I agree with much of what you say - though am not quite clear now it relates to divination. But what you also seem to draw in is the association with the devil  which is something that Christianity laid on to divination much later. Sure the old Testament decries it - but so much of that was mistranslated anyway, and also much was written to formulate laws that the writers wanted to lay down. See Leviticus on things you may and may not do, some of which now seem ludicrous. Many Christians started to get heated about it all in the middle ages, and that ended with witches being burned and the rest.

The bible does say that the Apostles cast lots (which is similar to casting runes or tarot), prayer “in the Spirit” (a meditative divination), dream interpreting, speaking in tongues of angels, etc. in order to talk with God.

There seems to be a line drawn between divination and prophecy though, And it seems that augury - interpreting omens - and divination using the stars - are OK, as is consulting an oracle. Divination using MAGIC - however you interpret the term - is the only thing that seems to be an issue. Divination using spirits seems to be deemed demonic..

Well, fair enough if we don't view the old testament as going through Sephirot(and good amount of Kabbalists do, can check Rav Berg material for reference), then we stumble on another set of problems. The stories of the old testament exists in a lot more expanded form in the Sumerian Tablets. We have Adam, Eve and Elohim walking in the garden etc. long, long before the Torah.
And we can see the "snake" in the Garden is not an actual snake, its not a devil, either...

So again, if we view it from the point of view of Judaism(so Kabbalah) then old testament becomes explanation how to work with Sephirot. Whatever someone had problems with, there, is not advice for everyone to follow, but is specific story with the idea to clear out specific aspect of it all.

If we don't view it from the point of Judaism, and try to view it from another perspective, then its difficult to not see, the stories there existed in earlier sources in Sumer.  So the perspective outside the religion it comes from, have to take that into account, and if we do, the whole point of view changes, depending how we decide to take the sumarian material.

So what they had problems with becomes irrelevant. Either we follow Judaism when taking it literally is not what they were doing, they took sentences there to explain Sephirot(Tree of Life). And then since Sephirots are showing the polarity of each World, they will always be opposite of each other. Or we take it in more free of religion way, but then we have to take it from the older sources, Sumer,  focusing on the same.

The only invalid point, in my humble view, is the one that takes sentences from the old testament and tries to figure out by them what they would "advice".  As again, either the sentences were explaining how Sephirot work and didn't actually advice anything, or they were copied from much older and more detailed sources, in Sumer, so again no point focusing on them instead.

As for the four famous gospels, they were written during a time period 70 CE to c. 100 CE. The authentic letters of Paul are older: written during a time period between c. 50 CE  to c. 65 CE. The letters written by Pauline disciples the following generation (certainly Titus and the Timothies, and probably Colossians and Ephesians) is another matter. There is now some discussion going on, whether the original Gospel of St. Luke (Proto-Luke) was edited into the now familiar version in the mid-2nd century, but there's no consensus about that, yet. We'll have to wait and see: Such paradigm shifts in biblical studies often takes half a century or so to settle. Allow Dr. Litwa, Professor Ehrman, a handful of Marcion scholars and the usual suspects in Germany and UK debate the matter in detail a few decades, before we make our minds up! There's no need for entrenched positions. It's like the historical-critical study of the text of the Quran or analysis of the editorial evolution of Buddhist sutras: These studies takes time! 

You reference Christianity specifically, not Judaism. They are not one and the same. The Old Testament predates Christianity,  Judaism does indeed take advice from the OT; Christianity on the whole doesn't.

Some years ago we were on these topics with some priests and one of their points was that even though much of the "restrictions" aren't mentioned in the new testament, no Devil, not much against other practices etc. they count the snake in the Garden and other stuff from the Torah(and that is part of the OT) as part of where that ideas come from. So seemed fair to cover that topic early on, in case someone points to it.

Exactly. The Torah has no direct relevance to Christianity,

Torah = Base of Judaism.

Jesus = someone initiated in Judaism(by Joan the Baptist) and doing his work in the sphere of that religion(as of course, back then there was no Christianity).

So its like saying that cooking has no relevance to a chef. : )

Judaism is not the same as Christianity. Yes Jesus was and is a major figure in Judaism, bit not in the same WAY as he forms the kind of basis for Chroistoianity

For Jews, Jesus was a  teacher and rabbi, but ultimately, just another overzealous failed messiah. Christians believe he accomplished redemption through his sacrifice, where he died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity and satisfy the wrath of the Father. Jesus does not form a part of Jewish theology, he was just a very good guy. Christianity postdates Judaism, as you say, and is very different. For one thing, Jews believe that we were all born good, free of sin. Christianity believes we were all born sinful and have to redeem ourselves through our actions, Judaism is focused on following a set of laws (613 of them) that were given by God to the Jewish people through Moses while . (circumcision, diet, etc.) Christianity focuses on faith and believes that while doing good things is good it really doesn’t matter unless you truly believe that Jesus died for your sins.

I do agree. Yet the topic was pointing out to a different type of Christian beliefs, that can also be found out there. 

In there, people dig into the Torah, find sentences from there, like "you should be very mean to the nearest astrologers you see" and do feel bad, as they view that their religion doesn't support what they find meaning in.

Yet that isn't the case, its just misunderstanding that if we dig deeper, we can easily sort out. As the idea here is that we can't be using religious text that belongs to another religion, one that Jesus seemed to respect enough to be part of, and ignore the fact that same religion don't have problem with astrology(as we can see from the Kabbalistic astrology that people enjoy, from time to time). Instead focus on a sentence out of context, poorly translated, that seem to point out to lack of enthusiasm about astrology, divination or any of that.

@Deian: Have you read Johann Reuchlin: On the Art of the Kabbalah or anything by Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont? Together with Cardinal Viterbo, they were probably the most influential Christian Kabbalists.

@gregory: Your definition of Christianity works well to describe "classical" Calvinism and Roman Catholicism before Vatican Two, but if you wish to include Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Christians (and even Ressourcement style Catholics) in the definition, I believe something about Incarnation; defeating the powers of Chaos, Evil, Sin and Death; Resurrection; healing the illness of sin; and deification have to be included, and the bit about 'satisfaction' removed. Tertullian (who introduced the concept of 'satisfaction' in western Christianity) didn't have much of an impact on Eastern Christianity, and 17th century Anglicans began to study the eastern Fathers, causing non-Evangelical Anglicans to sound surprisingly Byzantine from time to time! If you wish to read more, I think Donald Allchin and John Macquarrie have written about that, but my memory fails me when I try to remember the book titles. 

I don't think I have read any philosophical book on Christianity or Kabbalah so far.
I'm very practically oriented and very focused on far eastern systems last dozen or so years. As in my humble view, time is running out, so going back to the western or middle eastern parts of it all have to be for something very important practically. Could happen, but rarely.

My Christianity/Kabbalah detour, was just to suggests some points of view that could remove obstacles for the peoples interested in self development,with the idea that the points of view to religion that restrict that, are rarely the ones we should focus on.

But I view that as practical as well, if one can't reconcile their faith or the faith of people nearby with the systems they enjoy, that systems will be somewhat limited in how far they could reach, I think.Then religion has become a hindrance and not a support.

9 minutes ago, Deian said:

My Christianity/Kabbalah detour, was just to suggests some points of view that could remove obstacles for the peoples interested in self development,with the idea that the points of view to religion that restrict that, are rarely the ones we should focus on.

But I view that as practical as well, if one can't reconcile their faith or the faith of people nearby with the systems they enjoy, that systems will be somewhat limited in how far they could reach, I think.Then religion has become a hindrance and not a support.

I agree on both points, of course.

10 minutes ago, Deian said:

I'm very practically oriented and very focused on far eastern systems last dozen or so years.

I've found both the Upaniṣads and the Lotus Sutra fascinating! By studying both of them, I've made myself unfit to convert to Hinduism and Buddhism, of course.

Judaism is not Wicca. Nobody's "initiated" into it. You're either born Jewish or you convert. Jews don't baptize, either.
The Hermetic Qabala generally used with Tarot is derived from Christian Cabala and is NOT Jewish Kabbalah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Qabalah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Kabbalah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
 

3 hours ago, gregory said:

Judaism is not the same as Christianity. Yes Jesus was and is a major figure in Judaism, bit not in the same WAY as he forms the kind of basis for Chroistoianity

I wouldn't even say Jesus was a "major figure." Just a guy who lived a long time ago, like Diogenes or Socrates. The only reason Jesus is a topic at all is that evangelicals are always trying to push him on people. Messianic "Jews" are not Jews and are not accepted as Jews. There's that commandment that forbids graven images. One of the major tenets of Judaism is that Hashem is formless. Or at least more than we can look at without shattering and dying. Even Moses could only view his butt. Yes, that's in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy.



If Jesus was the literal son of God, not in the sense that everyone is (which is what I think was intended, kind of a Christian version of Shivo'ham) but in the sense of being the literal offspring, inheriting the Y chromosome and DNA - the sight of him would have given people psychotic breaks at the very least.

The Ten Commandments are horribly misunderstood. A big part of them is intended to keep Jews from assimilating ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me", etc. That does NOT mean people who have other religions are going to hell like the Chick tracts claim.) That's why Judaism has survived. Otherwise it would just be little remnants of DNA. The culture, religion and essence of Judaism would be extinct.

2 hours ago, Deian said:

Yet that isn't the case, its just misunderstanding that if we dig deeper, we can easily sort out. As the idea here is that we can't be using religious text that belongs to another religion, one that Jesus seemed to respect enough to be part of, and ignore the fact that same religion don't have problem with astrology(as we can see from the Kabbalistic astrology that people enjoy, from time to time). Instead focus on a sentence out of context, poorly translated, that seem to point out to lack of enthusiasm about astrology, divination or any of that.

Um.

https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.47.11?lang=bi

Divination is up for debate, at the very least.
https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1915801/jewish/Divination-Forbidden-and-Permitted.htm
vs.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/divination/

4 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

I've found both the Upaniṣads and the Lotus Sutra fascinating! By studying both of them, I've made myself unfit to convert to Hinduism and Buddhism, of course.

 

I'm a Heart Sutra gal myself. For one thing, I'm skeptical. I'm not pious. For another, I need all the mercy I can get. 🤣 I'm in agreement with RAW on the Bodhisattvas:
 

Quote

Judaism is not Wicca. Nobody's "initiated" into it. You're either born Jewish or you convert. Jews don't baptize, either.

As someone that have been in somewhat expensive seminars for initiation into "rays of light", I always had the idea that more or less everything had its own initiation, everything that can be learned or be part of, at least...

Its interesting to see you think Initiations are something specific to Wicca. Can't comment much on that, we all are free to believe whatever we think we have reasons to believe in.

8 minutes ago, Deian said:

Its interesting to see you think Initiations are something specific to Wicca.

I used Wicca as one example, I didn't imply that it was the only one.
But Judaism has no equivalent. The thing that comes closest is a bar or bat mitzvah. But when you ask a Jewish person a question, they don't dodge it with the excuse that the answer is for initiates.
 

13 minutes ago, Deian said:

As someone that have been in somewhat expensive seminars for initiation into "rays of light"

That sounds like Madonna stuff. Didn't she have a song called "Ray of Light" back in her Kabbalah phase?
 

16 minutes ago, Deian said:

I always had the idea that more or less everything had its own initiation

That would depend on your definition of "initiation."

3 minutes ago, katrinka said:

But when you ask a Jewish person a question, they don't dodge it with the excuse that the answer is for initiates. 

When you ask two Jewish persons a question, you'll get at least three answers, just like when you ask Neo-Druids. People keep telling me, that I don't look Druish! 

26 minutes ago, Deian said:

I always had the idea that more or less everything had its own initiation

Every start has a beginning, and every initializing has a first phase, but within Judaism it's about taking up a book and read it. They say, that Avinoam Frænkel's translation (2021) of Yosef Ergas' Shomer Emunim (1720) is really, really good. 

1 hour ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

@Deian: Have you read Johann Reuchlin: On the Art of the Kabbalah or anything by Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont? Together with Cardinal Viterbo, they were probably the most influential Christian Kabbalists.

 

@gregory: Your definition of Christianity works well to describe "classical" Calvinism and Roman Catholicism before Vatican Two, but if you wish to include Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Christians (and even Ressourcement style Catholics) in the definition, I believe something about Incarnation; defeating the powers of Chaos, Evil, Sin and Death; Resurrection; healing the illness of sin; and deification have to be included, and the bit about 'satisfaction' removed. Tertullian (who introduced the concept of 'satisfaction' in western Christianity) didn't have much of an impact on Eastern Christianity, and 17th century Anglicans began to study the eastern Fathers, causing non-Evangelical Anglicans to sound surprisingly Byzantine from time to time! If you wish to read more, I think Donald Allchin and John Macquarrie have written about that, but my memory fails me when I try to remember the book titles. 

 

Fair point - but they still don't buy into the OT in the way Jews do.  And I think they do buy into we are all born as sinners.

Just now, gregory said:

And I think they do buy into we are all born as sinners.

Sinners? Yes, indeed. The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern concept of sin differ from the western ones. There's no such thing as original guilt in Eastern Christianity, but sin? Yes. 

2 minutes ago, gregory said:

Fair point - but they still don't buy into the OT in the way Jews do. 

If Acts 15.4-29 is to be believed,* the early Jesus movement distinguished between obligations of Jews and obligations of Gentile converts to Christianity already in 49 AD, but the separation-process between the Jesus movement(s) and Rabbinical Judaism reached its final state in the 130s, after the Bar Kokhba debacle. 

In the 17th century, Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians built entire systems of thought to distinguish between moral commandments (which were repeated in the New Testament, and supposed to apply to Gentiles) and ceremonial commandments (which were not supposed to apply to Gentiles). It was also within Lutheran milieus (Samuel von Pufendorf, 1632-1694) and Anglican-Episcopal milieus (John Locke, 1632-1704) the concept of Natural Law became important (i.e. no particular revelation needed for ethics).

I think the blurring between ceremonial law and moral law took place within the wilder side of the Reformation(s) and its/their much later off-shoots. 

As @katrinka has written somewhere else in this thread, most Jewish mitzvot are identity markers, not a matter of ethics.

The Prophets, the Psalms and the Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes have been much more important in lived Christian reality, than the Torah has. The Psalms formed the first hymnal of the early Jesus movement(s), and have remained important among monks, nuns, friars, religious sisters and Anglicans/Episcopalians, who sing or recite the Psalms daily. 

* Book of Acts was written decades after the event, and there's certainly a possibility (a nod to my conservative readers) or probability (a nod to my Mainline and agnostic readers) that the description of the event has undergone 'hagiography', as it were. The quarrel might have been considerably worse: The Letter of James and the existence of Ebionites until the 10th century might be lasting traces of this conflict. 

53 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

When you ask two Jewish persons a question, you'll get at least three answers, just like when you ask Neo-Druids. People keep telling me, that I don't look Druish! 

 
100% FACT.

42 minutes ago, gregory said:

 

Fair point - but they still don't buy into the OT in the way Jews do.  And I think they do buy into we are all born as sinners.

The Old Testament does not really equal Tanakh. I'm told that Hebrew doesn't translate well at all. "All the double-and-triple word meanings in Hebrew, the allusions, the puns, the 'come play with me' feeling to the text. Yet in English it's all boring and vaguely stupid and evil, as well."

It's funny how Christians assume we're corrupted at the moment of birth. You'd think they'd be pro choice because of that.

I'll just leave this here.
https://historycollection.com/18-alteration-made-to-the-bible-and-its-consequences/

1 minute ago, katrinka said:

 I'm told that Hebrew doesn't translate well at all. "All the double-and-triple word meanings in Hebrew, the allusions, the puns, the 'come play with me' feeling to the text. Yet in English it's all boring and vaguely stupid and evil, as well."

I studied classical Hebrew a few months. It was enough to realise the translation problems, but not enough to be a fluent reader, even less a fluent speaker. The best thing to do, if anyone is curious about the Hebrew Bible and its Christian counterpart(s), is to read Robert Alter's (born 1931, Professor at Berkely, California) translations with commentary. It's great intellectual joy to read Alter!

If anyone wish to read a similar treatment of the Mahayana Buddhist Lotus Sutra, Leon Hurvitz' translation is the most scholarly one!

6 minutes ago, katrinka said:

 The Old Testament does not really equal Tanakh.

I understand what you mean. The Reformed, Baptists, Adventists and Evangelicals keep the same books as those in the Tanakh, but switch them around willy nilly. Book of Ruth's connection to Shauvot gets entirely lost by doing so, and that's just one example.

Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans-Epicopalians, Assyrians, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox switch the order around, too, but also preserve sets of additional Greek Ketuvim. They do not agree on exactly which books ought to be included among those additions. Catholics and Lutherans do not read 1st and 2nd Esdras, for instance, but Anglicans, Georgian-Orthodox and Russian Orthodox do. The Ethiopian Orthodox alone read 1st Enoch. The Syriac churches preserve several additional Books of Baruch. It's difficult to get an overview of all these variations. Those interested in classical music have probably listened to one or several settings of Benedicite at least once. 

31 minutes ago, katrinka said:

It's funny how Christians assume we're corrupted at the moment of birth. 

A very traditional Calvinist and and an Orthodox Christian would both agree with the sentence you wrote, but would interpret it in two quite different manners.

Trad-Calvinist: All human beings are totally depraved and unable to cooperate with divine grace, and most human beings are predestined since before the beginning of time to be reprobates.

Eastern Orthodox: Cosmos is presently characterised by spiritual death, but that has already begun to be remedied by the infusion of divine Life through the incarnation of Jesus, the divine Logos. This state of spiritual death does not equal total depravity, because all human beings are the image of God and able to cooperate with divine grace. 

You see? It's two quite different positions. French Neo-Gnostics usually position themselves closer to the Eastern Orthodox one btw. I expect French Neo-Gnostics to find this website. They usually enjoy tarot. Oswald Wirth was involved in that movement, I believe. 

Returning more close to the original subject, Christianity and divination boils down to these observations, and Christians are able to draw different, even opposite, conclusions from these observations:

1. Acts 15.23-29  lists what Christians of gentile descent were obliged to follow at the time Acts were written
2. The prohibition against qesem in Deuteronomy 18.10 is not explicitly included in the list in Acts 15.23-29
3. Since the apostles used sortilegium in Acts 1.24-26, and the apostles were observant Jews, sortilegium can't be included under the umbrella of qesem.
4. Use of tarot, playing cards, oracle decks, ogham, runes, lots and similar are methods of sortilegium
5. Tarot, playing cards and oracle decks didn't exist at the time Deuteronomy emerged, and can't therefore be referred to by the word qesem
6. The author or editors of Acts 16.16-18 take a very negative stance on divination by the means of alleged possession