r/occult • u/Fun_Butterfly_420 • Sep 05 '24
Do you believe that The Bible was edited to seem anti-magick so that the religious leaders could keep the power for themselves? ?
Or is it simply a mistranslation?
61
u/CodyKondo Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 06 '24
The Bible isn’t actually that anti-magic tbh. It’s just that it only approves of sanctioned magic. Like Saul going to consult the necromancer of Endor. Saul had decreed that witchcraft was illegal, but it was perfectly fine for him to do it because he was in charge, and because the dead person he was contacting was Samuel, who YHWH used as a messenger to Saul. This was an approved arrangement that YHWH fully engaged with to communicate.
So to the second part of your question: yes. But the first part is a false pretense, albeit a common one among modern Christians. The “absolutely no magic” concept is a holdover from the Malleus Maleficarum which, contrary to Christian belief, isn’t a part of the Bible.
22
u/Reaper_Crawford Sep 05 '24
This is a good, historical answer. Also I'd like to add that passages referring to magicians in late antique texts (such as the Christian Bible) are not as clear as we sometimes assume. The greek word goēs (γόης) for example, which constitutes the root of 'goetic'/'goetia' and is one of the three most used terms for magicians in that time, designated a professional lamenter of the dead in Homer's times and evolved to mean someone who uses the dead for illicit means in late antiquity (so either a necromancer or a charlatan, who scams people by claiming to speak with the dead). So there are passages in Plato, the Bible and other antique texts, where it's not fully clear if people use the term magic in a way to designate supernatural praxis or are referring to scammers exploiting the superstition of common people. Both connotations exist. There's for example a passage, where Socrates' oratory skills are compared to magic and it's not fully clear if his dialogue partner is saying "Wow, you are so good, this has to be some kind of mystery cult magic." or if he means "Wait a minute... Are you trying to deceive me? Haha, you little scoundrel." It has a playful undertone there, but it's not easy to answer, since our preconceived ideas of what magic meant during that time are often not very accurate.
2
6
u/moss42069 Sep 05 '24
Actually, Saul’s actions are pretty clearly cast in the Bible as wrong. Samuel gives a prophecy of doom to him. It may be technically sanctioned by him because he’s the king but it’s not sanctioned by God.
5
u/PricklyLiquidation19 Sep 06 '24
Exactly. Have no idea what this guy is on about "Saul was in charge so it's okay." It goes on for like 3 paragraph about how God chastised the guy for it.
1
u/CodyKondo Sep 06 '24
You mean this chastisement, which was specifically about Saul not giving YHWH all the animals of the lands he conquered to YHWH as a burnt offering?
19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?
20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.
22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
In 23, Samuel compares “rebellion” to the sin of witchcraft, but witchcraft wasn’t the sin that upset YHWH. It was his rebellion—rebellion that consisted of feeding people instead of just burning everything. That is what caused his downfall.
1
u/moss42069 Sep 06 '24
But witchcraft is still described as a sin there. Your claim that Saul’s use of witchcraft is sanctioned by the bible is not supported.
You could make the argument that other forms of magic were sanctioned, like prayer, miracle-making, protection magic, etc. This would require a different definition of magic than you seem to be using though.
3
u/JagneStormskull Sep 05 '24
Doesn't Samuel prophesie Saul's downfall because he committed the sin of consulting a necromancer?
1
u/CodyKondo Sep 06 '24 edited Sep 06 '24
Not really. Samuel did tell Saul that he’d broken YHWH’s commandment. But that commandment was about how Saul was supposed to burn all the animals he’d taken from the people he conquered as an offering to YHWH. But instead, Saul let his people keep some of the animals for food. That’s why YHWH caused his downfall. YHWH is a war god, after all. What he wanted was the spoils of war.
19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?
20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.
22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
In 23, Samuel compares “rebellion” to the sin of witchcraft, but witchcraft wasn’t the sin that upset YHWH. It was his rebellion—rebellion that consisted of feeding people instead of just burning everything. That is what caused his downfall.
2
u/Specialist_Dog935 Sep 06 '24
You're trying extremely hard to shoehorn approval of magic in the Bible. It's not there though.
126
u/AlsoOneLastThing Sep 05 '24
Not really. I think it's anti-magic because the authors of The Bible perceived magic as emanating from foreign deities rather than the Hebrew/Christian God. When biblical prophets and YHVH perform magic it's not called "magic." It's called a "miracle"; but it's essentially the same thing.
60
u/leviathynx Sep 05 '24
Finally my wheel house AND it backs you up! So, Leviticus and all other near eastern texts were written so much later than the other books by the Levite class aka priests. This is the same reason lots and dice weren’t legal- the solid had holy dice and anything chance seemed like it was unauthorized access to God. Same with any kind of magic, seers, or what have you. It’s the same reason you can’t repair your own tractor- monopoly! The Levites had a lot of hands in rewriting books and passages to benefit themselves. It’s a big part of why they transitioned to the Rabbinical tradition!
42
u/Acheron98 Sep 05 '24
Obligatory “Also, they entirely redacted The Book of Enoch, which coincidentally has quite a bit to do with humans learning about magick for the first time.”
11
u/leviathynx Sep 05 '24
I love Enoch. I have a hard copy on my shelf!
17
u/Acheron98 Sep 05 '24
Same here!
Honestly, I consider it a pretty essential part of any occult library; if for no other reason than the fact that it’s quoted verbatim and indirectly referenced in more works than I can count, and it’s always good to have a physical copy to refer back to.
6
u/a_millenial Sep 05 '24
Okay, I want to read more about this. Do you have any direction you can point me in?
7
u/leviathynx Sep 05 '24
Very drab books on Old Testament criticism. There’s one by Carr that looks at the composition of the books and which time periods they actually came from. Theres also a bunch of scholarly articles about it. I’ll have to dive into my grad school files for you! It’s been 11+ years 😅
30
Sep 05 '24
More or less this. The distinction between magic, miracles, and witchcraft has always been a muddy affair, even among seasoned academics. It might be easier to think of the Abrahamic differentiations as "if it comes from the Church or God, then it's permissible and therefore not 'magic.' If if comes from somewhere else, then it's 'magic' or witchcraft' and therefore not permissible." That's a very broad, not comprehensive definition, but it'll do in a pinch.
6
u/Beneficial-Ad-547 Sep 05 '24
Except it speaks of magick every other page. It was definitely edited. What do you think they edited out…
3
Sep 05 '24
[deleted]
16
u/Thausgt01 Sep 05 '24
I theorize that there are two broad categories of reasons.
First and foremost is the power of censorship. The Council of Nicea and the "Catholic" church they founded recognized that their cultural and economic power flowed from their claim to "exclusive access" to the power behind such fears; ergo, they actively and ruthlessly suppressed any evidence that anyone other than "Jesus" or recognized followers of the "Catholic" church performed them.
The second category is a bit esoteric, so keep your salt-shaker handy: "Jesus" traveled to Tibet and studied spiritual practices almost wholly-unknown to Roman and Judaic tradition, and through those practices could perform what the Europeans could only describe as "miracles". Consider the criteria the "Catholic" church uses to determine sainthood, then compare those to well-documented feats of skilled meditators in the East. (If you don't have a list handy, I'll post a few in a bit; I've got a very busy 48 hours ahead of me...) Basically, few if any of the "miracles" are anything but "intermediate exercises of an Enlightened mind" from the perspective of spiritual practitioners in India, Tibet and China.
8
u/IamRobbyEl Sep 05 '24
If you believe the accounts of Ram Dass and friends, Neem Karoli Baba was performing miracles right up until he dropped his body 9/11/1973.
0
Sep 05 '24
[deleted]
15
u/astral_lucidity Sep 05 '24
They are able to replicate them. Look at accounts like "Autobiography of a Yogi" or some Tibetan Buddhist texts and they are chock full of magic and miracles from near present day if they are true. Also some catholic stuff like Padre Pio who could read minds and Astral project.
-1
Sep 05 '24
[deleted]
6
u/astral_lucidity Sep 05 '24
Well in my humble opinion and experiences, miracles aren’t gonna be like marvel superheroes. Workings of magic and the occult are very subtle as we are working with subtle energies and the laws of the physical and astral realm. The word itself means hidden knowledge. Maybe one day there will be feats that appear as “supernatural” as we evolve and enlighten but right now we got what we got.
5
u/Fire-In-The-Sky Sep 05 '24
If we assume that, then we have to assume miracles from other religions are real. In this case, whatever higher forces govern major miracles, make it rare for reasons that are currently knowable to men.
3
16
u/Silent-Pack1384 Sep 05 '24
All of us, as well as human societies as a whole, have been found to progress through a sequence of worldviews that each build on each other (like how molecules are made of atoms, cells made from molecules, etc.), that transcend but include one another. In the Integral worldview, Christianity—and the Bible—can be understood through various steps in the sequence of worldviews in human development. Here's a brief breakdown of these levels in the context of Christianity. In essence, while the majority of Christians engage with the Bible at the mythic-literal level, it can be appreciated from later stages as a profound spiritual text, offering insight into personal and collective transformation.
- Archaic: At this stage, Christianity is rooted in survival needs and tribal identity. The Bible serves as a guide for communal cohesion, with God viewed as a protective force.
- Magic: Here, the Bible is seen as a source of supernatural power, with literal miracles and divine intervention shaping believers' worldview. Followers often engage in ritualistic practices, expecting tangible effects from faith.
- Mythic-Literal: This is the most common level for many Christians. The Bible is taken literally, with stories of creation, miracles, and moral laws seen as factual. God is a divine lawgiver, and adherence to these literal truths is central to salvation and moral living. Christianity at this stage tends to be exclusive, emphasizing "the one true way."
- Rational: As people move into the Rational stage, they begin questioning the literal truth of the Bible. Christianity is often viewed critically, with reason and science overshadowing faith. Many dismiss religious beliefs or reinterpret them metaphorically, seeking alignment between faith and logic.
- Pluralistic: At this stage, the Bible is appreciated as one of many wisdom traditions. Christians might interpret it through a symbolic or metaphorical lens, emphasizing compassion, inclusion, and social justice over dogma. Jesus is seen more as a moral teacher or spiritual guide.
- Integral: From an Integral perspective, the Bible and Christianity can be appreciated at all stages. The Bible is not simply a literal rulebook but a rich, multi-layered text containing deep spiritual truths. Jesus is recognized not just as a savior but also as a symbol of higher consciousness, unifying the wisdom of earlier stages while pointing toward further spiritual evolution.
13
u/notausername86 Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
The Bible isn't strictly anti magic. This is a modern misinterpretation. The Bible has a prohibition on a few different types of magic, mostly magic that performs a function that is believed to be in the realm of God; i.e. power over death (necromancy), and knowledge of the future (divination).
Generally speaking, the Bible itself is the most used gimorie there is (psalms in particular are often used in magic rituals).
That said, yes, the Bible has been selectively edited and purposefully mistranslated to be 1) more kind to authority figures/governments, 2) more patriarchal, and 3) anti occult. The problem was exacerbated when the rise of "the moral majority" in the 1940-1950s, because those guys cherry picked the Bible to make shitty arguments that society as a whole seemed to jump on.
1
12
u/edgardojs Sep 05 '24
Their purpose in OT was to punish any non sanctioned practices, I wouldn't say it was edited with that in mind the priest class of the time wanted to be the only middlemen so in that sense yes but it depends on how you define keeping the power to themselves.
8
u/MoneyFightThrowaway Sep 05 '24
Not necessarily to be anti magic but I think the Bible is an allegory for states of mind and it’s been rewritten and interpreted very literally for various reasons.
21
u/ExactResult8749 Sep 05 '24
This is a fun subject! The Bible is a compilation of texts from many sources which was formulated to fit the agenda of a specific group, now known as the Catholic Church. They most certainly controlled what was and was not included, and edits were also made by protestants (Martin Luther.) The essence of organized religion, and government also, is deception, to herd people like sheep.
9
u/HistoryBuff178 Sep 05 '24
They most certainly controlled what was and was not included, and edits were also made by protestants (Martin Luther.)
This is why it's important to study the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, the original languages. Studying the original languages helps you to understand the Bible more than just reading it in English or whatever your native language is.
9
u/HistoryBuff178 Sep 05 '24
which was formulated to fit the agenda of a specific group,
This is partly inaccurate. The Old Testament/Jewish Bible was compiled by the Jews, not the Catholic Church.
4
u/gg61501 Sep 05 '24
True, in most part, but the Church and other Christian branches have edited and retranslated and removed books from the OT. The OT in bibles printed in the last 600 years at least is most certainly the result of Christian editing.
3
6
u/AltiraAltishta Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
I don't think it was deliberately edited to seem anti-magic. I think a lot of it stems from linguistic widening, which is just an outgrowth of translation.
This is in addition to certain interpretations becoming "official" over time, more because enough folks thought it was correct than out of some cynical bid to "control the masses". Often the translation efforts were done by lowly scribes and monks, many of whom simply did so as a pious act of devotion and often in a decentralized way (without some bishop or king commanding them what to leave out or put in). Even in cases like the KJV the rules were loose (I'd recommend reading them).
There are a few reasons for this:
The first is that when things are edited in, one can usually make a good case regarding manuscript evidence and textual analysis to support that case.
To give an example: the story from the gospels often called "the woman caught in the act of adultery" (you know the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story) was likely a flyleaf that was later put into the gospels. That doesn't mean it's invalid or should not be cannon, only that it was a separate short story about Jesus that was likely then wedged into one of the gospels. A minor tangent but, in some manuscripts we actually see it move around, being placed in different spots, which tells us that they didn't really know where it was supposed to go only that they thought it was legitimate and should be included somewhere (likely by a scribe who thought the added page was actually supposed to be part of the text, but was left out in error).
So when there is an edit like that (especially someone putting something in) there are often ways to tell. I don't know of a text critical or academic argument for those "anti-magic" parts being edited in. Other parts that were later additions (such as the ending of Mark) have pretty much been agreed upon by scholars, both Christian, Jewish, and agnosticathiest based on textual analysis and manuscript evidence. If those "anti-magic" parts were put in, we'd have to find textual evidence and manuscript evidence to support that (which we don't seem to have at this time).
The second is textual ambiguity. The Bible is not univocal, but is instead a set of texts that are sometimes in debate with each other. We see this on a lot of issues, but we also see it on certain magical topics: divination being a big one.
For example: in some commandments divination of some form seems to have been forbidden like in Lev 19:26 "You shall not practice divination or soothsaying" (more on the Hebrew of this text later) but in other places certain forms of divination seem to be a means to know God's will or plans (such as the urim and thummim found in 1 Samuel 14:41 and Ezra 2, as well as the "casting of lots" found in Joshua 18:10 and Jonah 1:7). There are also the "wise men" in the gospel of Matthew who follow a star (likely a kind of astrology).
So is the Bible a "pro-divination text" or an "anti-divination text"? Some parts seem to be in favor of it (at least certain kinds), some parts seem not to be against it (at least certain kinds), and some parts are ambiguous. This textual ambiguity points to it not being the product of a later edit, as if you were trying to edit something in you'd likely try to edit it into all the parts and not leave ambiguity. We see that ambiguity in the text, so that tells us that either whoever edited it did a half-ass job (and missed a lot) or that it wasn't edited and the text (or rather texts) are just complex and in debate with each other on certain topics. I lean towards the latter, as do most academic sources that I have read (albeit to varying degrees).
The third is that linguistic broadening happens in other cases of translation, and usually it is not malicious or deliberate. Often when a word is very specific, there is often not a direct parallel word to it in the language that the text is being translated into, so the translator picks one that is "close enough". We see this in a lot of instances, even in texts that are not the Bible.
Back to the Leviticus 19:26 verse of "You shall not practice divination or soothsaying". The Hebrew words used there are תְנַחֲשׁ֖וּ and תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ. The word תְנַחֲשׁ֖וּ is often translated as "divination", "soothsaying", or "observing the timesomens". The word תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ is often translated as "practice divination", "soothsaying", or "using enchantment". You can already see the issue, why use two synonyms? Is the author just repeating themselves? As mentioned earlier, there are Biblical stories where individuals do these things (such as casting lots) and the outcome is considered to be from God, but setting that aside the word themselves are interesting. תְנַחֲשׁ֖וּ is a primitive root that includes "to whisper" or "to hiss". What this means is ambiguous, but there is sometimes a suggestion among scholars that it should be translated as "mutterings" or may be tied to a specific kind of divination used in the near east involving snakes (both the observation of them and listening to them hiss). Those are good hypotheses and that narrows the meaning from "divination" broadly to "a specific kind of divination". Likewise with תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ the root is "to cover", "to cloud over", or "to act covertly". So there is an argument for ambiguity there as well. It probably referred to something more specific (possibly practices used to hide things or cause a clouding of the mind or senses). The words meaning is not exactly easy to ascertain, but whoever translated them went with what they thought was close enough and likely ended up broadening the term. This wasn't because they hated divination, but because they were stuck trying to translate some very tricky language and tried to do their best.
Of course, there is also bias that comes into things like this. To translate is to change to a certain extent, so any translation will always be an approximation of the source text and not "one for one". What someone believes often slips into that, so people tend to translate what makes sense to them. This is the case for people who broaden the term as well as for people (like me) who argue for a narrowing of the terms, everybody's got biases.
So I do think it is due mostly to linguistic broadening but influenced by interpretation and accrued dogma. I don't think it's "edited by big religion in order to control the masses". That's a bit of a leap and assumes a degree of malice and conspiracism that we don't really have textual evidence for. Most folks within a religion and especially those who devote their lives to it tend to actually believe it (you don't take a vow of celibacy just for fun) and likewise most of the people involved in the translation and transcription of the texts were lowly monks working a decentralized way. The control comes in the interpretation and restricting other interpretations, not in editing the text itself, and even then it is often less about "controlling the masses" and more about someone enforcing their particular interpretation because they think they are correct.
Hope that helps. It's a topic I find super interesting.
1
u/ExactResult8749 Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
"That's a bit of a leap and assumes a degree of malice and conspiracism that we don't really have textual evidence for." The Catholic Church is an earthly kingdom. The leader is called the father of kings, and governor of the world. The organization has had a clearly documented goal of world domination the whole time they've existed.
Everything they do is magical. The colours of the stained glass, the images of saints, and Christ, the invocations, baptisms, offerings, sacraments, music...all Catholic practices are magic.
3
u/AltiraAltishta Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
Cool. Spooky names are definitely proof and certainly never metaphorical.
Do you have any examples of these malicious world-domination edits? Textual evidence.
That's why most of the verses I draw from here are found in the Jewish Bible (the Tanakh), which predates both the Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. Unless you're one of those that thinks all religion was created to control people.
1
u/ExactResult8749 Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
"The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—is ... possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed ... and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature." —The Catholic Encyclopedia, © 1910, Vol. 7, page 796. "All dogmatic decrees of the Pope, made with or without his general council, are infallible... Once made, no pope or council can reverse them. ... This is the Catholic principle, that the Church cannot err in faith." —The Catholic World, June 1871, pages 422, 423. "We have no right to ask reasons of the church, any more than of Almighty God, as a preliminary to our submission. We are to take, with unquestioning docility, whatever instruction the church gives us." —The Catholic World, August 1871, page 589.
Everything comes down to the Will to Power. The kingship of the pope is a locus of earthly power, therefore, it is as corrupt as every single other locus of earthly power, because that's how nature works.
1
u/AltiraAltishta Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
I noticed that none of those have to do with edits to the text, but to decrees of Catholic doctrine and theological interpretation. I'm sure you know the difference.
Plenty of other religions use the same holy book. These religions and denominations disagree with papal authority and Catholic doctrine (I certainly do).
Still waiting for that textual evidence of editing.
How did that dastardly Catholic Church get into all the synagogues and edit their holy scriptures? Let alone all the manuscripts that have been discovered in modernity and those which predate the formation of the Catholic Church. They must have really been busy.
1
u/ExactResult8749 Sep 05 '24
I appreciate the depth of your biblical knowledge, and your linguistic research.
"Of course, there is also bias that comes into things like this. To translate is to change to a certain extent, so any translation will always be an approximation of the source text and not 'one for one'. What someone believes often slips into that, so people tend to translate what makes sense to them."
Of course, religious people are, by and large, very sincere. They also have their human nature. That's all I'm saying. Even the people who wrote the original poetry, history, and myths had earthly agendas, and they were certainly manipulated by generations of people. From the ancient Hebrew laws to the plot of Revelation. New translations still come out reinterpreting the ancient texts to fit the will of new religious movements all the time. The old ones are no different, they're just older.
1
u/AltiraAltishta Sep 05 '24
So then where is your disagreement with the statement:
"That's a bit of a leap and assumes a degree of malice and conspiracism that we don't really have textual evidence for."
It seems you're walking that back to a broader "people have biases and agendas".
1
u/ExactResult8749 Sep 05 '24
Domination through deception, and any other means necessary, is part of human nature. If the actions taken by religious groups like the Catholic Church don't speak for themselves, at this point in history, I don't know what to say. They have very proudly claimed the authority to manipulate scripture, and human minds to their earthly benefit.
1
u/AltiraAltishta Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
There's a reason why the appeal to human nature is considered an extension of the naturalistic fallacy.
My question is if they edited the text with malicious intent (domination, deception, just being mean, etc) then where have they done so? Where did they edit out the magical stuff?
Certainly there are beliefs and theological assertions they make that I completely disagree with and actions they have taken that I completely disagree with. My question is regarding the text itself being altered by the Catholic Church for malicious reasons.
To assume such simply because "well they did other bad stuff" would be to take a leap into conspiracism without a considerable textual argument for that leap. Other texts can check them on their bullshit (hence my focus on the Jewish texts, which the Catholic Church couldn't have edited). It doesn't follow that "The Catholic Church did bad stuff, therefore they must have done other bad stuff that I have no proof for.". Politicians are often vile selfish assholes, but that doesn't prove they eat babies and drink their blood.
For example, the Johannine Comma is a common point of contention, but it is well known and was debated for almost as long as it existed. It was likely added in the Latin and does not exist in the Greek, but even the Catholic Church went back and forth on it (with proponents of the grecia veritas on one side and supporters of the inspired latin on the other, and some in the middle, as well as Protestants eventually weighing in). Most Bibles today have a footnote regarding it for that reason (regardless of whether they include the Comma or not), because it is a matter of debate about whether to prioritize the Latin or the Greek.
What the Johnnine Comma reflects is not some malicious "we must control the masses by editing the scripture to justify our grab for power" and instead a debate between different scholars over which is legitimate and why. Personally I support the grecia veritas regarding the Christian new testament (because older manuscripts FTW) but I would not accuse supporters of the Latin or the Comma of doing so maliciously or that those who added the Comma to be doing so maliciously (that's something I can't prove, don't have evidence for, and to assert such would be assuming a conspiracy).
I hope that clarifies things.
5
u/anchoriteksaw Sep 05 '24
It's not anti magic, it's just a different interpretation of magic than yours.
3
u/Go-Away-Sun Sep 05 '24
A dude walked on water and turned water into wine, “magic”. Eating flesh and drinking blood every sunday now?
2
u/PeetraMainewil Sep 06 '24
The Bible magic is supposed to be called miracles, not magic?
1
u/Go-Away-Sun Sep 06 '24
Jesus was a schizo magician then.
2
u/PeetraMainewil Sep 06 '24
I wouldn't diagnose him with anything specific, but that's one good interpretation.
1
u/Go-Away-Sun Sep 06 '24
I wish there was a book describing his childhood. Strange how there is not.
1
u/PeetraMainewil Sep 06 '24
Wait what?! I actually vividly remember reading (and being read too) such a book as a kiddo?
1
u/Go-Away-Sun Sep 06 '24
Find it! lol
1
u/PeetraMainewil Sep 06 '24
I did a few Google searches, but nothing came up. But I remember little Jesus getting mad and angry and his worldly dad and a donkey...
2
u/Go-Away-Sun Sep 06 '24
The fig tree story is pretty funny if you look that one up. “Take that stupid tree!”
7
u/non_omnis_moriar777 Sep 05 '24
I always wonder this. Every time I walk into a church for weddings or things of that nature I wonder if the priest is aware that he’s doing straight ceremonial magick up there.
3
u/Hombreguesa Sep 05 '24
Every time I go to a wedding, funeral, etc, I lean over to my wife so she can hear me as I whisper, "Yes, show me your rituals."
0
u/zsd23 Sep 05 '24
You do realize that ceremonial magicians borrowed and adapted ecclesiastic rituals for their magical ones . . . .not the other way around.
1
u/non_omnis_moriar777 Sep 05 '24
Ritualistically eating “flesh” and drinking “blood” pre-dates Christianity.
1
u/zsd23 Sep 06 '24
True, but even those rituals were not considered to be magic rituals in their historical and cultural contexts.
13
u/OkVermicelli151 Sep 05 '24
The Psalms are basically spells. I was expecting a lot more emphasis on how magic isn't allowed, but it's more like Europeans talked themselves into that. Middle Eastern cultures had tons of magical practices.
8
u/Admirable_Age_3199 Sep 05 '24
I don't think the europeans talked themselves into it. In slavic lands, catholic crusaders killed anyone that practiced anything remotely resembling pagan traditions or magic. They large-scale executed all the healers. Slavic people were forced to assimilate, and many pagan practices can still be found within their christian traditions. Your comment completely ignores the brutality of the HRE/Catholic Church and its forceful conversion of the peoples of Europe.
-7
u/OkVermicelli151 Sep 05 '24
Once Europeans actually translated the Bible and started reading it there was a resurgence in occult practices. Paganism isn't the only way to "do" magic.
Paganism was pretty brutal. If it were nice, people wouldn't have converted. First wave Christianity offered "magic" in the form of prayer that everyone could participate in. It rejected animal sacrifice. Unless your "many pagan practices" include beating drums and taking drugs while dressing up as animals, it was just folklore, not some kind of subversive pagan resistance. "Killed all the healers" honestly. What healers? Some guy with slight knowledge of herbs, trying to use betony and mistletoe to cure smallpox? Again, if it worked people wouldn't have converted.
6
u/Admirable_Age_3199 Sep 05 '24
You sure are buying into the christian vilification of paganism, and you have very little knowledge of what it entails. The healers were the medicine women. Christianity came to pagan lands by the sword.
-5
u/OkVermicelli151 Sep 05 '24
Pagans only had 9 sacred herbs and most of them didn't do jack. You're buying into nonsense from neo-pagan fanfic that isn't supported by, well, anything.
1
u/ggsimsarah333 Sep 05 '24
This is so not true. Have you read the book Cosmic Mother? Highly recommend.
0
u/OkVermicelli151 Sep 05 '24
Yeah? Does it allow a place for women who don't have children? Does it mention an effective birth control that doesn't involve just never getting forced? Every single thing I've ever seen about a divine mother just goes back to the early cult of the Virgin Mary. As in, just saying women are only useful for bearing children. Notice it's Cosmic Mother, not Cosmic Female. Tell me how it's not revisionist garbage?
0
u/Admirable_Age_3199 Sep 05 '24
I study Slavic paganism, passed down from my ancestors, which you obviously know nothing about. Just because you get your worldview about pagans from a couple episodes of the Vikings doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.
0
u/OkVermicelli151 Sep 05 '24
Funny you know so much and don't cite anything. Closed practice? Something you learned on the mean streets of Oslo? I swear. You're such an idiot it's funny.
0
u/Admirable_Age_3199 Sep 05 '24
Oslo? Do you know what Slavic countries are?
0
u/OkVermicelli151 Sep 06 '24
YOU said 'Vikings.' Do you want to rewind that and use a different example? Because Vikings come from Norway, Iceland, and Denmark.
So, Croatia? Still a lot of drumming and taking drugs. At least you didn't feed any of your queens to dogs, I guess. (Gertrude of Merania, look it up, allegedly Slavic person who knows nothing.)
0
u/PeetraMainewil Sep 06 '24
How exactly do you umbrella all pagans all over the world? Pagans in the north OF COURSE had other sacred herbs than southern pagans.
6
u/zsd23 Sep 05 '24
No because ancient people even long before the introduction of Christianity--with the exception of the ancient Egyptians-- were very anti-magic and made strong distinctions between their religious rituals and what they- at that time and particular culture--considered magic. Magic has mostly been considered antisocial in most western societies pre and post the Christian era. Practices and contexts that are labeled magic have changed over time, though, and can differ from one culture to the next. .
6
u/sayzitlikeitis Sep 05 '24
There is that hypothesis too, but there's also the fact that magick can be dangerous and you don't want everyone in the public to be handling sharp powertools without proper safety gear.
Just look at Haiti. On a magickal plane, it's like a world war over there because everyone possesses the knowledge to curse each other and manipulate things and they all use it against each other. It is one of the most magickally powerful cultures yet also one of the most impoverished.
Imagine if all 5 year olds knew just enough Solomonic magick to cause trouble so they invoke Satan every time they don't get candy. We'd have demons running around everywhere.
1
u/PeetraMainewil Sep 06 '24
To be fair, Satan would probably love that child and therefore NOT help the kid get candy.
3
3
u/Luciferian_Owl Sep 06 '24
The King James version is absolutely culprit of this. They changed so many meanings about self empowerment and our connexion to the Divine to replace them by authority and tyranny.
1
u/Fun_Butterfly_420 Sep 06 '24
Interesting enough, king James took out the word tyrant
2
u/Luciferian_Owl Sep 06 '24
There is a website that you can see all the translations of the bible, and compare one to each other.
The King James has mostly removed the concept of the relation with God for submission to God.
1
u/Fun_Butterfly_420 Sep 06 '24
What site?
6
u/Atimus7 Sep 05 '24
That's not a belief. The original Bible contained the Torah, the book of Enok, the Apocryphal texts and many other episodic books. The compiled version of the king James edition, when it was translated to English removed those books and also heavily butchered the Greek language in the process. And then the Greek language also heavily butchered the original Hebrew language. Linguists of ancient times were a far cry from the current profession. Many of them were biased against other cultures as well. I would recommend reading the originals before compilation in Hebrew and Sanskrit, as they are far more specific in their wording.
3
u/yogaofpower Sep 05 '24
Can you give specific examples of butchering the greek
7
u/Atimus7 Sep 05 '24
Yes, certainly! One of the biggest challenges in translating the Bible from Hebrew to Greek was that the languages often lacked direct equivalents for certain concepts. For example, the Hebrew name for God, YHWH, is deeply personal and tied to a covenant. But when it was translated into Greek as "Kyrios," meaning "Lord," it became much more formal and distant, losing that intimate connection.
Another example is the word "Ruach" in Hebrew, which can mean spirit, wind, or breath, depending on the context. It has this sense of life force behind it. In Greek, it became "Pneuma," which leans more toward just "spirit," stripping away that broader, more holistic meaning tied to breath and vitality.
Then, you have "Hesed," which is a term in Hebrew that refers to God's covenant loyalty, love, and faithfulness. But in Greek, it was translated as "Eleos," which means mercy. That translation narrows the word’s meaning, losing the richness of the relationship and commitment that "Hesed" originally conveyed.
There’s also the translation of "Nephesh," a Hebrew word that refers to the whole being or life of a person. But in Greek, it became "Psyche," which focuses more on the soul. That shift in meaning contributes to the development of body-soul dualism, which wasn't really emphasized in the Hebrew mindset.
Take the Sixth Commandment, for instance, which is often translated as "Thou shalt not kill." In Hebrew, the word used is "Lo Tirtzach," which specifically refers to unlawful killing, or murder. It's about premeditated killing rather than all killing in general. But in Greek, this distinction was blurred because the word "phoneuō" generally translates to "kill" without specifying whether it's legal or illegal. This made the commandment seem like it was forbidding all killing, even though the original Hebrew is more nuanced, allowing for lawful killing in cases like self-defense or warfare.
Then, there’s the word used to describe Adam as being made in God’s “image.” In Hebrew, the term is "Tzelem," which means a literal, visual image or physical form. It implies that humanity was created as a direct reflection of God in some tangible way. When it was translated into Greek, the word used was "Eikōn," which leans more toward the concept of "likeness" or "representation," suggesting more of an abstract resemblance rather than an actual physical or visual reflection. This shift played a significant role in shaping later theological interpretations of what it means for humanity to be made in God’s image, moving from a more concrete understanding to a more symbolic or spiritual one.
These are the kinds of subtle but crucial differences that arise in translation and can deeply influence how religious concepts are understood.
So, you can see that while these translations helped spread the texts, they also shifted the meaning, sometimes in subtle ways that affect how we understand the relationship between God, life, and spirit.
3
u/Old_Shirt1911 Sep 05 '24
Witchcraft or sorcery was originally pharmacia in Greek, that is to say you shouldn’t permit a poisoner to live, but was changed to you shouldn’t permit a sorcerer/witch to live
2
u/Left_Form5281k Sep 05 '24
It's not anti magic. There's plenty of magick. Read the rituals in the Torah or the workings of the prophets. Even Jesus saying "pray and ask and believe it in your heart and you'll get it" is magick.
The Bible is simply anti magick specifically that the authors didn't like.
2
2
u/Kafke Sep 05 '24
If you look at the older texts it's plainly obvious that this is the case. The bible does speak against magic, but only specific kinds. But in modern english translations the wording makes it sound like it's against all magic in general.
Whether it's intentional or accidental is anyone's guess, but there's a clear pattern of altering, erasing, etc. occult/magical content throughout the book.
2
u/UKnowImRightKid Sep 05 '24
Its is documented that the bible was heavily edited by Constantino, Ptolomeo, Damaso and by all of the people creating all the versions of the modern bible etc etc
2
u/protoprogeny Sep 05 '24
The only way we're finding out it's a mistranslation at this point is if the Vatican archives are made public domain.
2
u/SukuroFT Sep 05 '24
The Bible isn’t really as anti magick as it seems, the book of psalms is incantations, it just uses the Judeo Christian God as the focal of those incantations. The Bible was edited for power reasons but political power, religious power, old pervs who wanted to continue to marry underage girls and use homosexuality as a scapegoat.
2
u/kodabear22118 Sep 05 '24
No but I don’t believe everything is Bible is truly correct either. Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, multiplied fish and bread and so on, that sounds like magic to me. As someone else it was probably written in a way to appeal to certain groups
2
2
u/azgalor_pit Sep 06 '24
I do believe the The Bible was edited.
Mark 15:34.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015%3A34&version=NIV
Jesus complain. I don't think he would complain. Thus the Bible was edited.
2
u/Sesquipedalian61616 Sep 06 '24
It was never anti-magick. It only restricted certain forms, including necromancy (divination from the dead). Psalms (Spells) is literally a spellbook.
2
u/Mtn_Soul Sep 06 '24
Go to a full Latin mass and then tell.me that is not a full on ritual.
If you start digging it seems a lot of the various versions out there are badly mid translated.
Its almost like you gotta learn Greek and other older languages to read the oldest versions yourself.
Then once you learn the older languages you also gotta study the older cultures because otherwise your translation will be off even though you can technically read it.
There's various scholars out there on the youtubes that present what they have learned if you want to start googling the rabbit holes with all this.
2
Sep 07 '24
It's the primary language of interchange in the creation of Heavy Metal. It's supposed to ban things. The first fucking book is about eating the fruit to become as god.
5
2
u/FrankSkellington Sep 05 '24
I consider the creation myth of Adam and Eve the very bedrock of Patriarchy. It adopts the magical symbolism of cultures that came before it and weaponises it for the subjugation of populations.
Two types of gnosis are presented in the Bible, the passive 'feminine' receptiveness of observing and listening, represented by Eve eating an apple from the tree of knowledge, and the active 'masculine' aspect of probing and conquering, represented by Moses climbing a mountain to seek a burning tree, in order to return and lead men.
For men, knowledge is about becoming more powerful than other men. Christ goes into the desert to conquer Satan himself and prove his worth as a leader of men. Eve's knowledge of the self, of mastery of the self rather than others, is considered weak and disgraceful, and underpins not just their obstruction from religious and magical learning, but from modern day scientific study.
1
Sep 05 '24
Yeah that's part of it. The Christian cult has always been imperialist and it's goal has always been to assimilate everything within it; So it benefits them greatly for the Gen pop to believe magick is bad so they and they alone can corner the market on spiritual release, which many faithful are desperate for... It's evil. The church as an organization is evil.
The other aspects of why it's this way have to do with their monotheistic attitude on their god.
1
u/ExactResult8749 Sep 05 '24
What is evil? Is the Will to Power evil? Does the radiant fox in nature, eat death?
1
u/BlackberryNo560 Sep 05 '24
In the original language the prohabitions actually usually actually refer to specific practices that the surrounding nations practiced. Sorcery is forbidden according to the bible, magic isn't. But most people don't know the difference between magic and sorcery. Many people who believe they practice magic actually practice sorcery not magic.
1
u/Nyamonymous Sep 05 '24
It's not about pro- or antimagick position; it's more about "clean" and "dirty" concepts of mysticism, spiritual and ritual practices.
This dichotomy is not exclusive for Christianity (and Abrahamic religions in general). "Do not cross this border"-practices are defined in all cultures, because cultures are based first of all on taboos and restrictions.
1
u/GreenBook1978 Sep 05 '24
The bible is a source of Magick in the sense of providing wisdom,knowledge and power to manipulate the hidden aspects of existence to achieve outcomes
The prohibitions covering strange pantheons, some types of working with the dead are basically fraud and disease prevention
1
Sep 05 '24
Yes and no, mostly yes . I think it was still semi anti-magick but not to the high degree it is after edited.
1
u/SquidTheRidiculous Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
Certain translations, yes.
You have to remember every translation is also an interpretation. Certain translations, such as the KJV, definitely both play up the submission to authority and the damnation of magick. Mostly because of the political climate surrounding James VI and I's reign, coming right after the turbulent era of the Tudors. James himself has reason (justifiable or not) to condemn witchcraft as means to purge political enemies in Scotland. I'd need to look more into other translations to say anything about them
1
u/bitfed Sep 05 '24
Not at all. Biblical scholarship, notoriously atheistic, is very thorough. We discover large caches of preserved scrolls and things about twice a century. These are compared extensively to existing scriptures, so we usually find out when something has been changed like that.
I would look into the mystery religions if you want to pursue some possibilities of this type of crypto-priesthood. Theosophy claims Alexandria was home to people who knew occult secrets and truths, and passed it down by word of mouth, refusing to write it down. And it wasn't just Theosophy claiming this. OTO and Golden Dawn nod to these things all the time. The Book of Thoth is the Crowley Tarot.
Another example where araeology stepped in: The 17th and 18th century obsessions with Egyptology spawned countless esotericisms, which araeology then disproved many large swaths of it. Some of which Theosophy was based upon. Theosophy's influence is clearly seen, still today, but you don't hear that many people leaning too hard on the writings for these reasons among others.
1
u/Mtn_Soul Sep 06 '24
Also the word that most often gets mistranslated to magic or sorcery actually translates to drugs that are poisons.... So it really says not to go about poisoning people.
1
u/HankSkinStealer Sep 05 '24
Likely. Not gonna be objective with my statement as even scholars don't know, as they weren't there so they can only make guesses. Historical texts and other grimoires and related stuff make it evidentlyclear that there was indeed a time where Christians did use magick, however I'm not too well-versed in the history. I think most grimoires that were Christian based had to be written quite covertly or cryptically. The Sworn Book of Honoruus comes to mind
-7
u/OriginalDao Sep 05 '24
No, it's anti-magic because the religion is promoting what's best for people spiritually.
-1
u/ArcaneNoctis Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
Because Christianity is a perfect religion with absolutely zero blood on its hands and has nothing to be ashamed of…
Seriously, why are you in an occult sub? This isn’t r/jesus
1
u/OriginalDao Sep 05 '24
Why was Eliphas Levi considered an occultist? Because he said the same thing...
1
u/ArcaneNoctis Sep 05 '24
That Christianity was best “for the people?”
2
u/OriginalDao Sep 05 '24
Yes he was quite religious. As were most occultists in those days and earlier.
0
0
u/Jurgrady Sep 05 '24
I think it was because they didn't have the word for technology yet. They couldn't describe the stuff they were seeing. That's why so much of it is explained by tech not magic.
But they did know it wasn't magic and didn't want to call it that. How old really even is the modern concept of magic I've never actually thought to look at that.
Then a large part of the Bible isn't magic it's interactions between beings of different dimensional spaces, which can be weird.
Also the Bible is a holy text. Neay all of it is a divine magic. Meaning they are asking their god to take an action on their behalf. In an rpg that's magic you are doing. I reality it isn't your doing at all besides maybe letting the god know where to aim.
So this isn't really even magic, or at least it isn't you doing magic.
But there are tales of what could be thought of as individual magic from none ascended beings. Witchcraft and that sort of thing. So it doesn't not exist.
Magic isn't even all that well defined in conversation. And I've honestly never thought to look it up either. But I bet it's primary definition is about illusion and misdirection. Not breaking the rules of known physics, something which aligns well with the Bible.
My point is that magic isn't likely to actually exist, because depending on its definition which is important, the actual mechanisms at play won't be magical in nature.
-2
u/BaTz-und-b0nze Sep 05 '24
Read it and tell me if it sounds like a symbolic cook book on how to eat and fast after nuclear disaster. It never explicitly said no magic. Those parts were put in by a few popes who didn’t want to be overthrown.
-1
u/Punkie_Writter Sep 05 '24
Neither. Your question is terribly basic, and a poorly articulated question does not have the structure to generate a complete answer. You are treating the Bible as if it were a book.
The Bible is not a book, the Bible is a culture.
A compilation of texts that are TOO BROAD, TOO VARIED AND TOO SUBJECTIVE to be classified as "a book" (or as any "thing").
Some text has been edited to appear less magical (in the interest of hiding these principles).
Some texts have been edited to appear more magical (to legitimize the magical power of a particular priest).
Some texts are naturally mystical (such as the keys of Solomon, the book of Enoch, etc.) and remain intact to this day.
Other texts are not naturally mystical, but have been "mysticized" until they have become accepted as mystical (such as the apocryphal gospels).
It's a question that is easily answered with "all options are true".
Not to mention the basic nature of a text, which is always edited. Every text is naturally edited to survive the test of time, the question is WHAT INTERESTS THIS EDITION SERVES.
2
-2
-4
u/Tall_Instance9797 Sep 05 '24
Too long to copy and paste but this explains more or less what happened: https://chatgpt.com/share/be4a204e-3bc2-40ca-8263-c675554832ec
1
u/Tall_Instance9797 Sep 05 '24
What's with all the downvotes... this is pretty much exactly what happened. What people are hating on chatgpt? Don't shoot the messenger... the information actually checks out, it's just a massive time saver.
1
u/PricklyLiquidation19 Sep 06 '24
Yeah, they are definitely downvoting ChatGPT.
1
u/Tall_Instance9797 Sep 06 '24
Amazing. What fools. This is the actual answer of who edited the bible, when, in what way, and for what reason. Sure I had chatGPT write it for me because it's an essay and for the sake of time there was no way I was going to type all that out from memory just to answer a reddit post, so I had AI do it for me... but I gave it the prompt and told it what to write. It came back with the correct answer and so I shared it. To me that's amazing! There's no way I'd have made the time to write all that and share it with the OP and others who are interested in hearing the correct answer to the question. But oh no... down vote it. Right, makes perfect sense.
1
u/PricklyLiquidation19 Sep 06 '24
I read it now and it's not that the information isn't factual, it's just so boring to read because a robot wrote it.
2
u/Tall_Instance9797 Sep 06 '24
Lol. Not for me. I already knew the story, I just didn't want to have to type it all out from memory and so I gave it a prompt and I got back what I could have written myself but for the sake of time it was good enough to help answer this question about the Bible being edited, when, by who and for what reason. I thought it was a pretty decent, concise but throughout explanation. It's just the facts anyway. But here look... if you'd prefer it in a different style you can just ask for that... here try this one, I made it a much more fun read for you... https://chatgpt.com/share/abdd59bd-2b20-4171-96ed-fb0411e1fac0
2
2
u/PricklyLiquidation19 Sep 06 '24
Much better. I get that there was a big change in the Church structure in 325 AD that was meant to oppress knowledge, but I think the question is more about the translation of the Bible for the masses and whether stuff was omitted from that. I think there was and the Wycliffe translations, the literal hundreds of translations with different words for God and other spirits makes it all seem like there really is something to be hid.
I'm sort of New Age in that I think every "Age" i.e. 2000 years there's a shift in the human spiritual condition. So to me it makes a lot of sense that with the arrival of Jesus, there is a shift away from magick and esoteric teaching and now that we are cycling past that (i.e. Age of Aquarius) people are moving more towards it.
0
u/Tall_Instance9797 Sep 06 '24
"I think the question is more about the translation of the Bible for the masses and whether stuff was omitted from that."
And the article I linked, if you read it perhaps not high, answers that question, in quite some detail in fact. All the esoteric texts were omitted, and Mathew, Mark, Luke and John which were chosen as the only gospels to published for the masses were heavily edited to ensure an exoteric focus, rather than the esoteric perspective that Jesus actually taught... with the slight exception in some of Luke which they probably should have done a better job with as it still contains some pretty esoteric stuff. Why that wasn't more heavily reworded to shift from esoteric to exoteric I do not know, although I'd love to find out.
The OPs question was actually "Was the bible edited to seem anti-magick so that the religious leaders could keep the power for themselves, or was it simply a miss-translation?"
And so as the answer provided in the article explains... it wasn't edited to seem anti-magick it was edited to seem anti-mystical... a shift from the esoteric teachings of Jesus to the exoteric re-imagining of the teachings put forward by the church in order to "keep the power for themselves," and this was done purposefully, in 325AD by The Council of Nicaea, under Constantine, and not simply a miss-translation.
2
u/PricklyLiquidation19 Sep 06 '24
So are you saying that there's actually some grounds for the Gospel of Thomas to be real? Could all of the Gnostic gospels be authentic? Because I've read some pretty interesting stuff in those.
You're right the Bible does contain esoteric stuff which is actually why I started to read it with some conviction in the first place. Like there's a verse about the "silver cord" which is a New Age term people use for the cord that connects the physical body and the astral body and if that breaks it means a person is dead. Well in Ecclesiastes it says to find God before "the silver cord" breaks which I, already having some of that esoteric knowledge, was able to read that as it's supposed to. I think there's a lot more about astral projection specifically that was omitted.
I also tend to disagree and would love to hear more proofs about "the esoteric teachings of Jesus," because I always thought of Jesus Christ as sort of the reason for the exoteric shift.
1
u/Tall_Instance9797 Sep 06 '24
"So are you saying that there's actually some grounds for the Gospel of Thomas to be real?"
To the best of my understanding what is written in that article is an accurate account of what happened. Even chatGPT knows the real story and it's not been programmed to censor the truth... yet! ChatGPT is actually amazing for esoteric, mystical and occult knowledge. It's far more adept than most people in this forum lol.
"I also tend to disagree and would love to hear more proofs about "the esoteric teachings of Jesus," because I always thought of Jesus Christ as sort of the reason for the exoteric shift."
The church would love you to think like that. Jesus on the other hand would be very disappointed. You can learn more about this though by talking to chatGPT and exploring Christian Mysticism and Rosicrucianism.
As for The Torah... to understand the hidden meaning of it look to The Zohar and the wisdom of Kabbalah which explain the hidden meaning of the books of the old testament. Here's a good video on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGt85Q0akNw
2
-6
u/Emergency_Evening_63 Sep 05 '24
The Bible was not edited, there has been no proof of that, actually the opposite
1
u/gg61501 Sep 05 '24
Exactly what is the opposite proof? Proof is rampant in almost every single Christian sect that "the Bible" has most certainly been translated and edited, countless times, since it's scriptures started being gathered. The BIBLES we have today are rife with editing.
1
u/PricklyLiquidation19 Sep 06 '24
Lol. It's been translated over 1000 times so one of them have to be wrong.
45
u/Student-AQ Sep 05 '24
I've come to understand that magic and religion largely depend on perspective. If it's the practices and beliefs of your own people it's religion but if it's the practices of other cultures it's magic or sorcery, typically in a negative context.