THOUGHTS ON DOUKHOBORS AND THE BIBLE:
At the time of the Doukhobor heresy of rejecting the ritual and idolatry of the 'church militant', harsh persecution followed, particularly because they had decided that the Bible was not necessarily the word of God (although certain passages including the gospels may have good moral lessons).
A close examination of the history of the Bible quickly confirms how intuitively correct these early leaders were.
Certain fundamentalists fervently believe that the Bible descended to us from the heavens delivered by angels directly from God. Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and comparable sects reinforce this misguided rhetoric.
Why do so many sincere, well intentioned religious people follow along with this misguided belief? Usually because they fall under the influence of self appointed spellbinders, [whose primary intent may well be to separate them from their money] and perhaps because their elders profess this attitude. "We all say so, so it must be true."
The authority of the Bible, the church, the state, or any spiritual or political leader is derived from the individual followers and believers, since it is the believers' judgement that such leaders and institutions speak with a greater wisdom than their own.
Thus, ignorance reinforces ignorance; a logical development since only independent thinkers can recognize wisdom.
At the time of the Doukhobor heresy of rejecting the ritual and idolatry of the 'church militant', harsh persecution followed, particularly because they had decided that the Bible was not necessarily the word of God (although certain passages including the gospels may have good moral lessons).
A close examination of the history of the Bible quickly confirms how intuitively correct these early leaders were.
Certain fundamentalists fervently believe that the Bible descended to us from the heavens delivered by angels directly from God. Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and comparable sects reinforce this misguided rhetoric.
Why do so many sincere, well intentioned religious people follow along with this misguided belief? Usually because they fall under the influence of self appointed spellbinders, [whose primary intent may well be to separate them from their money] and perhaps because their elders profess this attitude. "We all say so, so it must be true."
The authority of the Bible, the church, the state, or any spiritual or political leader is derived from the individual followers and believers, since it is the believers' judgement that such leaders and institutions speak with a greater wisdom than their own.
Thus, ignorance reinforces ignorance; a logical development since only independent thinkers can recognize wisdom.
The superstitious conundrum is further complicated by the Catholics criticizing the Protestants for their interpretations of the Bible, a book that they edited and provided. In turn, some fundamentalists refer to the Catholics as "the scarlet whore of Babylon", using as evidence their own interpretation of the Bible, a collection of writings which was provided for them by the Catholic Church!
This alone illustrates the mass of contradictions contained in the scriptures and how various interpretations are possible.
How wise the early Doukhobor leaders must have been to recognize the basic fallacy of such superstition, no doubt aided by the fact that they did not see any evidence of Christ’s teaching and behaviour within the Church hierarchy and among the Church believers.
The fervent fundamentalists, whether they be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Moslem, are closed to reason and discussion for fear of losing their cocoon-like dependence and childlike security by clinging to what they have been told.
Some call such clinging faith - in truth it is mere idolatry. Idolatry is clinging to a branch in the middle of the rushing river to save yourself. Faith is letting go and learning to swim.
This alone illustrates the mass of contradictions contained in the scriptures and how various interpretations are possible.
How wise the early Doukhobor leaders must have been to recognize the basic fallacy of such superstition, no doubt aided by the fact that they did not see any evidence of Christ’s teaching and behaviour within the Church hierarchy and among the Church believers.
The fervent fundamentalists, whether they be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Moslem, are closed to reason and discussion for fear of losing their cocoon-like dependence and childlike security by clinging to what they have been told.
Some call such clinging faith - in truth it is mere idolatry. Idolatry is clinging to a branch in the middle of the rushing river to save yourself. Faith is letting go and learning to swim.
These deceptive mental idols are hand in hand with those of wood and stone and paint - they are simple minded concepts and ideas constructed of words, mental images of God. Faith is an invitation to trust truth and reality, whatever it may turn out to be, the adventure of a spiritual journey that is not preconceived in a magic word and an attractive, gift packaged box.
Others, however, resist the challenge of rational self discovery, and want the guarantee provided by the self appointed righteous.
Others, however, resist the challenge of rational self discovery, and want the guarantee provided by the self appointed righteous.
Thus, in the English speaking world, the King James version of the Bible, first printed in 1611, has become a rigid idol and the "word of God". Until then it was not available to the public, and the clerics in league with the governing powers jealously guarded and interpreted it for the population at large, in essence, controlling the ‘gateway’ to heaven and thus, controlling the population. After the Reformation and the invention of the printing press, most countries also became privy to the Divine mysteries revealed in the ‘Holy’ writ.
At the time of publication, new readers found that it contained a variety of wise sayings as well as dated stories of barbaric atrocities. There was plenty to choose from depending on what you wanted the word of God to be. Even the Gideons, who pride themselves on spreading God's word (and ban women from membership in their club) take their name from one of the most ferocious leaders of the Israelites.
No wonder the wise people of old rejected such presumed arbitrary hypocritical holiness!
To attain some historical perspective on one of the greatest delusions of modern times, let us observe the origins of this book.
The Bible, translated into the elegant court English of the day (would it be as impressive in modern day English? Seemingly not, as the contemporary version, Good News for Modern Man, lags far behind the traditional version) was an often inaccurate translation of Hebrew and Greek documents which were composed between 900 BC and 120 AD. Similar inaccuracies abound in other languages and various diverse beliefs abounded because of a plethora of ‘holy’ books. Those in control of the masses could see that something had to be done.
There is no manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than the ninth century BC. Shortly before 100 AD, a convention of rabbis at Yavne, Palestine, put together a selected collection of books and declared them to be the Holy Scriptures. This became the basis of the Old Testament.
At a council of the Catholic Church in Carthage in the latter part of the Fourth Century AD, a group of bishops decided what the Christian Bible was going to consist of. Several books which had been read and preached in churches until that time were excluded.
There were Hebrew scriptures and Greek translations (the Septuagint trans. 300-200 BC), popular in Alexandria between 250 BC and 100 BC and other Greek manuscripts which were circulated among religious cults. Later, these included the four gospels as well as others such as the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint John, the Apocalypse (Revelation). Then there were other documents such as the Acts of John, the Didache, the Apostolic Constitutions and the various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. This is a partial list only, there are a host of others such as Origen, Palludus, and Julian the Apostate.
All of these latter ones were excluded in the final, approved version of the Bible. So was The Shepherd of Hermas and the extraordinary Gospel of Saint Thomas and Saint Philip, which contained sayings of Jesus and explained the ‘virgin’ birth as a spiritual and not physical birth. In addition there was the noteworthy gospel of Judas from the second century AD, a scathing review of the church of the day, condemned as heretical by the Bishop of Lyon.
Since then, we have also discovered The Dead Sea Scrolls, which shed light on the Essenes of which Jesus was a member. Does such a document deserve inclusion in the Bible, which, as the word of God, is inviolate? It should be included but this is not possible because there would have to be admission of the Bible's fallibility.
At the time of publication, new readers found that it contained a variety of wise sayings as well as dated stories of barbaric atrocities. There was plenty to choose from depending on what you wanted the word of God to be. Even the Gideons, who pride themselves on spreading God's word (and ban women from membership in their club) take their name from one of the most ferocious leaders of the Israelites.
No wonder the wise people of old rejected such presumed arbitrary hypocritical holiness!
To attain some historical perspective on one of the greatest delusions of modern times, let us observe the origins of this book.
The Bible, translated into the elegant court English of the day (would it be as impressive in modern day English? Seemingly not, as the contemporary version, Good News for Modern Man, lags far behind the traditional version) was an often inaccurate translation of Hebrew and Greek documents which were composed between 900 BC and 120 AD. Similar inaccuracies abound in other languages and various diverse beliefs abounded because of a plethora of ‘holy’ books. Those in control of the masses could see that something had to be done.
There is no manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than the ninth century BC. Shortly before 100 AD, a convention of rabbis at Yavne, Palestine, put together a selected collection of books and declared them to be the Holy Scriptures. This became the basis of the Old Testament.
At a council of the Catholic Church in Carthage in the latter part of the Fourth Century AD, a group of bishops decided what the Christian Bible was going to consist of. Several books which had been read and preached in churches until that time were excluded.
There were Hebrew scriptures and Greek translations (the Septuagint trans. 300-200 BC), popular in Alexandria between 250 BC and 100 BC and other Greek manuscripts which were circulated among religious cults. Later, these included the four gospels as well as others such as the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint John, the Apocalypse (Revelation). Then there were other documents such as the Acts of John, the Didache, the Apostolic Constitutions and the various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. This is a partial list only, there are a host of others such as Origen, Palludus, and Julian the Apostate.
All of these latter ones were excluded in the final, approved version of the Bible. So was The Shepherd of Hermas and the extraordinary Gospel of Saint Thomas and Saint Philip, which contained sayings of Jesus and explained the ‘virgin’ birth as a spiritual and not physical birth. In addition there was the noteworthy gospel of Judas from the second century AD, a scathing review of the church of the day, condemned as heretical by the Bishop of Lyon.
Since then, we have also discovered The Dead Sea Scrolls, which shed light on the Essenes of which Jesus was a member. Does such a document deserve inclusion in the Bible, which, as the word of God, is inviolate? It should be included but this is not possible because there would have to be admission of the Bible's fallibility.
The Bible content was suited to the desired beliefs of the church, and contrary epistles [though just as valid] were rejected.
Thus, a selected anthology of Greek and Hebrew literature became the official Bible. It is from this version of the Roman Catholic decision that all "Christian" churches form their liturgy, no matter what they may think of the Scarlet Woman mentioned in Revelation.
From this we can see that the early Doukhobors, as independent thinkers, were right - they recognized the Bible as a worthwhile collection, containing some important writings, but not necessarily the direct word of God. If that were the case, how could we account for all of the equally inspirational omissions?
And to the early Doukhobors, the Bible as a man-made, inanimate object, was certainly not something to be worshipped or considered "holy"!
The territorial expansion and military conquest in the name of Jesus of Nazareth was the most outrageous and ironic outrage of all!
Thus, a selected anthology of Greek and Hebrew literature became the official Bible. It is from this version of the Roman Catholic decision that all "Christian" churches form their liturgy, no matter what they may think of the Scarlet Woman mentioned in Revelation.
From this we can see that the early Doukhobors, as independent thinkers, were right - they recognized the Bible as a worthwhile collection, containing some important writings, but not necessarily the direct word of God. If that were the case, how could we account for all of the equally inspirational omissions?
And to the early Doukhobors, the Bible as a man-made, inanimate object, was certainly not something to be worshipped or considered "holy"!
The territorial expansion and military conquest in the name of Jesus of Nazareth was the most outrageous and ironic outrage of all!
In the end, the Bible, because it contains contradictory statements, beliefs of the time such as slavery, stoning, diet prohibitions and other pronouncements that are subject to misinterpretation, has been responsible for a great deal of militaristic conquest and dissension among the adherents in the so-called Christian world.
While the so called Christian world purports to follow Christ, in practise, the Bible followers propound a theory and a militant conquering attitude that is anything but the pacifistic teachings of Jesus.
Perhaps the early Doukhobor leaders could not reconcile that with alleged Holy Writ. To believe in Jesus and his words and works was one thing, to believe that the entire Bible could be the definitive word of God was another, particularly when it contained admonishments contrary to the words of Jesus.
In the end, the Doukhobors came down on the side of rationality, and separated faith from delusion - a good beginning for discovering a life belief system and path embodied in the parables and the reported life of Jesus, which in essence, coupled with common sense, contained all that is needed to live a harmonious life devoid of dated myth and superstition.
See accompanying article: DOUKHOBORS AND THE DEVIL:
www.larrysdesk.com/doukhobors-and-the-devil.html
While the so called Christian world purports to follow Christ, in practise, the Bible followers propound a theory and a militant conquering attitude that is anything but the pacifistic teachings of Jesus.
Perhaps the early Doukhobor leaders could not reconcile that with alleged Holy Writ. To believe in Jesus and his words and works was one thing, to believe that the entire Bible could be the definitive word of God was another, particularly when it contained admonishments contrary to the words of Jesus.
In the end, the Doukhobors came down on the side of rationality, and separated faith from delusion - a good beginning for discovering a life belief system and path embodied in the parables and the reported life of Jesus, which in essence, coupled with common sense, contained all that is needed to live a harmonious life devoid of dated myth and superstition.
See accompanying article: DOUKHOBORS AND THE DEVIL:
www.larrysdesk.com/doukhobors-and-the-devil.html