Thank you I loveTTATT and Splash, your researches are much
more important than the flip-flopping doctrines they record.
What they say is that
any interpretation of the Bible contains nothing certain on which we can base beliefs.
The whole of the NT was about getting a saviour cult
established in a market already saturated in saviours. As an example of how it
must have been: Did Christ have a beard or not (who cares!) well if you were
talking up your new saviour cult two thousand years ago to a Roman, then your
Jesus saviour would not have a beard since the then familiar Mithras was the
young unshaven Good Shepherd, god-man saviour. The same with the recent past;
in the fifties beards were still symbols of the great unwashed (Except for Van
Amberg, GB member and treasurer who had a beard until his death in 1947ish). So
the society looked for and found reasons not to depict JC with a hairy chin.
When their reasoning looked thin, they changed to a hirsute Jesus.
There is one summary point which strikes me reading these
lists of official doctrinal drivel, it is this: how can a committee of men in
New York sit down at a table and determine among themselves what will be eternal
truths which they will publish and foist on their ignorant and submissive
flock?... And you must believe it on penalty of excommunication! What a charade!