Book of Job

[Anonymous No.4606261]

Holy shit this book doesn't make any sense

I'm sure it was pretty obscure and paradoxical already when it was first written/put together, and the shitty translation of a shitty translation doesn't help either.

There's no clear message to be interpreted, every chapter has a person declaring his arguments against no visible target, there are chapters that are out of place and context which makes you wonder why was it included in the first place and out of nowhere new characters coming up and declaring more useless and irrelevant information IT IS A MESS

I have no idea why would Jews include this in the canon, much less Christians.

What bothers me most is that the assertions of Eliphaz and co. sound more convincing to me while the whole book is about trying to tell me that they are wrong

[Anonymous No.4606278]

The most likely "meaning" is that it's a composite tradition with subsequent authors adding new interlocutors/Job responses to one-up the dudes they thought were wrong, later being interpreted as wrong themselves, and having an interlocutor respond to THEM

[Anonymous No.4606282]

If you think attempting to seize and carry off from the text a communicable residue of general statements called 'the meaning' is anything other than a mug's game then i am lmaoing at ur life m8 haha

[Anonymous No.4606289]

Are you Christian and go to the church? Do you live by Christians standards?

Some bible's books aren't accessible to people who aren't part of the church.
Throw your fedora out and embrace the real reason to understand the true knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4606293]

>>4606261
Love Job. Christian. Will answer any question you have to the best of my ability.

Starter: Probably the first book of the bible ever written. Probably during the time of Abraham.

Protip: Job may be one of the Builders. As in, the Pyramid of Giza.

[Anonymous No.4606297]

>>4606293
What is the message you interpreted from the book?

[Anonymous No.4606301]

>>4606282
Why not? I'd like to think it's a canonical book for a reason and I'm trying to get a glance of it. Though if the case is like how this anon (>>4606278) puts it, yes it is an unprofitable venture

[Anonymous No.4606304]

Watch "A Serious Man".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iggyFPls4w

[Anonymous No.4606305]

>>4606297
That perhaps the best of us; perhaps the most righteous of us; perhaps the most clever of us; perhaps the best human being ever fell on his face and begged for mercy when faced with the living God.

[Anonymous No.4606312]

>>4606305
Sota like 1984. Or "We", more overtly.

[Anonymous No.4606331]

>>4606293
>Probably the first book of the bible ever written. Probably during the time of Abraham.
>Job may be one of the Builders. As in, the Pyramid of Giza.

[Anonymous No.4606332]

>>4606305
First of all, let me point that I'm trying to evaluate the Hebrew Bible independently from the New Testament, so I'm not looking particularly for interpretations based on Christian values of judgement and afterlife.

Why does God feel like contending with Satan? What is the point of the best human ever suffering if the standarts for judgement are considerably variable (i.e while the wicked prosper)? Is it because you take the story as a parable to show that none of the man, even the best of man, can't justify himself with God?

[Anonymous No.4606337]

I think it's the best depiction of the human ego defeated by something superior than what could arguably be considered the almost perfect human being.

[Anonymous No.4606345]

>>4606312
Not really.

God goes into great detail asking Job where he was while God was doing things like tightening Orion's belt, stirring up the Pleiades, and asked Job if he could hitch a ride on Arcturus. God never answered Job's petition; Job dropped the matter and worshiped God.

Because of that, God deemed Job righteous, and restored him twofold.

Inb4 his children were killed; they were saved as children of a righteous man, Job, and they are all in heaven now, together.

Job made many startling statements, such as "Though my flesh will decay in the ground, with these eyes, I will see God."

Job also reasoned that there must come a mediator between man and God, of man, and of God, in order for mankind and God to come to any agreements. Job reasoned that God Himself must provide this mediator; and that He must in part be this mediator.

2,000 year later, Jesus, the Son of Man, and the Son of God, is born to be just that mediator.

[Anonymous No.4606352]

helpful Job post incoming

[Anonymous No.4606356]

>>4606352
good job

[Anonymous No.4606359]

The message of Job is very clear: God is not accountable to man. Not even the best man, not even the most wretched man. Arguing that God is essentially a good-in good-out/bad-in bad-out machine, like Job's friends do, is totally asinine and I'm not sure why you'd sympathize with it. Job's response to God's speech from the whirlwind is very important, and famously difficult to translate: it has been read as everything from an acceptance of the fact that God is not a provider of justice-on-demand, preparing Job to live morally for the sake of living morally without expectation of reward, to a total rejection of God, to a total repudiation of the practice of theodicy.

>>4606331

Not to defend this post since it is kind of wack, but Job is a very archaic book in terms of language and certainly predates the Tanakh in its modern form.

>>4606332

Yeah, you have basically got it. God does not need to explain himself to you; this is the whole point of his "oh yeah? think you can do better, faggot?" attitude when he speaks from the whirlwind. Job never finds out the reason for his suffering and it is fundamentally irrelevant to his relationship with God, which in the end endures despite his suffering.

[Anonymous No.4606362]

>>4606261
The trick is that Eliphaz and co. aren't completely wrong. For instance, they are right to criticize Job for painting God in such a negative light. Their problem is that their idea of God is too simplistic to account for Job's situation. That's why Elihu comes in to present a broader perspective -- that even righteous people suffer in order to 1) increase their reliance on God, and 2) to discourage them from sinning in the future.

And then God comes in at the end to point out the absurdity of even questioning his judgment in the first place, because he's God and all.

[Anonymous No.4606370]

>>4606359
>Job's response to God's speech from the whirlwind

You mean Chapter 42 Verses 1-6?

[Anonymous No.4606376]

>>4606370

Yes.

[Anonymous No.4606385]

>>4606345
>Inb4 his children were killed; they were saved as children of a righteous man, Job, and they are all in heaven now, together.
Then in murder is only wrong so long if the victim would go to hell?

Anyway, I think the point of the story is mostly as a way of addressing when shitty things happen to people who don't deserve it. So good people can read it and say, "Hey, I'm not alone," and, "this guy was even nicer and had it worse!" and "I just gotta keep faith".

Again, "A Serious Man" is the best interpretation.

[Anonymous No.4606389]

>>4606332
Not a parable at all. I have come to terms with God's sovereignty over His creation, including mankind, and including satan and the rest of the angels.

The lower story is a search for the existence of pain and suffering; the cause of pain and suffering and sorrow, in a world made by God. Job's friends, after they do the right thing and grieve with him, begin to have philosophical debates that don't help Job at all, and many of which are specious.

Only the younger man is praised by God for saying nothing wrong; as is Job himself, whose wife told him "curse God and die" so that his torment might be over. Yet Job did not do so.

Satan's first argument was that Job only worshiped God because God enriched him. So God made Job poor, by allowing the devil to do what he does; lie, steal, and kill.

When that doesn't work, instead of admitting defeat, the Adversary claims that Job's riches were nothing to him; his family was all.

Then his health.

And yet, Job remained a righteous man, albeit with no avenue to protest what was happening to him.

When Job finally did have an avenue to protest what had happened to him, he fell on the ground and considered himself a worm before the living God.

In other words, Job saw God in the whirlwind, and realized that God is El Shaddai, the Almighty, and that he was just a man with some unusual problems.

God does not contend with satan; they are not opposites. They are not equal in strength, in nature, in substance, in power, in knowledge, in any metric you might want to apply to them. Satan is a created being; God created him.

You might ask yourself how chapter 1 got in the book in the first place, what with it happening in heaven and all; the answer is, of course, that the bible is inspired by God, and He was present.

[Anonymous No.4606400]

>>4606332
Satan, Samael, Lucifer and Beelzebub are all seperate characters

[Anonymous No.4606401]

>>4606385
Murder is man killing man, and is a violation of God's law.

God never murders; God kills.

[Anonymous No.4606426]

>>4606389
Let me paraphrase, why did God feel obliged to prove a point to Satan?

[Anonymous No.4606439]

>>4606426
He did not. God has no such needs.

What He did was to orchestrate a situation whereby we might gain wisdom and understanding into His creation, and into His character, so that like Job, we can choose to worship Him of our own volition, and without the promise of any gains/family/riches/health attached.

[Anonymous No.4606450]

>>4606401
Actually, the word "murder" ultimately comes from Latin influenced German, not Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.4606454]

>>4606359
The Great Pyramid's Architect was the Creator and that its builder was the Egyptian pharaoh Cheops, also called Khufu. Cheops was directed by shepherd-prophets who, like the biblical prophets, were men who received a special calling and anointing from God. Job, of the Bible, may have helped designed The Great Pyramid for a witness unto the Lord of Hosts in the Land of Egypt.


Whack? I think not. Job got rich somehow. Timing's right. Supernatural assistance is right. But believe as you will; it will not change the past.

[Anonymous No.4606460]

>>4606450
Thou shalt not kill

is

Thou shall not murder

and it is from the Hebrew

[Anonymous No.4606461]

>>4606460
In Exodus 20:13 we have the Fifth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Take a good look at that word “Kill”. In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means: Murder; ie - to Murder, a Murderer; to dash to pieces. Thus, Exodus 20:13 Actually reads “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”. Next, look to Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. Here, the Hebrew word translated ‘Smiteth’ is “Nakah”, which means: Murder, To Slay, to make slaughter. Thus, Exodus 21:12 Actually reads “He that Murders a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”.

[Anonymous No.4606463]

>>4606439
Job saw the whirlwind, realized God, humbled himself and protested no more, and God deemed it fitting to provide no more an answer, him being God is answer enough. While for Satan, he started the series of events that constitutes the book to provide an answer to him.

That's why I used the word "parable", that the events are not to be taken literally, and it's there only to convey a point.

[Anonymous No.4606470]

>>4606463
To use an old saw, a parable is an earthly story about a heavenly truth.

This account of Job is quite literal, even though it contains part of its story in heaven, and part on earth, and part at the conjunction of the two.

Similarly, the certain rich man and the beggar Lazarus is a true account of two men dying, the one going to paradise, and the other to sheol.

[Anonymous No.4606476]

>>4606454
You are aware of the fact that the egyptians already built pyramids before The Great Pyramid?

[Anonymous No.4606483]

>>4606476
Not many dude, all easily accounted for

All the minor pyramid building really picks up after the 26th dynasty

[Anonymous No.4606506]

>>4606483

Job wasn't a real person, you get that, right? He was a Hebrew cultural figure legendary for his righteousness (referenced in Ezekiel 14). The story is a Jewish spin on the ancient Mesopotamian theodicy motif first seen in "A man and his god".

[Anonymous No.4606524]

>still no nonchristian perspective
Ant jews or athiests care to comment on this?

[Anonymous No.4606555]

>>4606476
It is the Great Pyramid at Giza which confounds me, and it is the one I am most interested in. I do not know for sure Job was involved, but it seems clear that somebody with supernatural knowledge was.

[Anonymous No.4606561]

>>4606506
Job was a real man, with a real wife, real children, and real problems, who really came face-to-face with God.

It's a shame; the Hebrews cannot read Moses and the Prophets after the resurrection of Jesus, because a veil has been laid over their hearts, and they cannot see.

[Anonymous No.4606575]

It's God's word, he ain't gotta splain shit.

[Anonymous No.4606582]

>>4606555
Great Pyramid is Khufu, the (intentionally, out of deference for his father) slightly smaller one nearby is Khefren.

It's a filled-in evolution of the step pyramid pioneered by Djoser, and fully developed by Sneferu, Khufu's dad.

[Anonymous No.4606616]

Read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. He explains it.

If you don't get Kierkegaard then all hope is lost, OP.

Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.4606644]

>>4606616
Why do you lean on other's understanding, and not your own, or the bible?

[Anonymous No.4606676]

>>4606616
As I thought, your reference is not on point.

Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven) is an influential philosophical work by Soren Kierkegaard, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence). The title is a reference to a line from Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." - itself a probable reference to Psalms 55:5, "Fear and trembling came upon me..." (the Greek is identical).

You have to go pretty far down into the footnotes to find Kierkegaard referencing Job at all.

^ In a Journal entry from November 22, 1834 Kierkegaard explained the problem of being misunderstood by people using the literature of Goethe and Holberg
Doubtless the most sublime tragedy consists in being misunderstood. For this reason the life of Christ is supreme tragedy, misunderstood as he was by the people, the Pharisees, the disciples, in short, by everybody, and this in spite of the most exalted ideas which he wished to communicate. This is why Job's life is tragic; surrounded by misunderstanding friends, by a ridiculing wife, he suffers. The situation of the wife in The Riquebourg Family is moving precisely because her love for her husband's nephew compels her to conceal herself, and therefore her apparent coolness. This is why the scene in Goethe's Egmont (Act V, Scene 1) is so genuinely tragic. Clara is wholly misunderstood by the citizens. No doubt it is for this reason that several of Holberg's comic characters have a tragic effect. Take, for example the busybody. He sees himself encumbered with an enormous mass of concerns; everyone else smiles at him and sees nothing. The tragedy in the hypochondriac's life also stems from this — and also the tragedy in the character who is seized with a longing for something higher and who then encounters people who do not understand him.

[Anonymous No.4606716]

>>4606676
Furthermore, as you would know if you looked past the top of the Wikipedia page, the core of Fear and Trembling is from Genesis 22 (the near-sacrifice of Isaac). But the person who mentioned Kierkegaard isn't far off at all, since the idea of faith in the face of absurd and horrible circumstances is common to Abraham and Job.

[Anonymous No.4606740]

>>4606716
Um, no, Abraham exhibited no fear and trembling at all when it came to sacrificing his only begotten son, Isaac.

God told him to in a dream, and he arose early the next morning, gathered everything he needed, got the kid up, and headed off to Mt. Moriah.

Abraham had faith; Abraham is the father of faith. Abraham not once exhibited any "fear and trembling".

[Anonymous No.4606742]

>>4606644

I think he was being a bit tongue in cheek with that hyperbole, m8.

Plus there is nothing wrong with allowing a theological genius to further elucidate these matters for you.

[Anonymous No.4606751]

>>4606742
Oh, I think there is. You are putting someone between you and God, and that never has a good ending.

Even though I note that Kierkergaard urged people to make a leap of faith to believe in God. If he himself was unable to make such a leap, I will pass him on the narrow path that leads to life, having suffered nothing for following him.

[Anonymous No.4606757]

>>4606740
>only
u wot m8?

>begotten son
And yeah, using "begotten" is redundant unless you're talking about God's children.

[Anonymous No.4606764]

>>4606740
Seriously, look at literally the second paragraph of that Wikipedia page on Fear and Trembling, right below where you copypasted. Or better yet, actually read the book before daring to comment on it.

[Anonymous No.4606768]

>>4606757
Am I not?

Did Abraham not have an older son, whom he let his wife run off into the desert? And yet, did not God call Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham?

The story of Abraham and Isaac is inextricably tied up with the story of God the Father and God the Son.

Right down to where the killing field was.

[Anonymous No.4606771]

>>4606757
'Only-begotten son' is extremely significant wording from the Bible, preserved from the KJV.

Speaking of which...
>>4606740
Isaac was not Abraham's only-begotten son; Ishmael was Isaac's older brother.

[Anonymous No.4606772]

>>4606764
This is literally the second paragraph:

Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety[1] that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."[2]

[Anonymous No.4606777]

>>4606524
Theres not much to say, from an atheists perspective its simply the ultimate form of appeal to authority.

>Why do bad things happen?
>Because fuck you, I'm God, don't question me.

[Anonymous No.4606782]

>>4606771
Ah, see, there's the rub. Either you are right, or God is right.

Is Isaac Abraham's only begotten son?

What about Ishmael?

Here is the rub: Isaac is the only begotten son of faith; it was Abraham and Sarah that had Isaac, God's way, and in God's time. That child received the blessing, though he was the younger.

Ishmael was the child of the flesh; Sarah gave Abraham her handmaiden, whom she picked up in Egypt, a place Abraham should never have gone, and Abraham and Hagar had a child, Ishmael.

Ishmael is therefore the child of the handmaiden, and does not take over the child of the wife; the child of faith; the type of Jesus.

I also note that Abraham went on to have many other children with another women, Keturah, making this pronunciation of God that Isaac is Abraham's only begotten son more important.

[Anonymous No.4606785]

>>4606676
>>4606716
Fear and Trembling is probably a better introduction to Kierkegaard than Repetition.

Repetition is where Kierkegaard "explains" job.

I always thought that Kierkegaard on Abraham was more clear than Kierkegaard doing weird metonymic shit to indirectly explain what he means by repetition and how it is achieved.

[Anonymous No.4606788]

>>4606771
>'Only-begotten son' is extremely significant wording from the Bible, preserved from the KJV.
It's extremely significant in relation to God and Jesus, not any other son. God has MANY children in the Bible, he is "the father", but Christ is his only BEGOTTEN son.

[Anonymous No.4606794]

>>4606782
You don't know what the word "begotten" means.

[Anonymous No.4606799]

Amor Fati, motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.4606802]

>>4606785
I find this quote fascinating.

In tempestuous times, when the foundation of existence is tottering, when the moment shivers in anxious expectancy of what may come, when every explanation falls silent at the spectacle of the wild tumult, when a person’s innermost being groans in despair and in “bitterness of soul” cries to heaven, then Job still walks along, at the generation’s side and guarantees that there is a victory, guarantees that even if the single individual loses in the struggle, there is still a God who, just as he proportions every temptation humanly, even though the person did not withstand the temptation, will still make a way out such as he can bear it – yes, even more gloriously than any human expectancy. Only the defiant person could wish that Job did not exist, that he could completely divest his soul of the last love still present in the wail of despair, that he could whine about life, indeed curse life in such a way that there would not be even an echo of faith and trust and humility in his words, that in his defiance he could stifle the scream in order not to create the impression that there was anyone whom it provoked. Only a soft person could wish that Job did not exist, that he could instead leave off thinking, the sooner the better, could give up all movement in the most disgusting powerlessness, could blot himself out in the most wretched and miserable forgetfulness.

Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, Four Upbuilding Discourses, The Lord Gave, And The Lord Took Away; Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord. (Job 1:20-21) p. 111

It is the defiant who want to see God; it is the weak who want not to exist.

That's good.

[Anonymous No.4606812]

>>4606788
Absolutely; I was just explaining why the phrasing was used.

[Anonymous No.4606815]

>>4606788
It's important with Abraham and Isaac because God called Isaac his only begotten son.

Isaac would have been in his early to mid-30's.

Isaac was not noted to have done anything wrong; certainly nothing deserving death.

Isaac obeyed his father without question, bearing wood upon his back for the sacrifice, until he and his father were alone. Then Isaac asked his father where is the sacrifice? We have everything else.

And Abraham said the most profound thing; God will provide Himself a sacrifice.

Not the ram that was caught in the thicket, that Abraham killed; the Lamb is Jesus. God provided Himself as the Lamb, to be sacrificed, to redeem the world and all who believe. All who have faith.

I note that Abraham was not only a worshiper of YHWH, but he was his friend.

[Anonymous No.4606817]

>>4606261
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxENRH-v0Xk

[Anonymous No.4606820]

>>4606794
I do, and will explain it at more length, if you so require.

There is a mystery involved; perhaps that is why you do not see.

[Anonymous No.4606822]

>>4606751


>You are putting someone between you and God

Just because you read his work does mean that you need to prescribe to every point verbatim. He was an analytical genius who spent his life's work devoted to these issues, and you seriously think that there is no possible viewpoint or new take on the matter that he could ever introduce to you? You think that you owe it to yourself and to God to ignore the genius that He gave him?

Yes, it is clear that instruction comes from within, but genius aside he was also a fellow human being who suffered the same trials that you did and wanted to share his thoughts with others. Instead of wanting to ignore him, you should want to make honest endeavors to appreciate the voice of all men - genius or not.

There are always posters like you who display lines of solipsist arrogance with their reasoning that I find unfortunate.

[Anonymous No.4606824]

>>4606817
forgot text, this is the yale open course on Job. Job begins at 19:48. The instructor is great

[Anonymous No.4606831]

>>4606822
I find lost people to be of little to no value in my pursuit of what is holy, what is good, what is righteous.

I am very careful who I believe, and who I read, because these things are eternal, and therefore important.

[Anonymous No.4606841]

>>4606831
>I find lost people to be of little to no value in my pursuit of what is holy, what is good, what is righteous.
What faith do you profess to follow? Because you're clearly missing the essence of every major world religion right there.

[Anonymous No.4606845]

Hebrews 11 (the Hall of Faith)

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

[Anonymous No.4606849]

>>4606304
Holy shit this looks hilarious

[Anonymous No.4606852]

>>4606841
Not at all. There are many saved people. And there is only one name under heaven by which a man might be saved, and that name is Adonai Y'shua Elohim YHWH; the LORD is His name.

I follow Him, and Him alone do I follow.

[Anonymous No.4606856]

>>4606852
Lol look at the brainwashed fag everyone. So are you a boomer, nigger, 3rd world spic, or just a complete fucking terrified idiot?

[Anonymous No.4606860]

>>4606831

You've allowed your insecurities and ego to bastardize something that should be bringing you closer to your fellow man into yet again an excuse a man makes to lord his feigned superiority over his fellow person. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.4606861]

>>4606856
None, actually. I am a garden variety christian.

[Anonymous No.4606866]

>>4606860
Friendship with the world is enmity with God.

This world has been corrupted, and all men in it. To be closer to my fellow man is not my goal, when I know for certain that most people are on the broad road to destruction.

Staying with people marching into hell is not wise.

[Anonymous No.4606867]

>>4606861
>what is the Great Commission

[Anonymous No.4606872]

>>4606861
>>4606852
>go to tons of churches throughout my youth
>hope for Revelation/saving/etc
>really try hard to accept jesus/god etc
>never feel shit
>always end up going through the motions
>feel like hypocrite

I just want that blissful ignorance of people who actually believe they are saved, at this point im chalking it up to mental illness while still reserving that God exists

[Anonymous No.4606873]

Bringing it back to Job, it is amazing to me, as always, that Job could figure out that God must send a mediator to men, and that mediator, that messiah, must be God Himself.

Job knew this before any scripture was ever written.

And you, you people with a world of biblical knowledge literally at your fingertips, cannot figure out that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

[Anonymous No.4606880]

>>4606867
It is the commission I am currently obeying.

You are at the ends of the earth, and I am telling you that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and the only way into heaven.

[Anonymous No.4606884]

>>4606873
That doesnt make sense. Job isnt messianic, its an attempt to deal with the evil that occurs to good men. Indeed, at the end God communicates directly with Job, allowing him to face his accuser.

[Anonymous No.4606887]

>>4606872
The way you know that you are saved is if you know that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that God raised Him from the dead.

Romans 10:9

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

You appear to have gone in search of a muh feels experience; sometimes salvation brings that, sometimes it does not. It doesn't have to.

You can be saved and not know it.

You can be lost and not know it.

That is why the psalmist wrote to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, because it is important to know that you are saved.

You cannot into Romans 10:9 without God's supernatural help, and God will not give you His supernatural help if you do not ask for it.

[Anonymous No.4606889]

>>4606887
I guess im not saved. Ive asked for it, and felt nothing. For 30 years. Im not rejecting God, or Jesus, but he clearly hasnt chosen me. All I can do is Justice ala the epistle of James.

[Anonymous No.4606900]

>>4606884
So Job asks his big question. Job 9:1-3: "Then Job answered and said, I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with Him, he cannot answer Him one of a thousand." He said, "I can't answer one out of every thousand questions God asks me. He's God! I'm a man."

And then in verse thirty-two he longs for an answer; he says, "For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman between us, that might lay his hand upon us both." Now if you have a different translation you may read the word umpire, middleman, arbiter, or mediator instead of daysman. I prefer the word mediator. "And neither is there any mediator between us that he might lay his hand upon us both." Job was saying, "Oh God, You are holy; I am sinful. I need You. God, I can't argue with You. If you bring me into court, I can't answer one of a thousand questions. I'm a sinner. I need somebody to go between. I need somebody to bring me to You. I need somebody who can lay his hands upon us both. I need an arbiter. I need a middleman. I need a daysman. I need a mediator."

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[Anonymous No.4606903]

>>4606889
Answer these questions for me, honestly:

1. Is Jesus the Son of God?

2. Did Jesus rise from the grave on the third day after His crucifixion?

[Anonymous No.4606909]

>>4606866

I think you've fashioned yourself a biased litmus test of sorts and now you're using it to deem what does and doesn't constitute authentic sincerity.

A precept that is within itself bent on dichotomy.

Dichotomy is an unknowing of God.

Why take an absolutist stance and pontificate on something as secreted and multiform as people's resonance with the divine? You don't know anything abut this. And neither do I.

It takes a supreme arrogance to try and speak on the heart of another. I hope you realize this before it's too late for you and you devote too much of your life and your efforts to maintain this biased narrative you've begun to follow.

[Anonymous No.4606911]

>>4606899
And yet, God does, and God Himself issues quite a few dialectic choices.

For Jesus
Against Jesus

Wicked
Righteous

Lost
Saved

Heaven
Hell

Life
Death

[Anonymous No.4606917]

>>4606900
He needs a mediator because he LITERALLY wants a mediator. He wants his day in court. The whole book is full of the language of jurisprudence. Consider Job 13:15:

Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;
I will surely[a] defend my ways to his face.

He wants to face the deity that has wronged him, and in your quote is crying out for a lawyer to take his case to God. And what is great about that is, that he doesnt get his mediator. God doesnt answer his charges. It is not Messianic like the books of prophets. The wisdom literature is probably, as said above, before the messianic movement

[Anonymous No.4606922]

>>4606909
I don't know why you erased your last post; they seem identical, but for the attack on my person at the end.

I have judged no man's heart. I do not know Kierkegaard's heart, and have not heard his testimony regarding the deity of Jesus Christ, and therefore do not take what he says on the subject at face value.

He's smarter than I am.

A lot of smart people will nevertheless find their way into hellfire.

[Anonymous No.4606930]

>>4606917
It is Messianic in the sense that Jesus is revealed as the mediator, which might have been posted while you were typing.

The go-between between man and God is the Son of Man, and the Son of God, uniquely Christ Jesus.

By looking forward to Jesus, he is deemed righteous by God, on top of the righteousness he had by keeping the law, and offering sacrifices to YHWH.

[Anonymous No.4606932]

>>4606911

So you think your judgements on the hearts of other men share the same prescriptive standing as Life and Death? Right..

Do you not even SEE how ego-driven you are?

[Anonymous No.4606956]

>>4606903
1. Yes
2. Yes

But is this enough?

[Anonymous No.4606958]

>>4606932
You keep saying I have been judging men's hearts, yet that is not something I do.

I therefore wonder why you keep accusing me of that.

I therefore suspect you do not want me judging your heart.

If you are the person who posted that they were not sure if they were saved, I posted the two questions that can only be answered and known by God's supernatural revelation. It is identical to Peter's statement, and Jesus' response, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

You cannot know that, if you are not a christian.

You cannot know that, and not be a christian.

For it is what makes a man a christian. That confession, and that belief, that Jesus is the LORD, and that He rose from the dead.

That's it.

I don't know your heart; I can only search mine, and I find it an abominable horror, full of wickedness, darkness, and sin. Even now, being saved, my fleshly heart devises all sorts of wickedness that I must confess to God Himself.

God judges the hearts of men, not God's followers.

Be at peace.

[Anonymous No.4606962]

you know what a bible thumpers biggest sin is?

they are intensely boring people

[Anonymous No.4606963]

>>4606956
YES!

Oh, my, today is a redeemed day, that a brother found himself back in his Father's loving arms!

Yes! And a thousand times yes!

Rejoice, you angels in heaven! Rejoice!

[Anonymous No.4606965]

>>4606930
Jesus is irrelevant to the book of Job. I am not anti-christian, and am and always have been religious, but just like Psalms and Ecclesiastes, Job is existentialist. It asks the question of Evil. with arguments posed by Jobs "friends" and his wife, and in the end God chooses not to answer, instead chastising Job for challenging him. The ending is a cop out, Jobs suffering is reversed, when in fact many who are religious good men do not have their suffering reversed. Just as I wouldnt challenge the meaning of the Lamb in Matthew, I wouldnt put words in the mouth of the person dictated Job.

[Anonymous No.4606966]

>>4606261
>have no idea why would Jews include this in the canon, much less Christians.

Because religious people don't base their decisions off of causal logic or criteria, but rather the presupposition of the existence of an entity that somehow exists outside of the confines of matter, energy, space, and time, whose decisions are permanent, irreversible, and invariably good.

I'll let you decide what to think of them

[Anonymous No.4606973]

>>4606962
Do you know what the mark of satan's children is?

They cannot stand boredom, and will do anything to alleviate it.

[Anonymous No.4606978]

>>4606289
>Throw your fedora out and embrace the real reason to understand the true knowledge.

Disappear off the face of the Earth already.

[Anonymous No.4606979]

>>4606963
Except its not, because one must be just, and even then may never feel gods love

[Anonymous No.4606981]

>>4606965
You don't need to.

It was Jesus in the whirlwind.

Jesus is God.

Jesus it Elohim, the creator.

It was Jesus who spoke to Job.

[Anonymous No.4606992]

>>4606966
You perfectly described Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

>>4606979
You are! You are clothed with the righteousness of Christ Himself! You are represented in heaven by the Son of God, the High Priest of the Order of Melchizadek, and He is righteous and holy and just!

And so are you, in God's eyes!

Rejoice! Hallelujah! And again I say rejoice!

[Anonymous No.4606993]

>>4606289
*

[Anonymous No.4606998]

>>4606981

And this would be helpful, if any of it were true.

[Anonymous No.4607003]

>>4606998
It's all true! Let Us make mankind in Our image!

Glory, glory to the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world!

Glory to God in the highest!

I'm out!

I'm walking on air, but I'm out!

[Anonymous No.4607004]

>>4606981
sorry, but thats a cop out and proves nothing regarding jesus as the mediator as you say >>4606873. Indeed, if you merely assign "jesus" as god, then Job is accusing Jesus of ruining his life, and requires a mediator between jesus and himself.

Job looks to the divine, the trinity, however you look at it, and says "j'accuse". I dont want to insult you, but you are missing the point of the best book in the bible. it encourages one to question ones faith, and then submit to God without the question being answered

[Anonymous No.4607013]

>>4606963
All those poor native Americans who were misfortunate enough to not know about Jesus on account of not being a part of Judeo Christian culture.

Inb4 joseph smith "jesus came to murica" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4607017]

>>4607004
to add to that, by merely accepting everything god says in Job, you are not getting the fullness of the book. Job should make you look at god and ask why terrible things happen to good people, and leave you unfulfilled except in your faith. It is a test

[Anonymous No.4607027]

>>4606958

>You keep saying I have been judging men's hearts, yet that is not something I do.

Yes you do.

>>4606831

>I find lost people to be of little to no value in my pursuit of what is holy, what is good, what is righteous.

Deeming someone "lost" is judgement byproxy.

>I therefore suspect you do not want me judging your heart.

Go ahead. I'm a fuck up with a laundry list of shortcomings - at least I accept that I am human and I am trying toward a path of good. I don't need to ease the clamor of my inner inequities by judging other men and deeming them "lost" as recompense.

I find it disheartening that so many people who follow the teachings of Christ are so quick to damn and create divisions between themselves and others.

But then ego is a very devious vice.

Some of us relent to it without being able to admit that is the case.

[Anonymous No.4607096]

>>4606992
>You perfectly described Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.


Yes, I did. I also hoped I described the problems with it.

Aristotle was a philsopher and no doubt a profound thinker. It says nothing of the validity of his ideas. Many great notions are had, then subsequently proven wrong on study.

God, as an idea, has not been disproven, because he cannot be disproven. This does not prove his existence however. His inability to be disproven is a consequence of his supposed attributes. When someone puts forward an idea, the idea is usually accompanied by observable attributes.

(I.e., I suppose the existence of planets, large bodies of accumulated matter in space with their own significant gravitational pull such that most things entering their atmosphere stay there for a long time, and arguably become part of the planet) .

God, in the Judeo-Christian monotheistic sense, is not given observable attributes, except in stories where he takes on an arbitrary personality.

When asked for evidence in real life, people say things like "God is outside of space and time."

Then he is nowhere, and exists in no particular moment.

"God is outside of matter and energy, and predates matter and energy"

Then God is made of nothing, and exerts no observable force.

This leads to an irritating stalemate between Atheists and Theists.

Atheists say God doesn't exist, all his supposed attributes are the exact same attributes that are often attributed to that thing which is not a thing: Nothing: Void: Nihil.

Yet!

"Creation ex nihilo" is a catholic doctrine.

Perhaps nothing is infinite potential, infinite power, and that nothingness which is God, collapses (from grace) into an arbitrary form of matter and energy (realized potential, finite potential), existing in the prison of spacetime, suffering under arbitrary physical laws, subject to decay.

This is where things become semantic and recursive, and people talk themselves in circles all day.

If God shares attributes with nothing (at least nothing that exists in the physical, decaying universe), then that means he doesn't exist, except semantically, as the very concept of nothingness. This makes Atheists correct.

BUT!

If everything in the universe is an arbitrary physical form, temporary in nature, destined to decay and return to nothingness, then NOTHING IS PERMANENT, NOTHING IS TRUE, NOTHING IS GOD, and everything which "is," which exists, which is observable through empirical methods is essentially a lie, it will come to pass. Theists are correct.

These last two paragraphs are playing a never-ending tennis match with each other.

This is when the pantheists (though rare) come in and say "God is the very interplay between the physical universe and the nothingness it is destined to return to."

But most people don't go that far with the ideas. They just accept whatever they heard first. Faith or Doubt.

Faith in God = Doubting empricism

Faith in Empiricism = Doubting God.

[Anonymous No.4607101]

The Raymond Scheindlin translation of Job is awesome. Great /lit/erature

[Anonymous No.4607144]

>>4606261
It makes more sense with a Gnostic interpretation.

Gnostics believe that the creator god of the Old Testament was not the supreme god and was also kind of a douche.

[Anonymous No.4607154]

>>4607144
Sounds nice. Any recommended writings?

[Anonymous No.4607166]

>>4607144
>>4607154
Gnosticism is elitist bullshit which is simultaneously life-denying and self-aggrandizing.

[Anonymous No.4607174]

>>4607144
Yes, a demigod.

A creat-ure arising from nothing (who is truly God: Nothing, that is), taking on an arbitrary physical form, an arbitrary personality (jealousy, etc. Remember, persona once meant an acoustic mask worn in ancient greek theater, it is where the sound comes out: per sona) and making arbitrary decisions regarding mortals, while being subject to his own ideas.

God is NOTHING.

It was NOTHING all along.

I AM THAT I AM is all AMS which ever AMMED.

But all the ams be damned.

Carl Sagan explains that atoms are mostly empty space. Nothingness. Nothingness is the infinite potential holding up the universe.

A canvas is better than any painting because it has the potential to hold ANY painting.

A glass can potentially hold any liquid, until you fill it.

All things which exist decay. But NOTHING stays.

NOTHING is lord.

[Anonymous No.4607182]

>>4607166
Yeah, literal interpretation of esoteric, poorly translated texists is way more down to earth, cuz like, everyone's on the same page in shit, except when they're not.

Being smart = pretentious

being dumb = cool

1984 was right, ignorance IS strength, and strength is in numbers.

[Anonymous No.4607221]

>>4606973

Maybe it's just because I live in Florida, but all the Atheists kids I know are nerds who stay out of trouble, and all the Christian kids I know get in fights, get arrested, get pregnant really young, wear their crucifixes between their exposed tits, and in general seem more afraid of boredom (especially the kind of boredom you get from stuff like paying attention in science c lass) and are eager to go to church not because of the bible, but because they get to see their friends there.

People who are religious are luckier because they have the retarded hivemind support of an extremely powerful organization that doesn't have to pay taxes. Any benefit they feel from becoming religious is not bestowed by God, by by the church, and its grip it has over the Earth.

Kids and third world countries can't even eat unless the food is served to them by missionaries, on a bible.

Good luck doing things "over there" if you're secular, and want to serve starving kids soup on a math textbook.

[Anonymous No.4607228]

>>4607221

*but by the church

not

by by the church

though I would love to see bronze-age dogma go "bye bye."

[Anonymous No.4607242]

>>4607182
Cool false dichotomy there, anon.

Criticizing gnosticism does not automatically imply biblical literalism.

[Anonymous No.4607287]

>>4607242

You know what, you're right.

I have to give you a point there. False dichotomies are awful, and they divide people into camps unnecessarily, and erode middle grounds.

I'm fully willing to admit I was being sloppy.

My point stands, though, not all people who choose to have a "gnostic" interpretation of the bible are necessarily elitist/pretentious/whatever.

I hate it when someone decides to be something different, and everyone else tries to conjure up images of a person holding their pinky out and their nose to the sky. Not a gnostic, btw.

[Anonymous No.4607295]

>>4607182

>1984 was right

Oh fuck off with your "I just started reading a few months ago" level quips. Go back to Reddit.

[Anonymous No.4607302]

>>4607287
The criticism isn't so much about different automatically meaning elitist and more about the fact that they actively tried to keep their information secret and make it cryptic despite believing they had the only real truth.

[Anonymous No.4607370]

>>4606922

The only hell is the hell you make for yourself while alive.

No being with infinite compassion, whose home resides outside of the physical universe, would torture you for eternity for not "discovering him" in your life time.

Poor proto humans, shouldn't have pre-dated writing. Now they burn.

Poor animals, should've been born humans.

Poor anacephalics, shouldn't have been born without the capacity to acknowledge dogma.

Poor extraterrestrials, should've been born on Jesus's planet.

[Anonymous No.4607373]

>>4606356
You could say it was a Job well done

[Anonymous No.4607377]

>>4607287
>I have to give you a point there. False dichotomies are awful, and they divide people into camps unnecessarily, and erode middle grounds.
no they don't

[Anonymous No.4607385]

>>4607295

I read 1984 years ago. I read quite a bit, thank you. I'm reading the bible right now, actually. KJV and American standard, and Asimov's guide.

I can quote 1984 without having just read it, thanks.

I think the notion "ignorance is strength" is quite poignant in a lot of places in life, which is why I quote it.

I also never go to reddit, so please stop building a reddit-browser highschool-reader straw man, and then proceeding to screech at it while I tap at your shoulder, hesitantly.

Hate me for who I am, not who you think I am.

[Anonymous No.4607391]

>>4606887
>The way you know that you are saved is if you know that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that God raised Him from the dead.

Once saved always saved? No. That is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4607395]

Google the bible and Legos and you will get the bible reenacted by Legos

[Anonymous No.4607422]

>>4607295
1984 was highly influenced by the novel "We", which has a "Benefactor "who overtly likened to God, and his cult is directly compared to Christianity, and people without imagination are referred to as "angels".

[Anonymous No.4607426]

>>4607377
elab
orate

[Anonymous No.4607438]

>>4607373

fuck off carlos

[Anonymous No.4607440]

>>4606524
I'm an atheist, and I agree with the interpretation that it's basically a parable for finding perspective when suffering.

[Anonymous No.4607446]

>>4606616
Fear and Trembling talks about Abraham and Isaac, not Job. And anyway, it was pseudonymous, he didn't even believe what he wrote. The most we can say is that he probably wished he believed in the leap of faith, but it's still uncertain

[Anonymous No.4607447]

>>4607385
>Being THIS from reddit

Astonishing

[Anonymous No.4607455]

>>4606352
cool, I like it
>>4607373
CARLOS!

[Anonymous No.4607468]

>>4606802
>writing this good
>in a work of philosophy
>in a translation
based Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.4607474]

>>4606817
>that feel when you can barely keep up with the instructor
fuck

[Anonymous No.4607476]

>>4607385

>so please stop building a reddit-browser highschool-reader straw man

Hard not to when you quip laughably trite schoolyard shit like "1984 was right."

It's the equivalent of posting a picture of 'The Catcher in the Rye' while saying "You're all phonies".

If you don't lurk Reddit then perhaps you should start, because you're honestly too basic for this board.

[Anonymous No.4607487]

>>4607003
Are you alluding to Wittgenstein there? If so, u did güd

[Anonymous No.4607501]

>>4607395
>tfw 99% of my biblical knowledge comes from that brick testament
How do you know so much about the bible anon?

No joke, there's something unintentionally divine about enacting the whole fucking book in lego form. Kinda like Maus, it forces us to be humbled, to imagine ourselves and all our seemingly titanic struggles as insignificant trifles to god. Doubt the creator had that in mind, though.

[Anonymous No.4607534]

>>4606400
Lucifer is not even a being, if it is, maybe it's Adam

[Anonymous No.4607594]

>>4606400

First time I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me. I'm finding it hard to interpret the Old Testament in the manner in which it was received at the time. My most recent discovery, for instance, was that heaven in the OT was reserved for God and his angels alone. There was no afterlife. That made a lot of things make more sense, like some of the psalms and parts of ecclesiastes and stuff. I feel like I'm missing out on a great deal by not knowing how these texts fit in with the culture in which they were written and received.

[Anonymous No.4607641]

>>4607474
Shes a smart lady, but man does she back up her points.

[Anonymous No.4607648]

>>4606866
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

[Anonymous No.4607713]

>>4607476

If I can't quote 1984, then why did I even read it?

You're one of those impossible to please puckered assholes who, after reading something, toss it in the "been there done that" bin, so that anyone who mentions it after you seems to you like an annoying, less developed person.

You know what's trite, schoolyard shit? making quoting a book off limits just because it's oft-quoted.

"Too basic for this board."

This is a board where being an atheist immediately gets responded to with "tips fedora" 90 percent of the time. There's nothing advanced about this place, or about you. You're just looking for a reason to dislike me at this point. But I'm a nameless, faceless, fleeting character in your life.

[Anonymous No.4607718]

>>4607476

"The ignorance is strong with this one"

1894

[Question? No.4607912]

It seems the Job story is too esoteric, or too easily misunderstood to be of use.

It works for a very few people, others peg it as a counter example to faith, and still others clearly screw up its interpretation.

How would one rewrite this parable for a modern western audience to deliver the message clearly and effectively?

[Anonymous No.4609152]

>>4606817

good lecture. enjoying it.