Baidarka

I have gotten into a discussion with Volker.doorman (in “Extraterrestrials?”) about the Bible as a political and social document vs. the Bible as a purely spiritual document.
I think that there are many stories in Genesis which were designed to ridicule the ancestors of Israel’s enemies. That the theme of the younger brother who usurps his older brother’s inheritance is probably designed to justify a King who was contemporary with the writer. God’s blessing and land grant to Abraham and his progeny was designed to lend legitimacy to the Kingdom. God’s blessing of the house of David was designed to help the Royal family stay in power.
We also have the passage in which Jesus tells his followers to pay their taxes.
In my discussion with Volker I wrote:
“Religions like living things go through an evolutionary process. Unsuccessful religions die off quickly. Charismatic religions which were not prudent enough to seek the protection of kings were very often persecuted out of existence. Christianity really took off and became powerful after it gained a Roman emperor as a patron.
Most religions violently vie for power over the hearts and minds of people. They write blessings for kings into their liturgy. They perform anointing ceremonies to officially prove that God’s power is behind the King’s power.
I agree that many religions express beautiful and deep spiritual thoughts, but you seem to allow this to blind you to the fact that religions purchase property, pay salaries, publish books, buy time on TV, and invest in the stock market. The truly spiritual religions which keep themselves pure and ignore physical reality quickly disappear and are never heard from again.
If you truly want to understand successful religions “follow the money”. I’m not saying that this is all that religion is about but it is a very important element that can not be ignored if you really want to understand a religion.”

Here is the question: Political Bible vs. Spiritual Bible?
Which kings and which agendas do you see being served?

On the other hand if you disagree and don’t think that there was any political agenda behind the Bible please back up your position.

Volker.Doormann

Originally posted by Baidarka
I have gotten into a discussion with Volker.doorman (in “Extraterrestrials?”) about the Bible as a political and social document vs. the Bible as a purely spiritual document.

I have stated, that all myths in the Pentateuch can be well understood as of a spiritual meaning. Each one, who is reading this myths and adjust them with reason, can recognize, that this stories are not of any reality of this world. To trace from this nonsense a serious historic claim, is a joke.

I think that there are many stories in Genesis which were designed to ridicule the ancestors of Israel’s enemies. That the theme of the younger brother who usurps his older brother’s inheritance is probably designed to justify a King who was contemporary with the writer. God’s blessing and land grant to Abraham and his progeny was designed to lend legitimacy to the Kingdom.

I like to reply next time on some Genesis myths and it's spiritual meaning to recognized from each one, who is ready also to hear of some inner truth of his own self. Spirituality does not play in remote darkness, it is the very real consciousness of the own unknown self. Most of that spiritual Pentateuch stories are not copyrighted to the Jews; the stories are taken from the culture of Sumer of Mesopotamia and from the people of the Indus valley in India and it's Sanskrit texts of the Vedas doormann.org/the0.htm.

In general it is very helpful to know the hidden meaning of Hebrew names and terms (p.e. Cain and Abel). It can help to understand p.e. all the stories of the brothers, from which one is the firstborn and one is the twiceborn. Exact that stress between a secular political understanding versus a pure spiritual understanding of this brother conflict is dramatized in that stories. Nothing else as the awaking immaterial soul as the twiceborn after the physical birth of a physical mother as a firstborn is permanent dramatized in all myths of the Pentateuch.

And John has menitioned this twiceborn again in his Gospel reporting that Nicodemus was of no knowledge about that.

Good Night from Germany.

Volker

Clara Listensprechen

Oh boy, this topic is right up my alley. I've posted on this in another thread regarding a point brought up by Yuri regarding Byzantine texts.

You want details on specific kings, whatfor, and when, but that sort of material could fill up a series of books, some of which I have as part of my encyclopedia collection.

This topic includes all religions, Abrahamic and non, the posterboy for this being a certain celebrated teacher named Gautama. He was enlightened to the sociopolitical injustices of the Hindu caste system (and that's a relgion that has more to do with politics and hardcast social strata than spirituality, when you really look at it). He diverged from Hindu and founded Buddhism. Not regarding himself as a deity, and being only one of many buddhas (teachers), he became deified as The Great Buddha, and all he did was a one-man revolt against castes, and strive toward the more amorphous goal of seeking to relieve sufferings of the human condition under the oppressive caste system.

There's nothing non-political about any of the Abrahamic religions, either. An entire book could be written on "The Bible" as a political document as utilized by its original compiler, Constantine, alone. Prior to Constantine, there was no Bible as all the various scriptural writings were just...well...a motley collection of papers. Constantine and Council decided what went in and what stayed out, and good Roman that he was, included even the most trivial of Paul's scribblings while keeping no more than two memos by Peter.

I could go on and on and on, but if I do, this chingaderra software's gonna log me out.

Clara Listensprechen

THUMBNAIL PARTIAL LIST OF WHICH KINGS WHAT AGENDA, INCLUDING EMPERORS NEVERMIND KINGS.

Prior to Constantine, the NT reflects the Jewish political infighting in terms of Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots, although Jews had more divisions in terms of sects than this...the favorite whipping boys being Samaritans. Archaeologists hold that Paul was raised a Pharisee, but the political scenery was such that the Sadducees were running the political show, and being very much pro-Rome, found all kinds of favor with the Roman emperor. However, Paul morphed pro-Sadducee in the form of his position as local constable (Acts), and whom got favorable response to his formal application for legal warrant to go outside his jurisdiction to pursue Christian persecutions, after having enjoyed the authority to throw all the people that were in his jurisdiction into the pokey already.

Romans were pretty tolerant of other people's religions, as is noted by the melding of Greco-Roman mythologies, among others. Jews weren't persecuted like the Christians were, and like the Jews eventually ended up being. Why? Check out the Zealot faction, totally intolerant of Roman rule in any form. Jesus' pronouncements about another kingdom were seen by Rome as part of the Zealot agenda, not because they themselves could prove it in court but because the Sadducees in particular were seeking to portray Jesus this way. Moving right along now...

{reset}

Clara Listensprechen

Looking at the anthology called "The Bible" of Western versions, we can clearly see via the NT that Paul's "conversion" had more to do with his "seeing the light" of Roman oppression in the form of yet another tax hike (note ye well that taxes were considered a holy book matter), and rather than throw in with the Zealots, he threw in with the apostles, who were logged into religious history books as holding the First Ecumenical Council officially in 50 A.D. and probably after Paul kicked both Peter and Barnabas to the curb (Acts 15:36-41). Peter's other writings start to show up in the Gnostic Texts alongside such illustrious mystical writings of one Zoroaster.

Fast forward to Constantine, under whose rule and presence the next Ecumenical Council was held, and a number of them thereafter...314 A.D. thru 359 A.D....

{reset}

Clara Listensprechen

Between 50 A.D. and 314 A.D., Christianity had subdivided like the Jews into several different sects, and each had a problem with the other being heretical. Lots of corruption took place, like monks pimping out nuns for "donations". Pagan mysticism had crept in as well, the strongest ritualistic influence being Zoroasterism/Magism. If you think that the "wise men" who visited the Christchild were "wise men" although called The Magi, you'd be as mistaken as every other Christian who pays tribute to these pagan magistrates from Persia every time they include them in their Nativity Scenes. Magism is, like Hinduism and Buddhism, means of dealing with political coherence; Magism was the established state religion of Persia and many of its ancient rituals are yet included among those practiced by the Tibetan Buddhist monks, among others.

This factioning and regular persecutions had caused major distractions in the Roman Empire, and Constantine took care of that by making Christianity the established religion of not a kingdom but an empire...although he himself was never a Christian himself during the entirety of his reign. He was a deathbed convert.

{reset}

Clara Listensprechen

Constantine had several politicoreligious agendas, as a matter of fact, mainly due to the rising of so many differing sects, and had to summon all leaders who were believers to determine who was in and who was out...

314 A.D. Council at Ares, France, dealt with the problem posed by Donatists. England, then part of the Roman Empire, was represented.

325 A.D. Council at Nice, presided over in person by Constantine, to condemn Arius and Eusebius. This Council is known as both The First General Council and the First Nicene Council.

335 A.D., at Tyre (Middle East area) Athanasius' doctrines were causing considerable consternation to the Empire and they were examined thoroughly here, although nothing conclusive was decided yet.

337 A.D. at Constantinople, first one to be held here, and I think, at the time, it was about when Constantine moved Roman HQ out of Rome (because of the problematic Praetorian Guards) and into Constantinople. Agenda here was again anti-Arian (as in Arius mentioned in the 325 A.D. Council), a sect that had grown rather than diminished since the Nicene. Dangerous, huh.

342 A.D., again with the Athanasius agenda, and it took 'em 18 months for this 'un.

347 A.D. at Sardi. Nothing noted in particular in my resources except the fact that 370 bishops attended.

359 A.D. in Rimini, and this is particularly significant in that Constantine compelled all the attending bishops to sign new articles of faith. I don't have in my resources any info on any old articles of faith that Constantine compelled, and it's something that requires a further look-see.

That's the total for just Constantine ALONE. From the Councils 381 A.D. to the last one in 1870 where Papal Infallibility was proclaimed, there's a lot more religion diddling committed by other kings and emperors, and the list is long.

Clara Listensprechen

HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: reaserch the term simony .

Volker.Doormann

It seems, that this lecture contains serious arguments to prove the bible political. But this fails because of an elementary mistaken in the subject. i.) There is an ancient collection of books called bible published 2000 years ago. ii.) There are named institutions and individuals who are acting. iii.) These acting institutions and individuals causes effects. iv.) These effects are caused by actions from humans and clearly can classified as politics. v.) But there is no effect and no political effect, which is caused as action causal from the bible to prove.

All the written critique is a critique of actions of individuals or individuals in institutions. A bible does not act. And because a bible does not act, it hardly can be of political power. It is always the individual, which claims power, never a bible.

Nothing, absolutely nothing of this lecture has any relation to that bible as a collection of books. If one would like to make people believe to discredit the bible for right, because some individuals acting mad causal in politics, then this is politic too. You seems to damn doubtful political acting as an abuse of ethical standards. But I have the impression, that an acting, that would like to misdirect doubtful political actions of individuals in institutions to the books of the bible as the cause of this actions is still a doubtful but nevertheless a political acting. If this is true, than you prove yourself acting wrong in relation to ethical standards. But maybe you can demonstrate that a book is able to act in a political manner without individuals.

There is a wonderful parable in that collection of books called bible, which deals with the descending of the spiritual soul in a fleshly body. This soul is symbolized by the name of Jonah while the fleshly body is symbolize by a fish. As we all know - also as it is repeated in the gospel myth - after three days the soul is ascending from that body (fish) back home. I do not see some secular king politics or money in this parable of mankind living in a body as a soul in darkness not knowing anything about the time prior to birth. (?)

Volker

Clara Listensprechen

Volker, oh ye of misplaced faith in the political entity that created a book called The Bible out of a collection of books and letters. There was no Bible prior to Constantine...just a loose collection of books and letters. Oh ye that has so much faith in what Constantine saw fit to assemble into the anthology called The Bible, consider all that you might have had faith in amongst the truckload of scriptures he left OUT of The Bible.

Fast forward to King James I of England, known for his drunken insanities to the point where his subjects compelled his successor to agree to their Petition Of Right, the model upon which our own Bill Of Rights is founded. His KJV left a second truckloadful out of his Bible, and his agenda was to presbyterize Scotland, as his reign was the first where both Scotland and England were under the same crown--his.

Fast forward to Cromwell and the mess he made of Ireland. He didn't write his own Bible but on the bases of the KJV he and his Fifth Monarchy Men were religiously convinced that during his reign over the Commonwealth, Jesus would come back to Earth to preside in the prescribed 1000 years...and as a KJV adherent, treated Irish Catholics like Saddam treated Shiites.