in Christ was Paul, especially in Romans Chapter 6. True Christian freedom lies in conformity to Christ, who allowed Himself to become a slave to the will of His Father.  We must think of spiritual (not physical or legal) slavery as a metaphor for abandonment to God's Will, rather than captivity or passivity -- which I agree, the Christian life is not. 

Philip G.

#10
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 29, 2022, 02:49:09 PM
Philip,
I appreciate that you have a different point of view regarding slavery, but remember that slavery among equals (equals as creatures) has no bearing on "slavery" of human beings to our God on whom we are dependent in every way -- for every grace, for every blessing, for circumstances positive and negative He allows, and for life itself.  There is an infinite inequality between us and God. 

I understand the distinctions you are making between the Old and New Covenants, but the NT writer who best articulated the paradoxes of a Life in Christ was Paul, especially in Romans Chapter 6. True Christian freedom lies in conformity to Christ, who allowed Himself to become a slave to the will of His Father.  We must think of spiritual (not physical or legal) slavery as a metaphor for abandonment to God's Will, rather than captivity or passivity -- which I agree, the Christian life is not.

Miriam, your post "who allowed Himself to become a slave to the will of his Father", is an old law application.  The old covenant is no longer.   Christ said, "I am alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the lamb, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city". 

"Christ said, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first".  Let us look at some of the "last" in Christ's kingdom.  Christ gave us the parable of the good samaritan.  It spoke of a man robbed and beaten and left for dead.  It does not speak of a man robbed, beaten, and sold into slavery.  Christ heals lepers, another "last" in his kingdom.  Christ tells the cripple to "rise and take up thy bed".  The demoniac, who dwelt among the graves, cutting himself with stones, and could not be bound in chains like a slave could, is healed by Christ.  There are many examples, and no slaves or bondmen are found among them.  Christ's "last" are rejected by the slavemasters/lords.  Slave masters/"Lords" do not want them.  It is these "last" that we are in the new covenant permitted to draw a spiritual parallel with.  I do not use the word "encouraged", because in Christ's Father's house, "there are many rooms". 

Spiritual slavery is seemingly the inverse of martyrdom.  Christ was scourged and crucified "like a slave", but if he had not "died a martyr", it would be all for not.  Recall those tempting Christ with "if thou be the son of God, come down from the cross".  St. Paul says in Hebrews, "And, without shedding of blood there is no remission."  Martyrdom is the glorious gift that we cannot merit quite frankly.  It is interesting that spiritual slavery is so desirous of not having " personal merit".  Yet, Jesus said, "if you give someone a cold class of water, you shall not lose your reward".  Clearly, this manufactured approach will never rise to the level of martyrdom, despite the appearance of its image/intention.  The church teaches that we should not pursue martyrdom.  Because, only God knows if and when one is truly prepared to suffer such a fate.  "For who hath known the mind of the Lord..."?  "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." 

"But Ananias answered Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem... And, the Lord said to him, go thy way, for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."  Christ named twelve apostles.  Christ elected one St. Paul.  St. Paul is an exception, St. Paul is not a rule.  St. Paul is ironically known for this passage for a reason.  "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I indeed am of Paul, and I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.  Is Christ divided?  Was Paul then crucified for you?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Philip G.

#11
"I am alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the lamb, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city".

This is an interesting passage indeed. For within the context of alpha and omega/first and last, an analogy of clothing is referenced.  Apply that to a lord/slave narrative, and it doesn't work.  Because, a slave does not own the clothes on their back.  The fact that lots were cast for Christ's garments is evidence of this.  If we are to wash "our robes" in the blood of the lamb", what good would that do a slave?  Christ was not crucified in a robe. This is just another example of how the slavery in christendom narrative doesn't align with Christian redemption. 

Think of the saying "the emperor has no clothes".   Contextually, you are not supposed to say that even when true.  Now, how about this one?  "The slave is the food".  Soylent green is people! 

Christ is Alpha and Omega.  As omega, Christ is our food, but under the species of bread and wine, and only because he died for us.  As alpha, Christ is not butt naked before our eyes as baby Jesus, or as crucified Christ on the cross.  Christ is clothed in majesty, reigning in heaven for all eternity. 

Just as the beatific vision is seeing God as he is, on earth the parallel of this is covering of the "secrets" as scripture calls it.  We will see God's face in heaven, and we will not see man's, or God's for that matter in the man of Christ's private parts.   Shame on those catholics who promote naked baby Jesus and naked Jesus on the Cross.  It is a perversion of the truth.

 





For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: Philip G. on January 30, 2022, 02:37:13 AM
Think of the saying "the emperor has no clothes".   Contextually, you are not supposed to say that even when true.  Now, how about this one?  "The slave is the food".  Soylent green is people! 

Christ is Alpha and Omega.  As omega, Christ is our food, but under the species of bread and wine, and only because he died for us.  As alpha, Christ is not butt naked before our eyes as baby Jesus, or as crucified Christ on the cross.  Christ is clothed in majesty, reigning in heaven for all eternity. 

Just as the beatific vision is seeing God as he is, on earth the parallel of this is covering of the "secrets" as scripture calls it.  We will see God's face in heaven, and we will not see man's, or God's for that matter in the man of Christ's private parts.   Shame on those catholics who promote naked baby Jesus and naked Jesus on the Cross.  It is a perversion of the truth.

Get professional help.

Bernadette

Philip, I think you need a good commentary.
My Lord and my God.

Jayne

Quote from: Bernadette on January 30, 2022, 08:38:53 AM
Philip, I think you need a good commentary.

I don't think he wants a good commentary.  His goal does not appear to be discovering the Catholic understanding of Scripture.  He seems to be claiming that it is "fun" to make up interpretations as an exercise in creativity.  This is a deeply anti-Catholic approach to Scripture.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.