I finally understand the meaning of Acts 5 (at least some of it - these things seem to always be layered)
Here's a link - it's the first part, with Ananias and Saphira that bothered me.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/5.html
Unfortunately, the Bible is not a completely self referential language. The OT might be, if you know the ancient Hebrew alphabet, but the NT seems to require more input from external sources. The notes in my study bible are spectacularly insufficient.
In this case, I found the answer in a tarot card. Before you scoff, let me explain. But read the first part of Acts, first.
That done, spend a minute thinking about how ridiculous that story is. Those two people were believers. Killing them is the furthest thing from merciful, in this new religion preaching love and charity and healing. Being dead is the opposite of health and killing is the opposite of charity, so you can see why this story is a problem. I was only partially able to rationalize it by recognizing that God is not subject to human ideas of morality - but that was an insufficient rationalization.
The story gives a hint : the opposites represented in the man and woman, as well as the more blatant opposite in God killing while using healing to build His church. That's probably why the story of healing Mary comes immediately after the story of Ananias and Saphira. Polarity is supposed to smack you in the face here.
Enough explaining, here's the tarot card that told the story :
As you can see, the Six of Pentacles shows a rich man giving to two poor men. The scales in his hand are balanced, showing justice. Justice isn't fairness - its balance, things being in their place. It can also simply indicate a scale for doing transactions. Notice that the rich guy isn't pouring himself out - he's giving what he can afford to give, probably keeping a tight ledger. Just like the couple in Acts 5... Notice also that the two subservient men do not appear chaffed by their subservience. Their relationship with the rich guy is in balance. It doesn't matter if you identify with the giver or the receiver : overall, the card means that you get what you are able to receive.
Now look at The Star, trump # 17 - which, at least in this case, represents the opposite of what the Six of Pentacles represents :
This one is much more obvious in meaning. The vases pour out water endlessly. Its not measured - its infinite. The water represents Spirit, and the feet on both land and water represents union of spirit and matter. (Side note : etymologically, "matter" comes from the same root as "mother" ; likewise, the Spirit is more of a father) The nakedness of the woman fits well with the nakedness of Adam and Eve - knowledge of good and evil is the natural consequence of naming all the animals, or dividing the non discreet state of being (unity) into discreetized language. Genesis is like a jackhammer of redundancy...
But back to the card, you can see the same message we (hopefully) receive in church, which is that the Spirit is like a cup overflowing (ironic insert : Nietzsche talked a lot about the overman being like an over full lake). That metaphorical cup slowly drains itself if you never pour it, but refills itself infinitely if you pour it out. Thus, the more you give of yourself, the more you receive. Its true, but charlatans depend on your misunderstanding. So, pour the water/spirit/yourself out freely. The water/Spirit is life.
If you measure it and account for it, you receive only what you are able to receive, which is not life, but separation.
The bird in The Star card may be another hint, in the same general direction : Thoth, an Egyptian god, was represented by an ibis, and Thoth gave humanity language. And you could explain the card as representing the outpouring of creative energy after the fall of The Tower, which might point back to the fall in Eden. Tarot teaches a recurring story...
A lot more can be said, especially about the meaning and purpose of the Fall, which then can lead into the meaning and purpose of "evil" - but we've gone far enough for one day. And anyways, my finger gets fatigued by tapping my phone so many times.
Acts 5 is solved! Hurray! It only took about a month...
#tarot
I'll refrain from giving it a "god" or "bible" hashtag - they want so badly for it to all be literal, it won't help anything...
When you say self-referential, I presume you mean with everything else that was going on at the time.
But then you mention language and I get confused - I’m curious how/why you find the combo of Strong’s concordance with the vulgate (in the case of Acts) insufficient?
Don’t get me wrong, teachings and comprehensions are two different things, and I think you meant the former. Not sure how knowing Latin would have helped you here?
Self referential just means that everything required to understand is contained within the thing. Language is meant as the concept of rationality - rationality is language, fundamentally. Strong's Concordance is an external tool, which is helpful, but a strong indication that the NT isn't a self referential language. No need for Latin. That's a historical irony! Anyways, I try to deal with the language of symbols, which carry over between spoken languages, as well as over time between traditions.
I misunderstood your note the first time I read it. IMO, the whole bible has to be understood within the context of the time. So its not a genuinely self referential language... But it does come close. Many verses only reveal their full meaning when combined with other verses, often in other books, that use the same symbols. The context of the OT was Egyptian, Babylonian, and phonecian (grr, spelling) symbolism. The context of the NT is the Hellenic world, and might require referencing Greek myths. Might. I'm not ready to prove that.
This, imo, should be a hint that much of, or maybe all, of the bible is not literal. I'm in Texas - I'm surrounded by biblical literalists who have no tolerance for a rational examination of symbolic meaning. This might be why I like pursuing it so much...
