/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>357117
Got a link to the text? Seeing as you have read it, you must know some stuff about it. Who was it written by? Why was it not included in the Bible? Is it Apocryphal or is it Gnostic? Most texts were decided to be included in he Bible because of thousands of years ago they a council that looked over both text and sources to determine which were true. It takes more than a claim that it is God’s Word because anyone can write that, like you or me. God’s Word is consistent with both itself and true on its own.

I happen to be learning Greek, so as you provide this information, I’ll look for some manuscripts and see what it says. Seems more like a /ub/ topic by the way. Might consider putting it there in the future.

>>357117
>batpone
>no hooves
>blasphemous nun
>heeb source
I am under the impression that we are being trolled.

Beginning my research with Wikipedia. Not the best source, but helps one get started. Apparently this is a book written in Hebrew and translated into the Greek during the Septuagint project, turning a lot of Jewish text into Greek, which is how the canon of Scripture was passed to the Council of Nicaea. However, the Septuagint only translated a portion of the text. This is a red flag in it being canonical. God’s Word has survived the test of time with each book having a beginning middle and end with a solid logical through-line. Though certain sections are debated to be added in post, we don’t have any portions that were held as canon today.

Next, the text’s origin apparently was used before in Hebrew. “Although excluded from the Jewish canon, Sirach was read and quoted as authoritative from the beginning of the rabbinic period. There are numerous citations to Sirach in the Talmud and works of rabbinic literature (as "ספר בן סירא", e.g., Hagigah 13a, Niddah 16b; Ber. 11b)”. So, the Rabbis of the period it was created, our best guess being around 200 BC, used this alongside the Talmud. Another red flag. This means this book was likely used in their traditions and oral law that Jesus fought against. However, there is still hope because it seems it was dropped after some unspecified time. Perhaps it wasn’t subversive enough or contradicted what they wanted to adopt into the faith going forward.

There is additional evidence towards a canon status, in that Jesus might have quotes from it. From Sirach 51:34 “ And submit your neck to the yoke, and let your soul receive discipline: for she is near at hand to be found.” and Matthew 11:29 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Along with: Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" and Sirach 28:2 “Forgive your neighbor a wrong, and then, when you petition, your sins will be pardoned."

I am not convinced at these being referrals to canon though. Te first apparent quote seems to be that of contrast. Remember the times Jesus said you have heard it said and then made a contrast with the statements of the day? This seems to be another as the yoke Jesus is describing is himself and the burden is light, compared with Sirach saying to be disciplined by the yoke. And the other reference is found throughout other Biblical texts, as forgiveness of sin and debt is a central theme. These are what Wikipedia describes as connections. I will see about more myself once I get a hold of any translations and manuscripts I can. Seeing as there is a Greek translation by the Septuagint people, I can be confident we will get good translations. Those were done excellently back in that period, forming the basis of a lot of understanding we have about how Greek and Hebrew operate as language and how translations were done precisely.

Overall, I don’t see any evidence this was canon. I don’t know if there is any evidence it is harmful yet, but I will see what I can find. Just because a text isn’t canon doesn’t mean you have to throw it out and take nothing from it, but it doesn’t hold authority in line with the other books that have stood the test of time as what God has for us to read and follow. If Sirach says something against what Paul wrote for us, what John, what Moses, or Ezekiel, then it isn’t going to override it or make me question it for a moment, because it was not important enough to the people to preserve, present for canonization, and confirmed by people that studied these things for years that we might still hold the truth centuries on.

I see it is also Apocryphal, meaning it was only canonized around 1546. So no one that was present in the original canonization of the Bible in the council of Nicaea touched it despite having a translation in the Greek by the Septuagint. Another important part to consider.

The Wisdom of Sirach is really Jewish?
But it seems based. Does it contain any pieces of propaganda I missed?

I cannot do justice to The Wisdom of Sirach, but as I read it for the first time a couple months ago, I figured I should write a little about it here.
It's a work of ancient near eastern wisdom literature, the largest one known to survive, and covers an impressive breadth of topics. For example, the page I have open before me contains advice on child discipline, a paragraph about the importance of physical fitness, repeated warnings about the dangers of being fixated on wealth and (((profit))), advice on eating etiquette for different situations, and so on. It also contains this paragraph:
>Do not give yourself over to sorrow,
>And do not distress yourself deliberately.
>Gladness of the heart is the life of man,
>And rejoicing by a man lengthens his life.
>Love your soul and comfort your heart,
>And put sorrow far away from you;
>For sorrow has destroyed many,
>And there is no profit in it.
>Envy and anger will shorten your days,
>And worry will bring premature old age.
>A man with a good and cheerful heart
>Will pay attention to the food he eats.
I'm not sure I can completely convey this to you who haven't read it, but something about the entire book really clicked for me when I read this. It is a book full of advice and sayings on all kinds of mundane and specific situations, things many people don't really think about (the next page recommends that you don't interrupt the music at a party to make a speech, for example). Through all this, it tries to convey how our actions in the little and mundane things of life manifest higher things and affect our spiritual state, how so many things in our lives spill over into each other and affect things we wouldn't think of, and how a lot of small things can manifest something greater together. Let's look at that last sentence again:
>A man with a good and cheerful heart
>Will pay attention to the food he eats.
This could be the screed of an obsessive healthfag who tries a bunch of things in disconnection to improve "his health," as though some magic food or ingredient will make him well, or it could that of a wise man who understands how interconnected his life is and lives with care. There is a world of difference between the two, and it is Sirach's prayer that the reader may achieve the latter.

>>357122
>However, there is still hope because it seems it was dropped after some unspecified time. Perhaps it wasn’t subversive enough or contradicted what they wanted to adopt into the faith going forward.
From what I understand, the coming of Jesus led to the Jews dropping a lot of religious ideas and literature which they felt was too Christian. They had some awareness of there being multiple persons within the Godhead, for example, and pretty much abandoned the Book of Enoch entirely because portions of it were seen as too prophetic of Christianity. People really, really underestimate how much rabbinical Judaism reinvented itself out of sheer spite for Jesus.
>From Sirach 51:34 “ And submit your neck to the yoke, and let your soul receive discipline: for she is near at hand to be found.” and Matthew 11:29 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”
>I am not convinced at these being referrals to canon though. Te first apparent quote seems to be that of contrast. Remember the times Jesus said you have heard it said and then made a contrast with the statements of the day? This seems to be another as the yoke Jesus is describing is himself and the burden is light, compared with Sirach saying to be disciplined by the yoke.
I can understand how it may look like a contrast, but the verse immediately following Sirach 51:34 (51:26 in the KJV and Orthodox Study Bible) greatly clarifies this:
>See with your own eyes that I labored little,
>But found much rest for myself.
There is a burden to true wisdom, yes, but it is less than the burden of a life without it. Sirach is quite distant from the proto-talmudic autism Jesus strove against and much closer to the wisdom found in Proverbs, if that makes any sense: it is a collection of sayings and advice that linger in the mind and inform one's actions rather than being a pedantic tome of regulations.

>>357884
That sounds a lot like a direct quote of Marcus Aurelius' The Meditations.

I listened to a free audiobook of that book with half an ear while doing other stuff last week. Did I just figure out some kind of significant link?

>>357120
It's in the Septuagint, the Catholic canon. Presumed to be written by an official in Solomon's court to his son based on the content. Also called Ecclesiasticus.

>>357125
The council of Trent did not canonize any new books into the canon of scripture. It reaffirmed the canon established at the Councils of Florence(1431-1449) and Carthage (I don't remember which council of Carthage, but Sirach was considered canonical at the council of Carthage in 397)

>>357135
The Old Testament is very different from the Talmud, imo. The Old Testament is a fulfilled in Christ, but after denying Christ, Judaism went mad.

>>359626
The Septuagint is a collection of both canonical and extra-Biblical texts. Not everything that was translated is in the Bible, though a good portion would be in the Bible.

>>359627
>Trent reaffirmed the earlier one
My mistake. It must be an ancient...
>still over 1,000 years later
Oh. Well at least you have the council of Carthage. Now I can look that up and simply look for any occurrence of the book of Sirach in the text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage
>Ctrl+F Sirach
>no results
Fucking hell, where are your sources? I need them to figure this shit out. I am not even fully dismissing your position, but I can't support it with zero evidence to work with here.

>>359628
>different from the Talmud
No shit. The Talmud was formed by Pharisees and lawkeepers first by oral tradition while in Babylon captivity and then would later write it down to preserve all of their perverseness. Anyone writing separately from that collection of degenerate thoughts will look saintly, but you haven't helped me figure out if this was even in canon during the early church. It seems like it was always extra-Biblical until the Catholic church a millennium later put it in the collection haphazardly.

>>359626
>Also called Ecclesiasticus
That one shows up at least. Why on earth would you change your title so drastically. Regardless, it is only listed in a quote as being one of five books of Solomon, not actually listed as such. I will have to take it at face value, though I will now read through the text and figure out why there everyone is up in arms about this.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/sirach/0
I will be reading from a Catholic site, should there be any concern I am trying to read a forgery or something that explains for me that it is not canon. It is even quoted as saying "Though not included in the Jewish Bible after the first century A.D., nor, therefore, accepted by Protestants, the Wisdom of Ben Sira has been recognized by the Catholic Church as inspired and canonical."

I will have to immediately question why the book was removed from the Torah since they keep all other books that reference Christ. Perhaps it was erroneously put into the Torah similarly to how the church might have, or it could be Jewish meddling. Hard to say. The turn around to removing it with absolutely no issue within the same century as Christ seems hard to do, since at that time Christianity was only just starting and they wouldn't bother to weed out anything connected to Him at that time. Let's find out more.

>>359641
here's something on why there are many names to Sirach
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05263a.htm

I appreciate the work you're putting into this, fren

>>359638

The Catalogue of Cheltenham,[b] Pope Damasus I,[6] the Councils of Hippo (393) and Third Council of Carthage (397), Pope Innocent I, the second Council of Carthage (419), the Council of Florence (1442)[7] and Augustine all regarded it as canonical, although Jerome, Rufinus of Aquileia and the Council of Laodicea ranked it instead as an ecclesiastical book.[1] The Apostolic Canons (not recognized by the Catholic Church) stated as venerable and sacred the Wisdom of Sirach.[8] Pope Innocent I officially confirmed the canon of the Bible shortly after the Third Council of Carthage.[6] The Catholic Church then reaffirmed Sirach and the other deuterocanonical books in 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent, and attached an excommunication to the denial of their scriptural status.

^^
From the wikipedia page on Sirach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Sirach)

>>359642
Right off the bat we have an issue.

Chapter 1:3-4
"Heaven’s height, earth’s extent, the abyss and wisdom—who can explore them? 4 Before all other things wisdom was created; and prudent understanding, from eternity"

The earth's extend is demanded to be explored and reached for Christ by Jesus Himself.
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Next problem is that God created light first, not wisdom.
Genesis 1:1-2
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

I get he might be trying to be all deep and thought provoking, but this is the opening. I am not confident that this is inspired when you come out the gate getting the creation order wrong. Wisdom isn't listed anywhere as being created in the Bible. It is simply experience, of which God already possesses naturally since before creation, so you can't make this claim from a heavenly or earthly perspective. It makes no sense.

Even from a sin perspective, people often mistake the temptation of Eve with wisdom, when it was knowledge. Wisdom would have prevented going evil, but the knowledge obtained allowed for continual, conscious sin. I don't mean to be overly worked up over the introduction to the work, but I hope it isn't a pattern of what is to come.

>>359644
Well, I'm glad you aren't offended by my ranting. I hope it is enjoyable despite what I think of it.

That is quite a bit there. I will have to go over it sometime. But who even is Sirach anyway?
>looks up the name Ben Sira
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sira
Ah, here we are. Now, what did he do to get all of this...
>According to a Jewish legend, Ben Sira was born to the daughter of the prophet Jeremiah, after she entered a hot bath soon after her father had left it, and there received her father's seed.
Damn it all. He just has to have a vaguely mystic origin that is also typically Jewish in perverseness. What a world.
"The only fact known with certainty, drawn from the text itself, is that Ben Sira was a scholar, and a scribe thoroughly versed in the Law, and especially in the 'Books of Wisdom.'"
I will have to keep that in mind as well. We have no idea as to the nature of this guy. He could be a prophet, or he could be just anyone. Can't tell because his records are a mess and don't fit together between texts in different languages.

>>359642
Here is some of what St. Francis De Sales had to say about the canon

>>359648
>Ctrl+F Ecclesiasticus
>First mention is council of Trent
Not super helpful.
>Last mention is Calvin removing it
>Right under that is Luther removing a ton of actually canonical books
Now that is something I need to research. Removing 2nd Peter, Jude, Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd John, condemns Job as a fable. These are actually useful claims and I need to read more into them.

>>359647
The rest of the chapter is fine enough, though a lot is rehashed from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Nearly word for word I can find the same verses in those two books. Not inherently wrong, but I do find it a bit strange that someone that lived after Solomon is basically paraphrasing him for his own work. Most Scriptures have something new to say while they reference the old. Maybe it is still a warm up though, like Paul giving a greeting to whoever he is writing to.

>>359647

First, regarding the inexplorable nature of the created order. It seems a stretch to equate speaking of the impossible largeness of the universe with a denial of the Great Commission. In Job, for instance, God speaks of our inability to comprehend the universe. (Job 38:19-21)
"Hast thou viewed the whole surface of the earth itself? Tell me, if such knowledge is thine, all its secrets; where the light dwells, where darkness finds its home hast though followed either of these to the end of its journey, tracked it to its lair?"
The largeness of universe is commonly used to speak of the largeness of God. (large in a spiritual sense)
In response to your light V wisdom issue, light throughout the Bible represents wisdom. The church fathers interpreted the words of the Bible in three ways: historical or literal, allegorical, and moral. Some added a fourth way which was I think prophetical, in that the Old Testament provides many types of Christ. Take for instance, the beginning of John. Where he speaks of the Word, who was with God and was God. "In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness, a darkness which has not been able to master it." St. Thomas Aquinas takes this to mean, in the allegorical sense, that the light is understanding. That's a terrible simplifiaction, but I'll post a longer quote in my next post. Thus it would be proper to say that When God created light, He created wisdom, or understanding.

>>359653
Whoa whoa whoa. Did you just say that when God made light, the physical light that made the evening and the morning the next day, the light that existed before the sun, moon, and stars, is just a metaphor? That a physical light is wisdom? And that it was given to a formless void of earth?

>>359647
>>359653
I hate paraphrasing Aquinas, so I'll just give you a block quote.
"LECTURE 3
4b And that life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
95. Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word inso- far as he brought all things into existence; here he describes his pow- er as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v. 4b); secondly, the light’s irradiation (v. 5a); thirdly, participation in the light (v. 5b). This whole section may be explained in two ways: first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation in grace. 113
As to the first point he says, And that life was the light of men.
96. Here we should note first that, according to Augustine (114) and many others, light is more properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose (115) however, thinks that brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in whatever the name “light” is used, it implies a manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible or sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered first in sensible things, because we first used this name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; although as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible things.
97. To clarify the statement, And that life was the light of men, we should remark that there are many grades of life.116 For some things live, but do so without light, because they have no knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live and know, but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with individual and material things, as in the case with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But they do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or that are made manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is manifestive to all.
And so the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that he is life but also light, lest anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says that he is the light of men, lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as exists in the brutes.
98. But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been given to this. Chrysostom (117) says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of man, and therefore refers, in keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. Origen (118) however, says that participation in this light pertains to men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the Evangelist says, the light of men, he wants us to understand every rational nature.
99. We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, be- cause it is intellectual or rational. For whereas all things that in some way move themselves are called living, only those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures only man moves himself, properly speaking, and perfectly. For al- though other things are moved by themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not open to opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those things that are moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act themselves. But man, since he is master of his act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, man has perfect life, as does every intellectual nature.119 And so the life of the Word, which is the light of men, is perfect life.120
100. We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is first; and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, In the beginning was the Word. Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, In him was life. Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned next; And that life was the light of men. And, according to Origen,121 he fittingly attributes light to life because light can be attributed to the living.
101. We should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an object and as something in which they participate, as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external light as an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an inner light by which the eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, And that life was the light of men, can be understood in two ways. First, that the light of men is taken as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can see it, since he alone is capable of the vision of God who “teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens us more than the birds of the air” (Jb 35:11); for although other animals may know certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature it- self of truth.
The light of men can also be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be able to look upon the Word and light it- self except through a participation in it; and this participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about which the Psalm (4:7) says, “The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us,” i.e., of your Son, who is your face, by whom you are manifested.122

>>359654
No, I am suggesting that this ought to interpreted according to the allegorical sense of scripture. Not "just a metaphor" But it is true in two ways. Take, for example a footprint and a foot, one of St. Augustine's metaphors. The footprint in idea might exist as long as the foot (again in idea) has existed. However, the one is caused by the other. This is an example of hierarchical rather than linear causal chains, which is a concept Aquinas and Aristotle used to prove the existence of God. So Light, as we understand, or "see" by means of light, causes understanding, and in the same act as creating light, God has created understanding. That would explain the sentence in the literal sense as well as the allegorical

>>359655
102. Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying, And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two meanings of “darkness.”
First, we might take “darkness” as a natural defect, that of the created mind. For the mind is to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; because, although air is receptive of the light of the sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. Accord- ing to this the meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, i.e., in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. “On a man from whom the light is hidden” (Jb 3:23).
And the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to overcome something [comprehendere, to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is impossible.123 And so, the darkness did not overcome it. “Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge” (Jb 36:26); “Great in counsel, incomprehesible in thought” as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is found in that homily124 which begins, “The spiritual voice of the eagle.”
103. We can explain this passage in another way by taking “dark- ness” as Augustine125 does, for the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. “And I saw that wisdom excels folly as much as light excels knowledge” (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, therefore, because he lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the wise are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by the lack of it they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, since on its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are without that light because the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., they did not apprehend it, not being able to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted up, they did not persevere. “From the savage,” i.e., from the proud, “he hides his light,” i.e., the light of wisdom, “and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach it” (Jb 36:32); “They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her paths” (Bar 3:23).
Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless no man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is known by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men in darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way [i.e., with respect to the natural influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.126
104. Starting from And that life was the light of men, we can ex- plain this in another way, according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.
After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, And that life, of the Word, was the light of men, i.e., of all men in general, and not only of the Jews. For the Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with grace and truth. “I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth” (below 18:37); “As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world” (be- low 9:5). So he does not say, “the light of the Jews,” because although previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known to the world. “I have given you as a light to the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Is 49:6).
It was fitting to join light and life by saying, And that life was the light of men, in order to show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a participation in grace, “Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of truth and wisdom.127
105. According to this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, can be expounded in three ways, in the light of the three meanings of “darkness.”
In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment. For any sad- ness and suffering of heart can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light. “When I sit in darkness and in suffering the Lord is my light,” i.e., my joy and consolation (Mic 7:8). And so Origen128 says: In this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, is Christ coming into the world, having a body capable of suffering and without sin, but “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). The light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a likeness to sinful flesh.129 As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the darkness of the flesh, shines on the world; “I will cover the sun with a cloud” (Ex 32:7).
106. Secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness.” Looked at this way he says, the light, i.e., the Son of God, shines in the darkness, i.e., has descended into the world where dark- ness, i.e., the devils, hold sway: “Now the prince of this world will be cast out” (below 12:31). And the darkness, i.e., the devils, did not overcome it, i.e., were unable to obscure him by their temptations, as is plain in Matthew (chap. 4).130

>>359656
Not at all. I can see something and not understand it. The Jews saw Christ perfectly fulfill all the law and the prophecies and still didn't understand. That makes no sense. Wisdom isn't created, it is learned.

>>359657
107. Thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world before the coming of Christ: “You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8). And so he says that the light, i.e., the incarnate Word of God, shines in the darkness, i.e., upon the men of the world, who are blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. “To enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Lk 1:79); “The people who were sitting in the darkness saw a great light” (Is 9:2).
And the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who have struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and calumnies upon him, and finally killing, nevertheless they did not overcome it, i.e., gain the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness would not shine throughout the whole world. Wisdom (7:30) says, “compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, but wisdom,” that is, the incarnate Son of God, “is not overcome by wickedness,” that is, of the Jews and of heretics, because it says, “She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he might know that wisdom is mightier than all else” (Wis 10:12).

This is just an example of how things in the Bible, especially recurring themes, such as light, can be taken to mean many things, in addition to the literal. The allegorical truths, I think, are often deeper and more True than the historical truths, as the second deals with facts and the material, and the first deals with the spiritual and the nature of reality

>>359658
Actually, the thing about saying wisdom is created that gives me pause is that Christ, "the wisdom of God and the power of God" is not created. Furthermore, if the life which is the light of man is in the Word, and the light is created this would seem to imply that there is something in the Word which was created, which is the heresy of Arius.
Therefore, I think that on pain of heresy, we must understand the same words in different senses in certain places in scripture.

>>359659
If something is true, it will not contradict. If Jesus is Light and wisdom is light, than it was not created, as Jesus always existed. He said it Himself "Before Abraham was, I am". This doesn't work as a metaphor.

>>359660
Sorry, that was flowery. I mean that there are deeper truths and shallower truths. Facts are true, but shallow truths. The Truth of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is a deeper Truth and therefore "more true" than all the world

>>359663
But in Genesis, God creates light through His Word. Light has to have different senses if the light is in the Word and God creates light through the Word

>>359665
For example, I can say that a physically healthy man is sick. Sick must in this case be taken to mean mentally or psychologically unwell. Or I can say that a spinning top stands still in respect of its axis, but moves in respect of the object as a whole. Taking words in many senses does not imply contradiction.

>>359661
>>359663
Nice thought wave alignment. It is in trying to force a metaphor that these issues keep reoccurring.
>>359665
Then there is a difference in Jesus' Light and the light of the physical world. Jesus was making a metaphor saying it is impossible to see the truth at all without Him, as such He is the Light. However, wisdom is not Light. It is not light either. It is wisdom. I don't see the need to force this to work. The author simply tried to make language on par with the works of Solomon and didn't make the cut in the beginning. But we still have the rest of the book to go through. Perhaps it picks up. Paul was known to insert his own thoughts into the work without it being inspired as he admitted when he said that he thought being single was better than being married, but God didn't tell him that.

>>359664
This is like In Lewis' Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, where the witch knew some truths about the stone, but Aslan knew the deeper Truths

>>359669
https://youtu.be/M0Ud1wbKuqo

There is just truth. A deeper understanding doesn't make it extra true, just that you have a better grasp on what is already there. There are no deeper truths.

>>359664
For example, the death on the cross is truth. To say otherwise is falsehood. It isn't deeper truth to know that this was foretold by Scripture throughout the Bible, nor does it become secret to know that the very method was foretold by Scripture saying all that are listed up upon the tree are cursed and the bronze serpent clearly symbolizes how Christ took all sin on the cross, being cursed for our sake. That deeper understanding didn't unlock a truth. It just means I have mastery of the truth.

>>359670
Actually, it's the deepest Truths, like the treasures at the deepest depths of the ocean that we understand least. Things like the trinitarian nature of God, the mystery of the incarnation, etc.

>>359668
One question, and this isn't a get, but when do you think that the angels were created?

>>359672
Mysteries are hard to understand, but you either know the truth or you don't. There is no layers of truth, as believing contrary to the truth is a lie. There is no half-truths where you believe only on one level of truth and you need to expand it. You either believe the truth or a lie.

>>359673
The Bible does not say specifically. Therefore, it is up to speculation with provided references in Scripture to back up your claim. This means we are going to hope to arrive at the truth, but if we don't nail it, we believe a lie.

My best guess given Scriptural references is that Scripture does note that some angels are star-like. They would be created either on the fourth or sixth day along with all other creatures. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, which rules out that angels were in the beginning with Him as before all things, God is.

>>359674
I'm a bit fuzzy on your understanding of mysteries. Are you saying we either perfectly comprehend God or we believe in a false God?

>>359675
Nope, because God has revealed all of Himself that we need to understand Him in truth. The rest is not to understand until a later time when it is revealed. Any mysteries such as when angels were created is pointless and to proclaim that you have truth on it when it is not revealed by God is to promote a lie, unless you have a ton of references in Scripture to back up your claim.

>>359676
I love how these conversations always drift so far from where they started.
I think this may be a big source of conflict between us. I think that the Christian life is totally totally directed to Christ, and that therefore, as we grow in Christ's love, we grow also in our understanding of Him. Which is why I think the saints understood God in a much deeper way than I do, but the goal of the Christian is to seek God in prayer. The highest happiness of human existence is the beatific vision - to see God. It's kind of like how God first gives us milk, then meat. He gives us what is simple, then as we grow, he gives us more difficult but more nourishing Truths. Thus we can progress in our knowledge of truth without having to say that what we knew was false, but rather that it was less.

>>359677
*in prayer, and other ways like faith, hope, scripture, living an upright life

>>359676
This has been a really good conversation. I really appreciate people who take the time to dive into these things. I have to go to bed though, so have a good night.
Christus Vincit, anon!