[continued from previous message]   
      
   Under such conditions, it has been relatively easy for the religious leaders   
   to ignore scriptural precepts or precedents whenever it suited them; and   
   wherever evidence of this deviance crept into the scriptures, the   
   contradictions became fecund grounds    
   on which later clerics could pursue any number of double standards. Although   
   Abraham declared the rite of circumcision to be the sign of a binding Covenant   
   between the Hebrews and their God – a sign so important that, without it, a   
   Hebrew could be    
   excommunicated, [363] nevertheless Abraham's own great-grandchildren abused   
   this ritual to gain a military advantage over some apparently peaceful   
   neighbors. [364] Some few hundred years later, Moses seems to have done his   
   very best to avoid the practice    
   of circumcision, [365] and today the Reform synagogues have declared   
   circumcision as being totally unnecessary for all Jews (largely on the basis   
   of the precedent set by Moses). In a similar way, we find the early Church   
   opening its doors only to    
   circumcised Jews; [366] then later to Gentiles with four very stringent   
   conditions (which did not include circumcision), [367] later still to anyone   
   and everyone with virtually no conditions except the general Christian   
   traditions, [368] and, finally, we    
   discover a violent conversion where refusal meant death and baptism meant   
   obedient acceptance of the Church doctrine and Church hierarchy. [369] (Note   
   that, even before the Protestant Reformation, the Church hierarchy frequently   
   included the worldly    
   chiefs as the actual, though not always formally recognized religious leaders.   
   [370] )   
      
   All of the aforementioned adjustments, and many more were made primarily by   
   placing the blame on God, and demanding an unthinking, and certainly an   
   uncritical blind faith. Insofar as these amendments are reflected in the   
   Bible, that generally resulted    
   from a rewriting of the scriptures. We should note here that one common   
   clerical practice was to put new words into old mouths. Thus, Abraham and the   
   other clan patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, Jesus and his apostles – all   
   managed to say and even do    
   many things from the grave, with the imaginative literary assistance of some   
   later religious opportunists. [371]   
      
   One means of enforcing blind faith and also a useful, and perhaps necessary,   
   support whenever making wholesale changes in religious doctrine has been the   
   out-and-out suppression of scriptures. We have mentioned that the early Church   
   did not dare to let    
   the common people study the Bible for fear of their committing heresy – in   
   plain language the Clergy feared the exposure of their own evil machinations.   
   Indeed, the Church would appear to have taken steps more extreme than just   
   concealing scriptures. The    
   oldest available manuscripts of the New Testament date no closer to the time   
   of Jesus than the 4th Century A.D. The only logical explanation for the   
   disappearance of all earlier manuscripts is that the Church had done   
   considerable editing and rewriting    
   of the original works and preferred to destroy the evidence of their   
   manipulation.   
      
   It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Bible has become available to   
   the public, and a still more recent phenomenon that it has been widely   
   translated. This event may be viewed as an unavoidable concession by the   
   Church to changing times. However,    
   even a disadvantage may occasionally be turned into an advantage; and so we   
   find that the Church zealously maintains control over the processes of   
   translation and retranslation of the Bible – not only to ensure that past   
   skeletons do not emerge, but also    
   to capitalize on this additional possibility for effectively altering the   
   content of the scriptures. [372]   
      
   Every translation is, in some respects, a new interpretation, but the process   
   of reinterpretation of scriptures does not depend only upon translation and   
   retranslation. Reinterpretation has been a longstanding technique used by   
   religious leaders for    
   making the desired changes in their scriptures. The Church elders generally do   
   not like to admit to having reinterpreted scriptures, and so they have devised   
   various methods for covering up their activities. The Jews write commentaries   
   on the Old    
   Testament, which are likened to fences around a holy temple. The Catholic   
   Church applies what it calls the “principle of development of implicit and   
   explicit doctrine”.   
      
   According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian faith of today is   
   identical to that which was taught by Jesus and his disciples. The Church has   
   simply been revealing the inner secret, or inner significance of different   
   doctrines. Thus, in 1854, the    
   Church announced the immaculate conception of Mary; and about one hundred   
   years later, in 1950, the Church told the congregations about Mary's bodily   
   assumption into heaven. Even if we stretch our faith to the limits, it is hard   
   to imagine that this is    
   the original faith taught by the apostle John who, at one point, reports Jesus   
   rebuking his mother with the harsh words, “Woman, what have I to do with   
   thee?” [373] And, even if this were the original faith, one fails to   
   comprehend why it took the Church    
   such a long time – nearly two thousand years – to officially recognize these   
   rather significant achievements of Mary. As mentioned before, that change   
   surely stretches the imagination, but other changes undoubtedly break it. If   
   the faith of this 20th    
   Century be truly the same as that of the 1st Century, how is it possible that   
   Saturday was the “holy Sabbath” for Jesus and the early Christians, whereas   
   today it is just another workday for most Catholics? [374] Obviously the faith   
   is different and, in    
   fact, radically different; and the differences started to creep into   
   Christianity almost from the day that Jesus departed. Hopefully, the   
   Christians of this more scientific age will no longer be befooled by the   
   eyewash known as the “principle of    
   development of implicit and explicit doctrine”. Let us hope that they will, at   
   last, open their eyes and see Christianity – as it is.   
      
   The Largest Religion   
   Most people in this world are followers, not leaders; and followers always   
   prefer to adapt their lives to the prevalent fad or tradition. Thus, a great   
   many people are sincerely impressed by the size of Christianity, which is,   
   without a doubt, the    
   largest and most widespread religion in the world. [375] These people   
   mistakenly assume that present-day popularity of the Christian religion is   
   proof of its virtues. [376] Actually, in a world as corrupt as ours is today,   
   this widespread popularity    
   rather proves the opposite. This charge should become clear when we now   
   consider how and why Christianity grew so big, whereas Judaism has remained   
   relatively small.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)