Baidarka

Volker
I wish it to be clear that my statement was about your belief and not a personal attack against you. I wrote that “Your belief in the efficacy of Astrology as a meaningful system for understanding the world is totally naïve.” That is a statement about my opinion of your belief. I am not saying that that is a general characterization or evaluation of you.
My point about ancient astrologer’s general ignorance about the objects of their study was that they were coming up with conclusions based on ignorance. I’m sure that astrologers contributed to the advancement of our knowledge of Mathematics, Astronomy and the physical universe. I’m sure that even incorrect systems help us in the development of systematic thinking.
Gershom Scholem the great historian of Jewish mysticism never seems to be a believer in mysticism but he always seems to believe in the importance of mysticism in the development and the history of Judaism.
My disbelief in astrology does not prevent my agreement with you that astrological symbolism is of importance in the OT and the NT.
You have already mentioned the 12 tribes as an astrological metaphor, I have compared Jacob and Esau to Gemini and I would add that they seem to be connected to the Asian yin/yang (I’d be interested in your opinion of this). Could you please list a few more Astrological symbols that you have found in the Bible.

Thank you

Baidarka

Volker.Doormann

Baidarka
Maybe you have seen, that I have post here an URL doormann.org/mazzarot.htm containing a lot of collected stuff in this context I have mirrored on my page.

In the case of Jacob and Esau I see a different symbol as you did, that is often in many other stories dramatized both in OT and in NT. I like to write to this parable an article next time in detail.

Good Night from Germany

Volker

Clara Listensprechen

Curious quote here...
The bazillion different flavors of religions pretty much proves on the face of it that a lot of people are too willing to work with unreasonable precepts for centuries, nevermind years. Because faith requires no proof in order to launch a belief, this necessarily means it's also devoid of any requirement for reason; anyone "of any reason" is irrelevant.

Clara Listensprechen

Baidarka, you're becoming as nearly as impossible as Volker to respond to. I've reset my cookies and responding to either you or Volker causes me to get logged out. Grrrrrrrrr.....!! Could I talk y'all into writing shorter books to post....???? {batting eyelashes}
What I'm gonna necessarily have to do is write a little, post, then re-edit the snot out of it til the cows come home....
==================================
When I'm talking, in this thread, about "The Bible", I refer to the Western Christian Bible, not Dead Sea Scrolls or exclusively a NT or exclusively an OT. A Bible includes both OT and NT in a single bound anthology. This isn't that difficult a concept.
The Roman Empire encompased the Palestine region which was also a dominion over Jews. There was already an attempt to assemble a number of scriptural papers into what was to become the NT during that first century A.D., but it was a stand-alone effort. Constantine, a Roman pagan to his deathbed, nonetheless presided over a number of Christian ecumenical councils, and thus first compiled that combination of his choice of documents in the OT and his choice of documents in the NT into a single state-mandated tome.
Gee, why do I even think the Alexandrian Library was burnt first by Romans, accidentally, then by Christians, on purpose, and then finished off by Muslims?

Non sequitur. Next!
Maybe not, but it's a modern day political factor that requires re-examination.
I see your point clearly; what must be re-examined in the context of today's political theatre is that too many Israeli Jews will not. You can see further discussion on this topic (and see for yourself that these folks insist that this Nazi-originated definition is the only one they themselves recognize as legitimate) at www.IsraelForum.com . My username on that board is Gautama.
I anticipate that the point where you got lost is in the reference to the Freedmen synagogue, where I relied on archaeological rather than biblical information for the remainder of my statement. Constantine's bias was to favor the Roman constable's writings as more fit to include in The Bible than the other writings of Peter. The only Jewish sects that got major lengthy press in the NT were also the ones that were the major political players in Roman politics: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Zealots. Freedmen are a ROMAN sociopolitical caste of ex-Roman slaves that, although freed, were still treated like last-class citizens--and a good many were there, from Italy. The rabbi that bult it was from Venice. Paul's standing as a constable was of higher sociopolitical standing in the Roman sociopolitical spectrum.
With Constantine. Naturally. Of course. No-brainer. It was the Palestinian political roils that caused Constantine to do what he did in terms of a method of governance of the area. It can't be stressed enough that although his Edict declared Christianity to be the religion of the Empire, he wasn't so convinced of it inspirationally that he became one himself until he was at death's door. You might consider also rewinding to 70 A.D. where Rome had simply had it up to here with the Jewish Zealots and flattened Jerusalem altogether, subsequently building a Roman city completely different from the city it replaced. Rerun this same flattening/rebuilding scene 132-135 A.D. thanks to Emperor Aelius Hadrianus, who changed its name for the remainder of pre-Constantine Roman rule to Aelia Capitolina. That region, as far as the Roman Empire was concerned on the total, was a constant political pain in the neck. Fast forward to today--it's STILL a royal pain in the neck and other anatomical locations.
I think that such a matter had no bearing on Constantine's Biblical activities. He was more concerned about religion as a device for ruling; OT and NT put together not because of two religions brought to bear as one but because both religions were of political concern in a single region.
{curtsey}{batting eyelashes} Why, thank you!

Baidarka

Clara Listensprechen


“Baidarka, you're becoming as nearly as impossible as Volker to respond to. I've reset my cookies and responding to either you or Volker causes me to get logged out. Grrrrrrrrr.....!! Could I talk y'all into writing shorter books to post....???? {batting eyelashes}”

I type my posts off line on Microsoft Word and then copy and paste into the reply box this way I don’t have to worry about getting logged out. It also gives me a chance to edit and use spell check (I do tend to make a few typos). I don’t know if my method would be helpful to you but this is how I solved the problem.

I will have to read your post more carefully before I reply.
Thanks for your reply I can see that you have given me some thing to ponder.

Volker.Doormann

Volker:"The other interesting point is: If astrology would be really a hoax, then there would be no real danger to the power of social commanding Jewish scholars. If astrology would be a hoax, no one of any reason would work with that for some decades."
Clara
Everyone of any reason did not acknowledge a 'bazillion different flavors of religions' as prove.
That's true. I do not see that a claim: "The bazillion different flavors of religions pretty much proves.." fulfilled any requirements of reason. An assertion, that there is nothing as a belief, without any prove is of no meaning. If this is true, then the claim: " The bazillion different flavors of religions pretty much proves.." is of no meaning too. As I have shown in my reply to Baidarka, there are often imagines attached to astrology, which do not relate really to astrology. If you have some competence in astrology, we can discuss on that theme, if not please stop it.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

Baidarka: "Volker: You have already mentioned the 12 tribes as an astrological metaphor, I have compared Jacob and Esau to Gemini and I would add that they seem to be connected to the Asian yin/yang (I’d be interested in your opinion of this). Could you please list a few more Astrological symbols that you have found in the Bible"

Volker: "In the case of Jacob and Esau I see a different symbol as you did, that is often in many other stories dramatized both in OT and in NT. I like to write to this parable an article next time in detail."

Here we goes.

The story of Jacob and Esau is to be understand by the knowledge of the different symbols used in the dramaturgy of all that Pentateuch myths. The central dramaturgy is using figured symbols to describe the travel of the spiritual soul from a spiritual peaceful 'home place' into a physical world into a physical fleshly body, it's experience of injustice, hunger, rape of the soul and sistersoul, bondage, and sorrow from this world perceived as bondage of the soul in that physical body, it's wrestle for freedom from this bondage, and would like to come home to that peaceful home of the soul of other familiar souls, while that physical flesh is of no meaning then. This doublefaced consciousness, the consciousness of the fleshy body and fleshly (physical) mind and the consciousness of the immaterial soul and it's sense and suspect of an other world (or 'other country') of justice, peace, love, harmony - never to be find in this physical world in perfection - is p.e. dramatized in that Jacob and Esau myth using all this symbols as figures.

The story begins with the information, that one, who was firstborn has a symbol of 'red' (Edom = Adam - dam means red - blood physical blood) with an attribute of a physical body: 'hairy', Hebrew = Esau, as well as a twiceborn Jacob (Hebrew: supplanter) with the differenet professions of both.

While the physical understanding of a firstborn is, that the person, who gets the power, if the father dies, there is a hidden different understanding coming from the Indian Vedas and it's Sanskrit laws doormann.org/manuslaw.txt, that the twiceborn is the birth of this spiritual soul in that firstborn bloody (red/Esau) body.

There is then a repeating of the descending of Abram and Sara as souls down into the body (Symbol: Egypt, Hebrew: 'narrow places') with the very same elements now as experience of Isaac and Rebeca (Hebrew: ensnare), after this couple got the message, that the older (firstborn body) has to be served the younger (twiceborn soul).

Because of the dramaturgy Jacob does experience on a physical life as firstborn, learning all that injustice as soul in a bondage (body) of (life-)time - but aware about his true home symbolized with that perceiving of the attributes of this spiritual country in that ladder to sky. Esau, getting his experience with the spiritual now as twiceborn (souls consciousness) , do welcome Jacob as Jacob comes home to Esau.

Because on this travel Jacob has decided to release himself from that physical bondage as of injustice from Laban, this his way back home wrestling for justice, he was called 'he who wrestles with god' or Hebrew: IsraEL.

This dramaturgy is repeated in many other stories in the Pentateuch. Every time, if a Figure is 'descending' down to Egypt/hades/hel , it is meant, that the spiritual soul is getting in a bondage of a physical body. The Exodus is dramatized also with these symbols of 'red', bondage, injustice, death of the body as 'death of the firstborn Egypt's' the symbol 'IsraEL' is wresting for spiritual justice on the way back home to a spiritual country of peace for the soul.

There is nothing mystical in this parables. No politics. Spiritual attributes have no existence in the physical. Justice or sorrow is not to be shown as of physical. Same as in nature, were objects get names from the human body (arm of a river, head of a department, on the feet of a Mountain), and every body knows, that a mountain did not really has feet, myths, which try to deal with the spiritual attributes, taking human figures to symbol that spiritual attribute, knowing, that a human living never is in this world without a body.

Spiritual attributes like justice, love, harmony, freedom from (social) bondage as an acknowledged soul are not to be proved. If one argues, that only that, what is to be proved by facts and evidence in total, then this arguing despise this immaterial 'objects'. Hebrew myths of the Pentateuch can help to learn, that beyond skepticism and natural science an other order of nature can be known, without to switch of reason, logic and attention to the own reality of self consciousness.

Volker

Clara Listensprechen

Heheheh....now here's my chance to paste you a book...

Huh? Translate your response, please? The way it looks (shakily, at that) from here is that you're admitting that none of those adherents to the bazillions of different flavors of religions are "anyone of any reason." Something I knew all along-- perhaps you and I are at the brink of actually agreeing on something here.
My meaning was that people who believe stuff not based on fact is basing their belief on faith, as faith is a belief in something without proof by virtue of definition.
Of course it means something, it means that some sort of alleged Word Of God has a single source, and you'd think there'd be one religion as a result. There isn't--there's a bazillion different flavors of relitions all claiming to be the true one, hence a reasonable conclusion that none of the above are based on anything concluded by "anyone of any reason", that all are, sum total, unreasonable. Full of rationalizations, yes--but hardly reasonable. At the end of my response to your last paragraph, I will append this thesis with my "book".
You're the board censor now, are you? I'll post what I please so long as it's within the Rules I agreed to to post here, seems to me. I have a competence in the historical development of astrology, not a "competence in astrology" per se, simply because I have no belief in it primarily due to my awareness as to its historical development. Historically, it has had a significant impact, but so has alchemy, and has just as much actual influence on actual performance-as-advertised as alchemy--zero.

And now, friends and neighbors, the "bazillion flavors of religion", confined to the Christian portion of the Abrahamist spectrum, and yet remains anything but comprehensive. If, as Volker claims, all this stuff is the result of people of reason, you've GOTTA be wondering "what the heck were they THINKING?!?!" This was originally posted on a discussion board under the topic "Funny Things That Theists Do".
Repeating reminder: THERE IS MORE TO ADD TO THIS LIST; THIS LIST IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE.
########################################

Since this addresses the claim that there's only one God and one Bible, this is a reference post regarding the many versions and sects/churches whose very existence proves the contrary. It's gonna be a list, and it's long, so brace yourselves.

===========================================
It's funny how theists say that "The Bible" is the largest-selling book on the planet, while NOT telling you that they're using figures that sum up total sales of all versions; the sales figures on just one version won't stand to muster--and this is Exhibit One on this bearing of false witness by those who profess that God has a law against it.

The list of different versions is by no means comprehensive; prior to the publishing of The American Standard of 1901, there were a bazillion "unauthorized versions" primarily attempting to address the problem of addressing American idiom, and in the process severely changed the meanings of different passages.

Following the list of different versions is a list of all the different religious sects known to exist up until 1872, taken from an Oxford-like version of the Bible (with apocrypha) published on that date and which contains that particular information listed here. A great many of the sects listed are from the First thru Sixth Centuries A.D., the time when the books in "The Bible" as we now know it were alleged to have been written. While many sects have had their hand in the biblical stew, the funniest thing is that today's Christians claim that the book we now have with that title is still "The Word Of God". It's hilarious. And now the list of (major) versions:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-Vulgate (Catholic)
-Greek Septuagint
-Tyndale (William) version of New Testament--burned at stake Oct. 1536
-NT of Beza's translation of
-Coverdale version of 1535
-Thomas Matthew version (pen name of John Rogers?)
-Great Bible of 1539
-Geneva Version of 1560 (Puritan)
-Bishops' of 1568
--the Rheims NT (Catholic translation)
-Douay of 1609 (Catholic)

-King James version of 1611, which hybridized Tyndale & Beza's works--and Beza got his from Erasmus of 1516-1535, who got his from medieval sources. The Old Testamen portion came from "original texts", of course but from those of the Masoretes, a Jewish preservationist sect of the 6th-9th centuries that did strange things with Hebrew and Aramaic texts (Masoric Texts). The KJV was in head-on competition with the Geneva Bible in terms of popularity, but when the crown deemed the KJV as "authorized", it eventually won out.

-Jerusalem Bible of the "Synod of Jerusalem", 1672
-English Revised of 1870 pub 1881-85
-American Standard of 1901 'tween '85 and '01, lots of unauth versions
rev 1937 pub as Revised Std. 1946-51;
-Newberry
-Revised Standard
-Rotherham
-New American
-Restoration of Original Sacred Name (re: tetragrammation)
-Watchtower
-Scofield
-Goodspeed
-New International of 1973 (NT); full, 1978, rev 1983
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...and I've yet to mention the versions of concordances: Strong's and Young's. Now to the list of the bazillion Christian & hybrid religions that all have claimed to know better than everybody what God's deal is. Keep in mind that this list is current only to 1872, 130 years ago. What's funnier still are all the denominations that have been added to this list, since 130 years ago:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Abelians (Abelites)
Abyssinian
Acacians (4th Century)
Adamites ("early", up to the 15th Century)
Adoptionists (8th Century)
Aerians (Aetians) (Arians) (4th Century)
Agapaemonians
Agonetae (4th & 6th Century)
Agonyclitae (7th Century)
Agynians (7th Century)
Albanois (Albanenses) (8th Century)
Albigenses (Albigois)(Gazares)(11 - 12th Century)
Albrights (Knight Evangelist Church) (1800's)
Allenites
Amedians
Anabaptists (1523)
Angelites (5th Century)
Anthromorphites
Antinomians (16th Century)
Anti-Sabbatatrians
Aphtharoocites (Eutychians)
Apollinarists (Apollinacians)(4th Century)
Apostolici (Apostolics)(Ap. Brethren)(3rd Century)(12th in Germany)
(13th in Italy, sect of Anabaptist)
Apostoolinas (Mennonites)
Aquarians (Encratites)(2nd Century)
Archonites(2nd Century)
Arians (4th Century)
Arminians
Ascites
Athanasians (4th Century)
Baptists
Barlaamites (14th Century)
Basilidians
Beghards (Beguards)(Bogards)(Bizochi)(Bocasoti)(13th Century)
Beguines (nuns)(13th Century)
Bereans (1773)
Bidellians
Bohemian Bretheren (Brothers' Union)(United Brethren)(Moravians)(15th Century)
Borrelists
Brownists (1580)
Cainites (2ndCentury) Noteworthy:sect specifically for reprobates.
Calixtines (15th Century)
Calvinists (1500's)
Cameronians (1600's)
Camisards (1600's)
Campbellites (Disciples of Christ)(1833)
Caputiati (12th Century)
Caraites (Karaites)
Carmathites (9th Century)
Carolostadians
Carpocratians (2nd Century)
Cellites
Cerinthians
Christians of St. Thomas
Church of England
Circumcellians
Clementines
Cocceians
Collegiants (17th Century)
Colored Methodist Episcopal Church of America (separated in 1820)
Come-Outers (nondenominational)
Congregationalists (1608)
Copts (451 AD)
Covenanters (1600's)
Cumberland Presbyterian
Damianists (6th Century)
Dancers (Flemish group reminiscent of the Dervishes) (1700's)
Davidists (16th Century)
Donatists (4th Century)
Druses ("early"--a Mt. Lebanon thing--Turkey)
Dulcinists (14th Century)
Dunkers (Tunkers)(German Baptist Brethren)
Durisans ("early"--also a Mt. Lebanon thing, decendant of Druses--Turkey)
Dutch Reformed Church
Ebionites
Effronites (16th Century)
Elxaites
Enlish Presbyterian
Ephrath Baptists (7th Day Baptists)(1728)
Episcopalians
Equinians
Erastians (1500's)
Eudoxians (4th Century)
Eunomians (4th Century)
Eustathians (4th Century)
Evangelical Lutherans (Lutherans)
Farnovians
Fifth Monarchy Men
Flagellants (Whippers)(13 thru 15th Centuries)
Fratres Albati (Fratricelli)(15th Century)
Free Thinkers
Free Will Baptists (1800's)
French Prophets (late 14th Century)
Friends (Quakers) (1600's)
Galenists
German Reformed Church
German 7th Day Baptists (1728)
Glassites
Gnostics (1st Century)
Gospellers (14th Century)
Greek Orthodox (15th Century)
Harmonists (1780)
Hattemists (17th Century)
Henricians (12th Century)
Heracleonites ("early")
Hermageniams (2nd Century)
Hicksites (1827)
Hoffmanists (16th Century)
Hopkinsians
Huguenots (16th Century)
Hussites (13th Century)
Hutchinsonians (1724)
Iberians (Georgians, of ancient Iberia, not the Iberian Peninsula)
Iconoclasts
Incorruptables ("under Justinian regime")
Independents (various, mainly post-Reformation)
Inghamites (18th Century)
Irvingites (1832)
Jacobites (6th Century)
Jansenists (1600's)
Keithians
Kirk (Church of Scotland)(1689)
Labadists (17th Century)
Lampetians (17th Century)
Latitudinarians (17th Century)
Leadlyans
Leucopetarians (12th Century)
Libertines (16th Century)
Lollards (associated with Wycklif)(14th Century)
Lucianists (2nd Century)
Luciferians (NOT what it looks like!)(4th Century)
Macedonians
Manicheans (3rd Century)
Marcarians (4th Century)
Marcellans (2nd Century)
Marcionites (2nd Century)
Marcites (2nd Century)
Maronites (6th Century)(another Mount Lebanon thing)
Massalians/Messalians (4th Century)
Melchisedicians (2nd Century)
Melchites
Melitoni
Menandrians (named for a BC philosopher but an AD Magistic sect)
Mengretians
Methodists (Wesleyan)(18th Century)
Methodist Episcopal Church (1776)
Methodist Protestant Church (1828)
Millenarians (Chiliasts)
Millerites (Second Adventists)(Adventists)
Molinists (17th )
Monarchians (2nd Century)
Monophysites (16th Century)
Monothelites (7th Century)
Montanists (2nd Century)
Monte-Negrins
Mormons (1823)
Muggletonians
Neonomians
Nestorians (5th Century)
New Jerusalem Church (Swedenborgians) (1700's)
Noetians (2nd Century)
Novatians (3th Century)
Origenists (3rd Century)
Ortlibenses (Vaudois)(Waldenses) (12th Century)
Passaginians
Passalorymchites (2nd Century)
Paulianists (3rd Century)
Paulicians (6th Century)
Pelagians (5th Century)
Petrobrussians (11th Century)
Petrojoanites (12th Century)
Philipists
Pietists
Pomorians
Praxeans (2nd Century)
Presbyterians, Associate Reformed (1782)
Presbyterians, Reformed (1773)
Presbyterian Church of the United States (1716)
Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States (1785)
Progressive Friends
Psatyrians (4th Century)
Publicani (11th Century)
Puritans (Roundheads)
Puseyites (Tractarians)
Quietists ("early", Greek)(17th Century, French, Spanish Molinists)
Quintilians ("early", condemned by 2nd Century)
Re-Anointers
Rellyanists
Rogerenes (17th Century)
Roman Catholic Church
Sabbatarians
Sabellians (3rd Century)
Saccaphori (4th Century wearers of sackcloth)
Sandemanians
Saint Simonians (1830)
Schwenkfeldians (16th Century)
Se-Baptists
Secularists
Seekers (17th Century)
Seleucians (4th Century)
Sembiani
Semi-Arians (4th Century)
Semi-Pelagians (5th Century)
Servetians (16th Century)
Serpentinians (Ophites)(2nd Century)
Sethians (2nd Century)
Shakers (United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing)
(1770)
Six-Principle Baptists
Socinians (16th Century)
Southcottians
Starobradsi
Syrian Christians (similar to Church of England)
Tanquelinians (12th Century)
Tascodrugitae
Theodosians
Theopaschites (5th Century)
Theophilanthropists
Tractarians (1833)
Tritheists (6th Century)
Tschomaboltsi
Turlupins
Ubiquitarians
Uckewallists
Unitarians (1815)
United Brethren In Christ (1800)
Verschorists (17th Century)
Wilhelminians
Wilkinsonians (1700's)
Winebrennaarians (1830)
Wyckliffites (14th Century)
Zacheans (4th Century)
Zwinglians

Volker.Doormann

OK. My meaning was that you, who believes that a bazillion different flavors of religions pretty much proves something is not relly a serious proof.

I have never heard, that a flavor of religions is valid as proof, or a bazillions flavor is valid as a proof. Your selection of terms combined to an Assertion maybe practice in philosophical belief discussions, they are well known by believers of this skepticism, but it lacks simple on validity to be a proof and to be to acknowledge as other as trash.

Sorry. You have exchanged 'astrology' with 'religions'. I have spoken about the art, science and spiritual order of astrology. Not on 'religions'. However. I do not see any relevant argument in your post, that is valid as a proof.
Thank you Clara.

Wrong. I have claimed, that the parables in that Pentateuch can be understand (with reason), but not, that people must be of reason. If p.e. one of the generator of that stories likes to give his money to games, or do create an other religion, this affacts not the parable itself. Please argue on the subject and not on persons.

Volker

Clara Listensprechen

Can somebody out there decipher the preceeding message for me????

The most I got out of it was maybe a stance that astrology is? is not? religion??

Where's the resident translator.....? When the topic is read in plain English, I thought I knew what the topic was, but now I'm told I didn't read this right....????