/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

All the above.

I feel that in that way I can get the most from each story. Do I just pick and choose which part is literal or not? No. I believe the whole thing literally and metaphorically, the only way I can explains is like 'multiverse" in which there's multiple realities at once kinda thing.

It's a poem. Like Paradise Lost. It's fiction. God is a character in this poem. Its point is a moral and philospohical one. It's not an account of something that happened.

>>4126

Hebrews always treated it as a poem. They wrote it as one and always read it as one. There's no reason to even wonder if it is "literal". It's a poem !

I confirm that it's a poem. It's one of the two things that Christians get wrong (though most often American Protestants): the idea that "the Word" in John means the Bible itself (rather than the Son, the Logos) and the idea that Job is literally an account of a true story.

Job is highly interesting but not as a book that shows us what God is like, because "God" in Job is a character and written as such; the Hebrews were sophisticated enough to have literature and poetry.

For all I know, nobody disputes the poetic nature of the Book of Job. Good thing to have a thread clear it out for those who might not be aware.

>>4126

>Do I just pick and choose which part is literal or not?

No, you don't get to choose the context of those texts, they already have one. When the epistles of Paul are letters, you read them as letters, because that's what they are; with Job, you have a poem, so you read it as a poem.

If you found my shopping list, you wouldn't read it the same way you read Leviticus, and that's because you don't pick the context out of the deal: my shopping list was literally written as a list of ingredients I wanted to remember for when I was at the supermarket; if you read it as the list of things you're allowed to eat for the rest of your life, you'd better like sushis a whole lot.

Context matters a lot. But context is often not explicit in Bibles. You either have to get one with an introduction, or read about each individual book on Wikipedia.

>>4131

>Good thing to have a thread clear it out for those who might not be aware.

I've come across people who did take it literally before, now that you mention it I do think they were protestants. The rationale was that it was essentially a challenge that could not be lost (who's silly enough to think that they can win against an omnipotent God? Satan), that it would be a good test for Job and away to reward him even further.

Could I get some sources on this being a poem? I guess that doesn't translate so well into english or spanish because I would have never called it such. Fiction, metaphor; maybe, but *never* a poem.

>>4138

I'm not sure but I think it has the obvious structure of a poem, for Hebrew literature, and also the structure, and more generally, it was always discussed as such by Jewish critics from time immemorial.

It's as if you asked me how do I know that Paradise Lost is a poem. I know mostly because nobody ever suggested it was anything else, and it's much the same with Job.

Another big hint is that the books of the Old Testament are grouped by type: law, stories, poetry, chronicles, etc, and Job is put together with other poetical books (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon).

Ecclesiastes is an impressive book in the Bible, and it has confused many by just being in the Bible; that has to do with how people read what. You can't read Ecclesiastes as if Moses had written, or you'd get depressed. It's a poetic expression of the human condition, not laws, not prophecies.

I hope that's enough evidence.

>>4131

Literally almost all Protestants I know take the Word as the Son.

>>4132

That's why i added "no" after my ironic question m9

And I find that even if there's people that take it literally, they would take the same teachings as if they would take it metaphorically. Maybe it shows that they have higher faith than me

>>4139

>I hope that's enough evidence.

Objectively? I don't know. Is it enough for me personally? Yeah.

>>4140

>Literally almost all Protestants I know take the Word as the Son.

Glad to hear it.

>And I find that even if there's people that take it literally, they would take the same teachings as if they would take it metaphorically. Maybe it shows that they have higher faith than me

The moral/teaching is the same, but if you can avoid taking a man's fiction for an actual description of God in action, all the better. This is important.

>>4141

Obectively, yes, there's no question about that. What's the evidence that Paradise Lost isn't a true story written by a witness? The same as with Job: nobody ever had any reason to think it was anything else than what it was written as, a poem, starring God and Job.

Because of this, I'm also inclined to read most other OT books as potential fiction/poetry, with importance being put on the meaning, moral, rather than straight facts.

>>4310

>, all the better

why

>>4310

>Obectively, yes, there's no question about that.

Yeah but there is though, some people don't take it as poetry.

> What's the evidence that Paradise Lost isn't a true story written by a witness?

That's not in the Bible though. You know its a different case.

>nobody ever had any reason to think it was anything else than what it was written as, a poem, starring God and Job.

Do you have any sources for these claims?

> I'm also inclined to read most other OT books as potential fiction/poetry,

Dangerous. But don't forget to interpret the times when people get killed brutally literally. I don't think there's any metaphorical or allegorical way to interpret "This guy did X, kill the nigga".

>>4327

>Yeah but there is though, some people don't take it as poetry.

It doesn't matter. Some people think the whole Bible is a Roman hoax: if you have evidence that it's not, and no evidence that it is, then you can dismiss that opinion.

>That's not in the Bible though. You know its a different case.

For centuries, Job wasn't in the Bible either since there was no Bible. Job wasn't in the Torah and still isn't. These collections are selected by man, so at one point, those who compiled the Torah, the Bible, have had to ask themselves whether to incorporate them or not, and Job was chosen, but chosen as the poem it was, hence its place in the poetic section, next to Ecclesiastes and the Psalms. It's not that different at all.

>Do you have any sources for these claims?

Any expert on the Bible will do. But structure, literary devices, classification, Hebrew criticism, all of that points to it being a poem. For all I know, there is no doubt among academics. I'd compare it to Jonah.

>Dangerous. But don't forget to interpret the times when people get killed brutally literally. I don't think there's any metaphorical or allegorical way to interpret "This guy did X, kill the nigga".

There's a difference between "literal" and "metaphorical" and "nonfiction". Killing someone may be literal and fiction. You can use a metaphor in nonfiction. These things aren't related.

I just don't personally believe most of the OT is based on truth. I don't think God dictated Leviticus to Moses, and I don't think Moses wrote Leviticus either.

I'm much more about the New Testament, which I believe to be much more reliable, although not infallible. I don't exclude the possibility of fraud and error.

Most people with my opinion just stop being Christian altogether, I know, but I'd rather not throw the baby Jesus with the holy bathwater, even if there's a lot of bathwater.

>>4312

>why

Why? Why is it better not to read as fact what was written as fiction?

Because that would be a mistake and a misunderstanding between the author and the reader, and, much more gravely, it would make you think you're reading a factual account of how God behaved and spoke, when in fact you're dealing with someone writing fiction starring God.

Imagine if a friend of mine decided to write a moral poem starring God, and I showed it to you and made you believe it really happened, and you believed it, wouldn't you feel betrayed? What if that poem portrayed God in an unfavourable way? Wouldn't it be blasphemy? I'm fine with fiction involving God, but I am not fine with trying to pass it as nonfiction. Lying about God is not OK and the author of Job was very aware of it, just like all those who commented on that poem afterwards.

>>4329

I'd say this is a pretty good answer, though I still don't understand your train of thought.

Why would you believe in Jesus Christ if you have such negative views? Without it, the NT is literally just a story about mr. cool guy and his buddy going around helping people, whipping people and eating bread. He's like "I'm God", but why would you believe it if not for the OT prophecy? People claimed to be God all the time, they still do, do you believe them? The OT is the only book that lends validity to Jesus' claims aside from the BoM obviously but that's different

>>4406

>Why would you believe in Jesus Christ if you have such negative views?

such negative views of the OT I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZKuixGmiMw

>>4406

>Why would you believe in Jesus Christ if you have such negative views?

Because my view of Christ doesn't depend on the Old Testament being 100% accurate. I don't consider myself educated enough on messiahnism, I would need to study that particular subject much more before I could give you a definitive answer. It is possible to read the NT alone and choose to convert because of that; in fact, in my case, it was even worse: I had to convert because of the NT despite the Old Testament, which had made me an atheist years before.

>but why would you believe it if not for the OT prophecy?

If God shows up and does what He did, you don't need any precedents. His miracles are more of an argument than the prophecies. I don't even remember if the prophecies announced Christ's divinity at all, to be honest. Jews had widely different ideas of what the Messiah was going to be, though most expected a military leader to help them kick Roman ass.

>People claimed to be God all the time, they still do, do you believe them?

I don't know if that many people did that, actually. At any rate, no other leader survived his death (no pun) and all comparable movements faded very quickly after that leader's death, while the Christian faith did not die out after Christ's physical death. It only got stronger and stronger. That in itself is pretty amazing and a valid reason to consider it evidence too, despite the "appeal to popularity" false fallacy claims. When a majority of scientists agree on a theory, nobody calls it an "appeal to popularity". It's not about liking something only, it's about considering it likely.

>The OT is the only book that lends validity to Jesus' claims

But then, what lends validity to the OT? Going by your logic, one shouldn't trust it because nothing lends it validity. How come you can take the OT at face-value, but not the NT? What am I doing differently from you with the NT that you aren't doing with the OT?

By far, the NT is more reliable than the OT and of a nature that makes it far more "down to earth" so to speak.

>>4411

>Currently, it is difficult to do so while there are practicing Christians.

You assume Christianity is on its way out. I have zero empirical evidence to suggest this, quite the contrary. Unlike all other religions, Christianity converts massively by will alone; consider China with its 10 million converts per year: nobody forces them, the state is even against religion, yet people flock to Christ all the same. I know of no other religion that is capable of doing this. Before the Fall of Rome, the same thing happened to the European tribes, which were already converted by the time they sacked Rome.

I don't see Christianity going out any time soon. It has survived cultural clashes, other religions, science, etc. That is not the case of all religions.

>It deserves to be preserved as much as the books of the bible that have influenced us,

From a literary angle, if that's your choice, sure, but the epic of Gilgamesh has no great importance for Western culture, most people here haven't read it and it has little cultural significance compared to the Old Testament.

>>4417

>If God shows up and does what He did, you don't need any precedents. His miracles are more of an argument than the prophecies

I understand this if you are actually there and see these things, but if not, what's the difference between that and some fictional tale? Did you receive a Spiritual Witness of the New Testament?

>I don't know if that many people did that, actually.

All the Roman Emperors claimed to be the son of so and so, and today we've got people who do the same (that spanish guy from Puerto Rico claiming to be the reincarnated Jesus, for example.)

>It only got stronger and stronger.

So has Islam.

>But then, what lends validity to the OT? Going by your logic, one shouldn't trust it because nothing lends it validity. How come you can take the OT at face-value, but not the NT? What am I doing differently from you with the NT that you aren't doing with the OT?

This I cannot answer because its not something I do. I believe in Jesus because of the BoM, not the Bible. Being 100%, I believe in Jesus because Joseph Smith believed in Him so fervently, and I admire him so.

>By far, the NT is more reliable than the OT and of a nature that makes it far more "down to earth" so to speak.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't see how one book full of miracles would be more reliable than the other.

>>4447

>what's the difference between that and some fictional tale?

How do you know the OT is more than fictional tales?

>All the Roman Emperors claimed to be the son of so and so,

Roman deities aren't the same as the monotheist God, in my opinion.

>So has Islam.

That's not true. Islam is more numerous today solely because Muslims make more babies, but you don't have millions of willing converts every year. Muslims who move to non-Muslim nations very often lose the faith within a generation, if not a year, and start drinking, eating pork, and generally dropping their Muslim rituals.

>This I cannot answer because its not something I do. I believe in Jesus because of the BoM, not the Bible.

This only postpones the problem. All the way to Smith. The real question is do you trust Smith, and I guess you do.

>Can you elaborate on this?

The NT hasn't been a collection of books carried by a whole nation as part of its cultural, historical, literary foundation, it has a much humbler scope: letters to a group of people, gospels. Nothing in the NT is written as fiction or poetry, Paul's epistles have a specific goal, the gospels and the acts too. And none of that spans centuries. It isn't the imagined past of a whole nation, it doesn't contain myths (stories that explain the current situation) etc.

And they are much more recent texts, obviously. The material basis to support the NT is among the most solid of all. NT and OT are on completely different levels.

>>4451

>How do you know the OT is more than fictional tales?

I don't know that, actually. I just believe it to be true cause that's what the Prophets have taught. Although to what degree these things are important, I should research more.

>Roman deities aren't the same as the monotheist God, in my opinion.

They were probably aliums or demons, I doubt most of them were just straight up lies

>That's not true

Nigga, lets be real for a second. Islam was and is incredibly efficient at spreading its message and getting people to convert. The fact that its so all encompassing and its a political ideology, philosophy, mercantile method and governmental structure all rolled into one probably helps. That's how it ended up taking over the whole middle east, parts of Asia and so many freaking places in the pacific. Heck, its even growing in Latin America and not by the sword like it used to be.

>Muslims who move to non-Muslim nations very often lose the faith within a generation, if not a year, and start drinking, eating pork, and generally dropping their Muslim rituals.

For the sake of England, I hope that you're right. I doubt this honestly. The ones I've met here were mostly Saudis, and even though they indulged in "venial haram" stuff like smoking, the cultural connection to Islam was so strong that they still kept most of the Qur'an stuff even if they had doubts. That's what's so powerful about Islam: it becomes who you are.

>The real question is do you trust Smith, and I guess you do.

haha oh my gosh that's an understatement. I love Joseph Smith so much I worry it might be borderline heretical sometimes, even by LDS standards

> The material basis to support the NT is among the most solid of all.

I don't know how to feel about this. It seems wrong, frankly, but it seems like a pretty rational conclusion to arrive to for someone outside the Church. I hope that this approach will lead you to having more faith and a stronger bond with God; I should read up more on what the General Authorities have to say about the importance of the OT.

>>4479

>but those conversions were forced with a sword.

The problem for Christendom is that those conversions are only effective in the long run if your entire life is Islam. To do something like that in a western-style democracy would lead to people abandoning and hating the faith within a generation.

>The power of Islam is that those that deconvert cannot safely discuss its veracity.

This is true. I do believe Christendom will have to adopt some of the ways of Islam if it intends to stay influential. The ways of a secular "democracy" are cancerous to many things, among them proper morality, traditional views, white racial identity and Christianity (and Mormonism).

>>4486

Yeah let's not spread that idea. Christians deserve some credit for not being as barbarous as many other religions. If you revert to iron age savagery for the sake of relevance that's going to make things a lot more difficult for everyone involved.

>>4488

Lol I'm just one guy double dubs anon.

Hopefully it won't come to that, but if the choice is between disappearing, becoming a castrated version of ourselves that is pleasing to atheists (which is worse than disappearing), and becoming a prosperous, theocratic nation like Saudi Arabia? Well, that's no question at all.

>>4138

>Could I get some sources on this being a poem?

what

just, read the thing. I had no idea this was even a misconception. Every version of the Bible I have owned or read puts it in poem lines and verses. (in English, not sure about Spanish)

And it seems obvious to me just by reading that it is poetry, plus every writing about it I've read about it saying so. Maybe it's confusion because of our modern notion of poetry being so different, for example Hebrew poetry not rhyming (from what I've read rhyming poetry is a relatively very recent invention from Ireland)

>>4535

>Maybe it's confusion because of our modern notion of poetry being so different, for example Hebrew poetry not rhyming (from what I've read rhyming poetry is a relatively very recent invention from Ireland)

This is exactly the issue. Thank you. I was more inclined to think of it as a fable, an allegory, a metaphor or a simple tale. I can assure you that I would have *never* categorized it as a poem precisely because of this lack or lyrical or rhythmic character.

This is pretty much my interpretation

>>4547

>catholic