[continued from previous message]   
      
   Many of the details presented here cannot be considered proved beyond a shadow   
   of a doubt. However, I believe that sufficient evidence, both direct and   
   circumstantial, is adduced to refute most of the preposterous notions   
   popularized by the Church. To    
   put it simply, the Gospel story is often a far cry from the Gospel truth.   
   Occasionally I may offer more than one alternative scenario; but, wherever and   
   in whatever way I diverge from the standard dogma, it is my opinion that such   
   an alternative presents    
   a more probable rendition of events as they really took place two thousand   
   years ago.   
      
   This analysis of the life of Jesus may seem brief to many readers – it is   
   brief by preference. Some other persons may object to the disjointed style in   
   which interesting supportive material and an abundance of tantalizing   
   speculation appear in footnotes.    
   But this treatise is intended neither as a work of fiction nor even as a   
   definitive study of the life and times of Jesus. Although much material   
   presented herein amounts to a direct attack on the character of the historical   
   Jesus, even that, or rather    
   especially that, is not the purpose of this writing. My primary intent here is   
   to expose some of the myriad flaws in the popular story; and, for any “with   
   ears to hear” or “eyes to see”, this purpose must surely be accomplished. To   
   extend the discussion    
   beyond that point would prove no more valuable than the early Christian debate   
   on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.   
      
   If in the process of making my points I should offend anyone's religious   
   sentiment, that most assuredly is not my intention. To a large degree my   
   position is like that of the farmer who, while claiming that his donkey would   
   get up and move forward even    
   on a softly spoken command, nevertheless always hit the donkey's head with a   
   sledge hammer before whispering in its ear. Said the farmer, “My donkey is   
   very obedient, but first I must get its attention”. Anyway, let me give prior   
   warning to my readers    
   that the following material is definitely not for the faint of heart, and that   
   those who choose to read further do so at their own risk. If some honest but   
   simple persons fail to understand this caution and, reading further, might   
   feel that I have    
   overstepped all reasonable boundaries of religious tolerance, then to those   
   good and gentle people I offer my sincere apology and beg their pardon.   
      
   God and This World   
   Once a student asked his Teacher to explain the difference between God and   
   this world. The Teacher held up her fist and said, “There is no difference.”   
   Next she showed two fingers and said, “They appear to be two, but in action   
   and in essence they are    
   one.” Then she began to shake her two fingers back and forth, faster and   
   faster, until they appeared as one and finally disappeared altogether. “And   
   that one,” said she, “always remains a mystery until and unless one merges   
   one's identity in it.”   
      
   Spiritualists sometimes say, “As above, so below” – or, in other words, what   
   applies in the realm of spirituality also applies to this material world. Many   
   people have talked about the value or desirability of a separation between   
   church and state, but    
   the fact is that this separation has never existed and can never fully occur.   
   There may be a technical distinction and a legal separation, there may even be   
   a temporary opposition between the government in power and the prevailing   
   religious or spiritual    
   authorities, but history has shown time and again that, for better or for   
   worse, the state and the church are inevitably wedded to each other. The   
   simple fact is that both are claiming a legislative authority over the people.   
   The Church claims a moral    
   prerogative, with freedom to make certain adjustments as per necessity in the   
   application of the alleged God-given ethical and social principles revealed in   
   their scriptures. The State claims a legal prerogative, with freedom to enact   
   new laws, or    
   amendments to laws within certain limitations and on the basis of a divine or   
   popular mandate to rule. These two sets of laws cannot long remain at variance   
   with each other. [67] “One society, one law” is the foundation of a healthy   
   nation – too much    
   internal clash and a civilization crumbles either from internal turmoil or   
   external pressure. This plain fact of life has been well understood, either   
   consciously or unconsciously, by virtually all major political and religious   
   leaders throughout the    
   annals of recorded history. Hence, though Church and State may have appeared   
   to be separate at times, in essence and in action they were generally one. The   
   ancient kings claimed to be Gods. When that ploy failed, they claimed a divine   
   right to rule and    
   they invariably imposed or supported only those religions which upheld that   
   right, Christianity being one of the foremost religions to do so. [68]   
   Throughout the world today, even in the most decadent or corrupt or inhuman   
   regimes, one   
   inds remarkably little conflict between the dominant secular and religious   
   leadership. In Russia where it is alleged that Christianity has been brutally   
   suppressed, we find nowadays a warm and supportive relationship expressed   
   between the predominant    
   Russian Orthodox Church and the present communist government. [69]   
      
   Jesus gave recognition to the need for social harmony when he said, “Every   
   kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided   
   against a house falleth.” [70] But Jesus seems to have applied this principle   
   in a curious way.    
   Although Jesus was himself a Jew, he had a low opinion of the prevailing   
   Jewish leadership, both secular and religious; that is to say, both Herod whom   
   Jesus called a “fox”, [71] and the Sadducees, Pharisees and Scribes whom he   
   treated as being beneath    
   contempt. [72] On the other hand, Jesus took great pains to support the right   
   to rule of the Roman Empire which was, at that time, firmly in control of   
   Israel and heavily taxing the Jews. [73] Jesus was unquestionably prepared to   
   bring division among the    
   Jews (in fact, this was his stated mission [74] ), but he did not want to   
   foment rebellion against the Romans. This seemingly treacherous conduct of   
   Jesus certainly merits our study and our analysis. What was the real ambition   
   of Jesus – was it spiritual    
   or political? Who benefitted most from his activities? Did Jesus work alone or   
   did he have secret supporters? What was his strategy? And finally, did Jesus   
   succeed or fail in achieving his stated and unstated objectives? Let us   
   consider these questions    
   one at a time.   
      
   Reading Between the Lines   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)