/lit/ - Literature

>>21365338
is it true that prots consider this apocryphal?

>>21365339
You know what's true?
The "OT" doesn't fit the "NT" because it's a different religion.
>>21365338
If "red pill" mean mind rot to you, sure. Traditionally it's about waking up from illusions, Matrix and all. This ain't that.

everything is vanity under the sun, pleasure and pain mean nothing, all there is is the glory of god

>>21365469
Something people refuse to hear.

>>21365402
>The "OT" doesn't fit the "NT" because it's a different religion.
You've clearly read neither

>>21365338
More like blackpill and then back to bluepill

>>21365501
The black pill is that material science is objectively true, the universe is an infinite pit of despair and all humans are evil deep down.
The final red pill is realizing that material science is proving we're all part of an interconnected being given the heavens to colonize.
the white pill is understanding this is what Isiah and Jesus were talking about

>>21365527
that’s an enormous bluepill. The OT doenst support pantheism in any way

>>21365469
True but then it doesn't mean anything. The glory of God is a great thing, it means a lot.

>>21365501
when you realize the matrix is actually brainwashing for satanic gnosticism

>>21365339
No. I teach Ecclesiastes all the time.

I feel a strong connection to Christ. profound even. but I dont feel much at all for God the Father, and I find it difficult to put the Glorification of God above all the other things that matter to me.

anyone want to chime in a recommend me some reading or share some advice or words of wisdom regarding this conundrum?

>>21365702
Christ is the human visage of God, his Son incarnate, the messenger you can talk to. I think your feelings are natural. Don't worry, They understand.

>>21365402
>he fell for the marcionism meme

>>21365702
>Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Jesus is the exact image of the Father because He was begotten of Him before all ages. Whatever the Father has, the Son also has. That includes Their love and mercy. But maybe what you sense is grounded in the fact that Christ is the mediator between the humanity and the Divine by being both perfect Man and perfect God. Man could not restore the image of God in them after the fall on their own - it's categorically impossible for him to do so. Hence, Christ came to restore that image and divinise humanity once more. We identify with Jesus because He fully took on our flesh. He hungered, He slept, He wept. But more importantly, He showed us, and is, the way back to the Father. As St Athanasius says:
>God became man that man might become God

>>21365870
I don't believe in this right wing religion crap but that sounds pretty cool desu

I've never read the bible but I occasionally come back to Ecclesiastes. I've noticed that everything pessimistic is listed "under the sun", 29 times exactly. On 2 occasions where the preacher is optimistic he lists it "under the heaven".

>>21365901
Idk what you mean by "right wing religion" but if you want to learn more read "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius if you want to learn more about Christ's importance as the God-man.

https://youtu.be/VeUiuSK81-0

>>21365402
Here's a visual of biblical cross references that begs to differ.

>>21365402
>The "OT" doesn't fit the "NT" because it's a different religion.

>>21365527

Science and Atheism are utterly retarded and super easy to debunk like a trumpian-russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?
If the universe is uncaused then why does it have physical laws that it must follow? Clearly those laws are actually imposed on the universe.
Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons and a positron , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence whereas what they call ''physical laws'' are not found inside their tiny particles (inside particles there are just other particles lmao who scripted this crap).... Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's true cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death, which will never leave him until he dies.
You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women anthropomorphized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is like their high-school calculators too, but bigger lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.

>>21365702
Yeah I used to struggle with this but the reality is that the person of Jesus Christ is the first true look humanity has ever had of the Father.

In other words the vision you have had of the Father is incorrect. You want to know what he's like? He's like Christ. Christ is described as " the exact representation of His (God's) nature" in Hebrews.

He is not a distant, angry bearded man.

Paul points out in Corinthians "The revelation of who God was to the new believer came exclusively through Jesus and him crucified."

>>21366031
The Atheist answer is that they don't know and that God is a concept explained by appealing to psychological patterns in humans (e.g. "why not worship Zeus). Basically, they think God is a bad hypothesis and are filtered if you point out the existence of God isn't a scientific argument. Most atheists are retarded.

>>21365338
It is the most profound text I've ever read, and being as short as it is I try to read it frequently.
I've read numerous translations of it and commentaries on it. I'm no KJV-onlyist, but the KJV rendition may be the best in both beauty and conveying the meaning of it (a notion which Robert Alter agrees with in his translation/commentary). The Knox version is also a nice read, and may be a good aid for those who find difficulty parsing more literal translations of the text.
I've been intending to print/bind a pocket booklet of Ecclesiastes so that I can keep a small copy on me at all times.
>>21365339
No, they read it too.

>>21366113
Yeah atheists have this stupid habit of anthropomorphising everything. The irony is they’re unwilling to apply that level of pragmatism to whatever moral claims they espouse. At least Nietzsche was consistent.

>>21365338
how do christians reconcile this and their ascetism ?

>>21366031
>atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe
Formulas are used to describe the behavior of the universe. Newton didn't invent gravity.
>If the universe is uncaused then why does it have physical laws that it must follow?
Scientific laws are theories which people cannot disprove, simple as. The universe "must" follow them or we will need to fundamentally change the way we see it.
The rest of your post warrants no response.

>>21366031
Unfathomably based

>>21365469
Dood nothing matters *inhale*

>>21365469
>>21365498
>>21365501

That’s NOT the point of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes compared follies (obsession with pleasure, obsession with wisdom) to the more simplistic enjoyment that is given to us by God. This enjoyment is repeated throughout the book:

>Nothing is better for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy his work. I have also seen that this is from the hand of God.

I don’t understand how this meme came to be that Ecclesiastes is some negative pessimistic work. It exhorts the following

> know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and do good while they live, and also that every man should eat and drink and find satisfaction in all his labor—this is the gift of God

It repeats like 5 times.

Chapter 12 is about the suffering of eventual aging but on the whole the book is life affirming

All 3 of the wisdom books (proverbs, Ecclesiastes, job) are probably the greatest works humanity had created apart from the gospels

>>21365338
The ONLY honest book in the bible

>>21365338
That Christianity causes nihilism?

>>21367046
it says that everything IN THIS LIFE is ultimatly meaningless and ends by telling you to follow god's commandments, how is it different from the rest of the bible?

>>21365814
He's correct.

>>21365702
The core concept of Christianity in regards to "who" Jesus is answers your question. If you distilled the infinite, unknowable and impossible perfection of God down into a Human, he'd be Jesus.

It's the strongest argument for Abrahamic faith in my view. It accepts the unknowable God that is impossible to personalize with as Humans feel the need to do, and gives one that is not only something we can wrap our heads around, but is generally seen as a very positive figure.

>>21367211
That doesn't make any sense at all. All of this is incoherent gibberish, and you'd be better off if you hadn't posted at all

>>21367365
makes sense to me

>>21367784
Then explain it in a coherent way. Vague, nonsensical language like this is usually a clear sign of bullshit sophistry

>>21367800
>humans are incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of god
>god distills his essence in his only begotten son
>"identical in essence but distinct in person with regard to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit"
It's a way of making Jesus both personable and empathetic, whilst also making him have the authority of God.

>>21367800
hes saying God knows that he is a highly abstract and infinitely complex being thats difficult for us to wrap our heads around, but in Christ he becomes humanized in a way that we can understand and relate to, and to know Christ and what he is all about is to better understand God and what he is all about since Christ is a humanized reflection of God

>>21367041
You missed Sirach as well

>>21366380
with the help of wikipedia one could get to the educated opionion that The Ecclesiastes is not a monologue with the presentation of one opinion, but more like a discussion of many opinions on this world and its worth in general.

Ah yes the larper's text of choice.

>>21366228
In Catholicism there are times for fasting and times for feasting. Christmas is a feast. Lent is a fast. Etc.

>>21366269
>behaviour of the universe
Why does it behave this way and not others? Why is it lawful? Where does the lawful nature come from?

>>21367907
No, it's more direct than just a reflection, Jesus Christ is God.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
(Philippians 2:5-8)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
(Colossians 2:8-9)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
(John 1:1)

How does one submit oneself to God in your day to day life? Ecclesiastes seems to make it look so easy.
I've never found prayer meaningful (part of the reason I don't practice) and whenever I go to church I get these weird quasi panic attacks where I can't breath. Submitting myself to all the tradition would feel like putting myself in a cage.

>>21366380
>I don’t understand how this meme came to be that Ecclesiastes is some negative pessimistic work.
It has a lot of statements pointing out the pointlessness and vanity (lightness) of many things in the world, but this only serves to focus and accentuate the true value and essentiality of the world to come, and it shows how all things are "incomplete" in a fundamental sense without God's judgement in this world and the reconciliation of all things to God once again at the final day. The book ends on this note:

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Eccl. 12:13-14)

So you see that without God, this picture is incomplete. It is a sad, incomplete picture. It accentuates the role that God plays in resolving all of this and how needed and irreplaceable He really is. That's what I get out of these observations about life and its vanity. Basically, you need to come to the conclusion given by the Preacher at the end of the book.

>Chapter 12 is about the suffering of eventual aging but on the whole the book is life affirming
I think there is some more to it. There are prophetic features to Eccl. 12, and closely mirror what Christ also says about the last days.

For instance when Eccl. 12:2 says, "While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened," this can be seen as a reference to the sign in the heavens of the sun being darkened and the moon not showing her light. (Joel 2:30-31, Isaiah 34:4-5, comp. Acts 2:16-21, Matthew 24:29-33, Rev. 6:12-14, Job 14:12-14)

The grinders ceasing in Eccl. 12:3 is very similar to Christ's description in Matthew 24:40-41.

The daughters of music being brought low in Eccl. 12:4 is similar to the judgment against Babylon in Revelation 18:22.

Them being afraid of that which is high is another reference to the day of the Lord. See for instance the description given of it in Zephaniah 1:

"The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
16 A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.
17 And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD's wrath;"

Finally, "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" in Eccl. 12:7 is reminiscent of the end of our world. Because here the saying "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" comes to its full completion.

>>21369012

>>21369274
>cage
I know what you mean. I was in catechism for maybe 2 or 3 months. What I came to understand is that lines like
>less he be born again
and the ideas of repentance and og sin call for a complete shift in our thinking. As we live in a world were unacknowledged sin has become the normal state of existence, this shift is almost impossible to imagine. One part of truth in Christianity seems to me to be to understand ourselves without being in Christ we are caging ourselves in sin, in hell,
>hell is locked from the inside
is a Chesterton line I think. Really it's the ego that foolishly poisons itself with it's own desires that is in snare of Satan or temptation. The reality is that by taking up the cross and being perpetually repentant, serving others without expectation, doing the will of Christ as an organism in his body the Church etc, we become free from sin and its pains or the ego's delusions wither away and we become free of individualistic conceits.
Least that's how I see it.

>>21369012
>why is red, red?
Damn you really got me nigga, there truly is a god. Wa alaykumu salam

>>21369012
>Why does it behave this way and not others?
If it behaved differently, the laws would be different. Surely you're not this retarded

>>21365338
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Wisdom
These form a tetrology. They build upon each other in order, different stages of man’s advance in wisdom.

>>21367041
eastern lit is better

>>21369241
yes yes perhaps that wasn't the best phrasing

>>21370053
The Bible is eastern lit

Why is this in the Tanakh? How did Jews cope with this? It makes perfect sense within Christianity, in that Christ is the answer/whitepill to it, but for Jews there is just death...

>>21370081
Like with Catholicism and many other religions they allegorize everything in order to not have to think about that. It's a fulfillment of what Peter said in another place in Scripture when he was talking about Paul's letters:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
- 2 Peter 3:15-16

And as Christ said:
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
- Matthew 12:36-37

>>21365339
You're probably thinking of the Ecclesiasticus or Siracide.

>>21369769
It's often presented as a pentalogy with the Song of Songs. The cycle really is the peak of the Old Testament. Slowly building from life advice and moving towards the revelation of the hypostases where the stage is set for the mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity.

>>21371072
There was apparently some dispute among early rabbis on the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but they eventually decided in their favour:

>The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal because its statements contradict each other and it is liable to confuse its readers. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah. (Talmud, Shabbat 30b)

That Talmud section goes on to explain a few rabbinic interpretations, e.g. that the very end is an instruction to follow the Torah "The conclusion, when everything has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person." (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

>>21365500
I’ve read both.

>>21366015
There’s a book by Thomas Paine you need to read.

>>21371234
The things you reference are antedated by the New Testament and they are not what I would consider inspired, so I wouldn't put much stock in them.

I also don't think councils of men decided on what would be in the Bible. Rather actually, God decided what exactly to inspire (see 2 Peter 1:20-21, Galatians 1:11-12) and then made it come to pass - by using His servants as instruments, He made it come to pass that it would be in His word. In that case, the opinions of other men or what they might have thought were ultimately irrelevant.

Like it says in Isaiah:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
(Is. 55:8-11)

>>21371380
I was only explaining the Jewish position, since that's what you mentioned. I'm not Jewish myself.

>I also don't think councils of men decided on what would be in the Bible. Rather actually, God decided what exactly to inspire (see 2 Peter 1:20-21, Galatians 1:11-12)
And who decided that 2 Peter and Galatians should be in the Bible? It's always been chosen by men. You can believe God inspired men to make the right decision, but the Bible didn't appear fully formed one day between two covers.

>>21371461
>And who decided that 2 Peter and Galatians should be in the Bible?
Well, God inspired those passages of Scripture.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
(Gal. 1:11-12)

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
(2 Tim. 3:16-17)

>It's always been chosen by men.
Some men choose incorrectly, leading to error. Some men hear the word of God and recognize that truth, including some who were with Jesus during His earthly ministry, as we read in the Bible. Christ even distinguished between those who would hear His words and those who would not. The same is true today.

>>21371476
Those verses don't lay out a canon, you don't get to the 27 books of the New Testament without the judgement of men choosing what to include or exclude. Paul was writing before several books of the New Testament even existed so he obviously wasn't talking about the canon as it exists now. We first see an unambiguous list with those 27 books only in Athanasius' 39th festal letter in 367 AD.

>>21371500
>Those verses don't lay out a canon
It's still a statement about all scripture. It meets all the requirements for telling us that God decided what was going to be inspired and written down. As it says in Scripture:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(2 Peter 1:20-21)

So you see, these things didn't come by the will of man. Rather, God is said here to have inspired these things by revelation of Jesus Christ. The judgement of individual men was not involved in the inspiration of Scripture according to what the Bible says. And it is only inspired words of God that are considered to be Scripture. See the distinction also made by Peter in another book:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
(1 Peter 1:23-25)

So we see there is a distinction made here between the words of men, which are seen as corruptible, and the word of the Lord, which is what endures eternally. And indeed, there are many more passages of Scripture, both Old and New Testament, that mention and greatly emphasize the incorruptibility and immutability of God's word. So, according to the Biblical account, it's not up to men to decide what ends up being God's word. In fact, there are those who make mistakes, putting man's word in place of God, and we would consider these foreign religions.

It's not a matter of first deciding what you identify as (i.e. a Christian), and then from there, deciding what Scriptures are. That is a backwards process and shows a mistaken approach. Rather one first hears God's word and then becomes a believer because it is self-apparently truth; presumably, one who is a believer is someone who actually wants to believe the truth. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (c.f. Rom. 10:17). There were believers in God's word before the full New Testament was written. The inspired words of God were effectual for them, without them having some fallible man or group list out for them an approved reading list. Rather, it was a conviction from the Holy Spirit that brought them to understand what was the truth.

As it says of the Holy Spirit in John 16:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
(John 16:13-14)

>>21365338
It doesn’t say anything meaningful.
>fools and the wise both die therefore…everything is vanity
huh? What does that even mean? Everyone already knows life is temporary and we all die, so what is the exact point here? I don’t see the logic.

Also, doesn’t Ecclesiastes say we all go to the same place when we die? How do Christians reconcile this with the idea of an afterlife? It very clearly says that we are just like animals and that our “spirit” leaves the body, which must refer to the animation and life within us and not some sort of conscious soul that abides somewhere else

>>21371656
>It very clearly says that we are just like animals and that our “spirit” leaves the body,
You mean this verse?

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" - Ecclesiastes 3:21

That verse seem to clearly distinguish between man and beasts though.

>>21371689
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

>>21371727
afterlifesisters…

>>21371727
>Who knows if the human spirit rises upward
That's an inaccurate translation. It doesn't say "Who knoweth IF," but rather "Who knoweth the spirit..." See what it says in the verse I already quoted.

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" - Ecclesiastes 3:21

The answer to this rhetorical question is that God knows. Whatever modern version you use quotes this passage inaccurately, so it's an example of a bad translation. As the original Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the two. Man as opposed to beast.

>>21371844
care to explain the verses leading up to it?
>they are like the animals
>the same fate awaits them both
>no advantage over the animals
>all go to the same place

>>21371850
Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

This refers to the obvious fact that the physical body of man has the same fate as that of the beasts, so at first glance by only looking at this fact, it might seem like the two are of the same value as all returns to the dust. But the rest of the passage, like the next verse and other places in the Bible show that this is only a surface level appearance.

You can look at the opening passages of Genesis, the book of Job, and Psalm 8 as some typical passages for providing context here. For instance, see what it says elsewhere in the Old Testament, and which Solomon was surely aware of.

"But none saith, Where is God my maker, who giveth songs in the night;
11 Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?"
- Job 35:10-11

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:"
- Psalm 8:4-6

>>21371880
It literally says they have the same BREATH (spirit). Keep up the mental gymnastics, it might make you smarter

>>21371578
Those verses say that scripture is inspired by God, they don't say which exact writings are actually scripture. That wasn't self evident because it took a lot of time for the current canon to be decided on (or you could say discovered). It involves councils and debates about apostolic authorship.

>>21371926
That's obviously a reference to a fact that is mentioned in Job.

"If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust."
(Job 34:14-15)

And also in Psalm 104:

"Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth."
- Psalm 104:29-30

>It literally says they have the same BREATH (spirit).
That doesn't change what Ecclesiastes 3:21 says about the difference between man and beast in the next verse. It clearly distinguishes them as being different within the next verse.

>>21371952
>That wasn't self evident
Yeah, to the believer it is.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." - John 8:47

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." - John 18:37b

>>21371959
>random irrelevant references
>yeah but the next verse is different so just ignore the contradiction mmkay?!
just admit that you don’t know how to interpret this section. It’s not that hard. “I don’t know”

>>21371973
I don't get your point, anon.

>>21371959
>Who knows that the spirit of the sons of mankind ascends upward and the spirit of the animal descends downward to the earth? 22I have seen that nothing is better than when a person is happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?
Looks more like it's expressing uncertainty to me, saying that we humans don't know for certain if a man's spirit goes to God, so he should enjoy his activities on Earth while he's alive. Considering Koheleth's skepticism towards human knowledge, it's quite appropriate.

>>21371969
Those verses are Jesus talking to people who didn't believe what he said to them in person, he isn't discussing the New Testament canon which they couldn't have read because it didn't exist yet. In any case, it took a long time for the canon to be determined, so not every book in it was recognised immediately by Christians. And it continued to be debated, especially the Old Testament, Jerome was skeptical about the books that didn't have Hebrew manuscripts, different manuscript traditions included different books, and Luther followed Jerome in seeing the non-Hebrew books as not inspired, plus he famously disapproved of the epistle of James calling it "an epistle of straw" but was eventually persuaded to keep it (he still moved it to the back of his Bible translation).

>>21372030
The canon was permanently settled by infallible authority in Rome in 382 (although constantly reconfirmed after). Simple as.

>>21371727
>god lets me love and feel compassion for animals
>"lol but there's like zero chance they go with you to the other side sorry bro lol"
wtf god

>>21371844
This anon is actually correct based on a grammatical technicality stemming from the vocalization of the Hebrew. Were it vocalized differently, it would be asking "whether the spirit ascends," but as it stands, it's asking "who knows the spirit of man that ascends." I'd bet that it doesn't get translated like the latter either because people don't trust the vocalization, they think it doesn't make sense that way, or both.

>>21372118
Why did it take 350 years if it was so simple?

>>21371982
>Providing another bad translation
Why do you keep doing this to me anon?

>>21372030
>Those verses are Jesus talking to people who didn't believe what he said to them in person, he isn't discussing the New Testament canon
The New Testament canon is the word of God, anon. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God manifest in the flesh, so when He refers to His word, He's referring to everything that is in the Lord's word. Simple as unironically.

>>21365402
>You know what's true?
>The "OT" doesn't fit the "NT" because it's a different religion.

this. finally someone who gets it

>>21369766
But they aren't. They are this way, why? Why are we capable of expressing theorises at all? Btw it's scientifically misleading to say things like "laws of the universe" isn't it? They are just well built theorises.

>>21370081
Most orthodox do actually believe in the world to come. They believe in a basically Christian version of heaven and hell. Their thought is a lot less dogmatic about it.

>>21372929
>Btw it's scientifically misleading to say things like "laws of the universe" isn't it? They are just well built theorises.
We have theories with varying degrees of accuracy, but they are determined from studying the natural world and they describe the underlying truth, however imperfectly. There are actual natural laws, as observed at all times, while the theory based on our understanding and description is an approximation of those laws.

>>21370081
>Just death
That's completely false
>>21372942
>Christian version
It's superficially comparable but conceived of very differently. Also hell isn't eternal

>>21371380
>councils
It's possible that God can inspire enough people in a council to decide that a text is conical.

>>21372987
Tell me, how is a text made to be conical?

I agree that you can have people come together to the same truth. In fact, that's what we see the churches doing in the actual New Testament. It's no surprise that believers were able to agree on the word of God. If we go by the Biblical account, they have been identifying God's word from the very beginning by virtue of its self-evident truth value, as well as by virtue of the fact that it came from the recognized prophets and apostles of God. If someone was saved, they recognized the voice of the shepherd when they heard the word of Christ, like it says in John 10:1-4. That's how they became followers of Christ in the first place, while those who didn't believe rejected it. It's still the same today. As I mentioned earlier, John 16:13-14 describes how the Holy Spirit shall guide the people of God into all truth. Each individual person who is in Christ gets guidance from God to know what is truth. John mentions this in 1 John 2:27, for instance. And God, our Creator, is our only Teacher, as it says in Matthew 23:8. We would indeed be blind and lost without our master, according to the Biblical account, so it's important to rely on Him.

>>21366380
Your entire life is a cope. Mine is too but at least I'm aware of it. Why invent a master when you could be your own?

>>21373634
>when you could be your own
lol

>>21365402
Idk
I think that the reason people consider NT as part of the bible it’s because really fits

>>21366380
>find satisfaction in all his labor
Yeah well how are we supposed to do that?

>>21371358
>read this midwit mason bro ignore the millennia of more intelligent people who retroactively BTFO every single word he ever uttered

>>21365402
>>21372927
Crazy that nobody ever thought of this for 2000 years until you two geniuses enlightened us on here. How will the church ever deal with such dangerous freethinkers as yourselves?

can any christians ITT explain how eternal life wouldn't become boring or even maddening after enough time had passed

is god just gonna lobotomize us so we can't feel the way we do now or what

>>21373634
nice try Satan kek

>>21372695
Yeah sorry, I forgot a random faggot on 4chan is the only authority on Biblical Hebrew

>>21366380
>life affirming
SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>21365907
cool observation.

>>21365338
Revelation, you mean.
>>21365402
Try reading, rather than talking; I'm really getting a bit weary of saying this to all the lazies on here.

>>21375605
How do you know what it is like, anon?

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
- 1 Cor. 2:9

>>21375605
By asking a question like that you presuppose (for argument) that God exists. If God exists, do you think he would be foolish enough to accidentally design human beings, or heaven, in such a way that you would become bored of it? No, that would be ridiculous.

>>21365527
>material science is objectively true
>the stuff we can perceive as fallible beings bounded by five senses and four dimensions is all there is and all there can be
What a bleak way to go through life

>>21376652
my parents are on the train of thought that "its lights out when we die" so if there's heaven they're not a part of it, which makes eternal life feel pointless to me.

>>21365527
>all humans are evil deep down.
was with you until this cringe shit, humans may not be too great but they're perfectly capable of genuine selflessness and decency. It happens all the fucking time, stop acting like we live in an edgelords fantasy where everyone is a soulless leech. The majority of suffering caused by humans onto eachother is unironically a result of circumstance, idiocy, self preservation, or conflicting beliefs.

>>21375605
I don't want to take this on anon, it has the possibility of becoming such a large discussion with many sub-arguments, but I'll try and give you a nudge down a line which should not remain linear - even expanding in all directions it will fail to attain the image of what is to come, yet it should be a start.

I can probably cheekily answer your question in one sentence. God is both artist and engineer of all that pleases us in this universe. And most of that as mere allegory or metaphor. Think on it.

>>21365338
>I (A)said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity.[a] 2 I (B)said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?”
DAMN normgroids got annihilated with this one. I

>>21365814
whats wrong with marcion

>>21365469
Has a more based sentence ever been written?

>>21375605
We are already in such a state anon. Eternity has been going on so long that we have arrived in this place full of suffering just for a little vacation. Every night you leave back to your place where you will be from but after another eternity you return to live tomorrow.

Oh, you probably wanted mainstream Christians.

>>21379558
Nothing about any of that has anything to do with the Bible.

>>21379952
God told me what's up. Who are you to deny the word of God?

>>21379023
When walking just walk/ when sitting just sit/ above all: don't wobble.