By Bob Cope
Revised 3 JUN 2008
In general, the various so-called Christian church cultures found throughout the world society are a lukewarm blend of things that are said to be but merely resemble Judaism and Christianity along with a smattering of paganism. The resulting blend is then governed by national as well as denominational, and local church politics. Trouble is, the whole thing is unscriptural and not what believers should be doing today.
What it really all boils down to, is power. Both men and women have sought power and to make a name for themselves for as long as they've been around. Power is intimately associated with fame and money. Some seek power through decidedly criminal activities; others get it via military and or political means; many go after it through various financial avenues, while others acquire it by exploiting the religious angle. But its all about power and the making of a name for one's self.
"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because Elohim did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Elohim scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."
(Ge 11:4-9)In the verse above, it is clear that the first priority of the ancient leaders of the people was not that of obedience to Elohim; they wanted to secure for themselves a physical stronghold [the city] a religious stronghold [the tower―a type of church] and then make a name for themselves [a denomination]. These people weren't as interested in obeying and pleasing Elohim, as they were in gaining power; and they were pursuing it through religious means.
This centuries old religious seeking after power which avers that it is 'spiritual,' and of 'God,' is what I like to call religiculture. It is one the most deceitful methods ever employed to gain power because it uncaringly preys upon ignorant multitudes and works hard to keep them in their state of ignorance in order to swindle power, money and fame from them.
Religiculturalists are not the least bit interested in the spiritual growth of their subjects. Religiculturalists actually labor to restrict genuine spiritual growth with cleverly applied religiculture, similar to the manner in which the bonsai artist restricts the natural growth of trees through cleverly applied horticulture.
It's Character: A Comparison with the Art of Bonsai
In the art of bonsai, before the process begins; trees that are about to have their growth restricted and shapes changed are simply normal trees, growing naturally. They are then plucked out of their natural setting; bound with wires and tape; bent, trimmed and forced to exist in a way which their Creator did not intend; but which the bonsai artisan has imposed.
Bonsai trees are totally incapable of maintaining themselves in the manner of Bonsai
Bonsai trees require the continual attention of their tenders ever after, in order to be kept in the stunted manner in which they've been forced to live. Trees that have existed for a long time as bonsai, are not useful anymore for what they could have originally been useful for. They are afterwards good solely as art forms and for selling as merchandise, but nothing else. Only if they are returned their natural environment, before they have aged beyond their natural capacity to return to their natural growth, as the Creator intended, can they have a chance to at least partly recover from the bonsai state. But you'll never see a bonsai horticulturist do that to his trees, and you'll never see a Religiculturalist do that with his congregation!
Bonsai trees are practically fruitless
Generally, fruit bearing trees that have had bonsai forced upon them, do not produce fruit. Some do, but again, generally, that is NOT what the bonsai artisan intended; but if he or she did, it was only for appearances, not for food. Any fruit that bonsai trees might produce, is meager, undersized, usually sour, and not as nourishing as it could have been if left to grow naturally. And such fruit probably does not contain quality viable seed, as the fruit of normally growing trees does. One thing is for sure, the seeds found in the undersized fruit of such trees will not produce another tree that naturally grows in the way of bonsai. And while the outward appearance of the tree that has had bonsai applied to it may be significantly changed; what constitutes the inward nature of the tree remains fundamentally unchanged, just severely restricted. The whole procedure is an unnatural and incomplete forcing of the tree to exist as bonsai. Incomplete I say, because the basic inner nature of the tree remains unchanged by the human forces acting upon it.
There is nothing wrong with making bonsai trees. But there is everything wrong with making religious bonsai of people.
The bonsai process is indeed very similar to what occurs religiously with willing people who ignorantly allow the unscriptural religious church to impose upon them and teach them the customs and traditions of its various sects, while taking from them their money. Such false spirituality indeed does restrict genuine spiritual growth. A person under such bondage is not conscientiously free, as one must be, in order to grow spiritually. They have been made religious bonsai.
Furthermore, like their counterpart; should these religious bonsai ever resist stunting and manage to outgrow their 'containers,' they must either have the undesirable 'roots,' 'branches,' or 'leaves'―which the Religiculturalist did not want―trimmed off or get replanted in a larger 'container,' or else these religious bonsai must be uprooted and cast out, to never to be tended to ever again by their Religiculturalists. This is precisely what happens to church members who outgrow or outlearn their churches, and who refuse to abandon the good they've managed to learn apart from the church. The casting out is called excommunication.The nice looking 'containers' that these religicultured human bonsai are potted in, are the various church buildings which they build and meet in. Like bonsai trees, their containers are sometimes quite ornate, while others are charmingly simple; and like bonsai containers—church buildings, whether large or small, ornate or simple—do not contribute one iota, toward the spiritual growth of what sits inside.
Religion is what plagued the Athenians.
On the subject of religion, the apostle Paul stated clearly that religion is not a good thing.
The translators of the King James Version did not transliterate the Greek word deisidaimonesteros as they should have, they used instead the Latin word "superstitiosiores" as "superstitious." It was probably done under the orders of King James. The New Testament of the King James version isn't a pure translation from the Greek as many wrongly imagine. Nor was tt translated entirely from the Textus Receptus. The Latin Vulgate was also used; as the evidence inarguably proves. The Latin Vulgate is where the word "superstitious," which is found in the King James, came from. Here is a partial quote of Acts 17:22, from the Latin Vulgate:
"stans autem Paulus in medio Ariopagi ait viri athenienses per omnia quasi superstitiosiores vos video"
This proves that the KJV New Testament is not an entirely Greek translation as most of the proud, KJV only crowd are led to believe. And If that wasn't enough, the name of the text from which the King James version was partly taken is the "Textus Receptus;" whose title is also Latin.
The use of the word "superstitious," proves at once, that the KJV was at least partially extracted from the Latin Vulgate, or Codex Vaticanus.
I think that goes a long way toward explaining why the King James Version originally contained the Apocrypha.
Now, proper translation of the Greek word "deisidaimonesteros" would be, "dreadfully or frightfully demonic." You can actually see the Greek word for demon in the compound word, "deisidaimonesteros." It is the word, "daimon." One has to tightly close one's eyes, and take leave of good sense in order to say that what was just stated here, isn't correct. I mentioned these facts mainly for the benefit of the KJV only folks. They are under the mistaken idea that theirs is only valid Bible in existence, and that it was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate at all. None of this was intended to insult but rather as a means to bring one to awareness of the falsehood of the KJV only cult. No translation is perfect, not even near perfect.
But, see how a version, other than the KJV, does a very fine job of translating Acts 17:22:
From the Amplified Version:
"So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus [Mars Hill meeting place], said: Men of Athens, I perceive in every way [on every hand and with every turn I make] that you are most religious or very reverent to demons." (Acts 17:22)
I recommend reading several English language translations when studying. The different approaches will in them will give you a fuller understanding of the meaning of the more difficult to understand verses.
Regarding Traditions: Some Scriptural Statistics About The Word 'Tradition(s)'
Did you know, that there are 11 verses in the New Testament, in which the word 'tradition' occurs? Here are the places where those occurrences are found: Mt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mk. 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Col 2:8; 2Th. 3:6; and 1Pe. 1:18. The word 'tradition' while not present in the pages of the portion of the Bible that we call the Old Testament, is part of it because the Old Testament or more correctly, the old covenant did not expire until Yahushua's death, (Heb 9:15,16,17) and Yahushua warned against traditions before his death (Mt 26:28 Mr 14:24 Lu 22:20).
In seven out of the eleven occurrences in the NT; or, 63% of the time; the term tradition is mentioned negatively. The word 'customs' is found only twice in the OT in Lev. 18:30 and Jer. 10:3; and five times in the book of Acts only in Ac. 6:14; 16:21; 21:21; 26:3; and 28:17.
The first mention in the OT calls [religious] customs "abominable!"
The second mention in the OT associates them unmistakably with what is done in connection with the pagan Christmas celebration!
The first mention of customs in the NT came from the mouths of those who murdered Stephen!
The second mention of customs in the NT came from the mouths of pagan idolaters!
The third came from the mouths of the apostle James and the elders in Jerusalem who were expressing doubts in their appraisal of the apostle Paul's teaching!
The fourth was in connection with Paul's attempt to persuade Agrippa of the truth, and it had to do with the customs of Jewish Law. The fifth and final mention was similar to the fourth, having to do with Jewish Law."Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath the Anointed with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of Yahuweh with idols? for ye are the temple of the living Elohim; as YAHUAH hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahuweh, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith YAHUAH." (2Co 6:14-18)
Did Yahushua issue any commands to construct church buildings? Did any of the apostles? No! Where did they meet? In people's homes! Was there any sort of denominational hierarchy among them as there exists today? Of course not! What you see in today's churches is the modern equivalent of the Pharisaical system. In stark contrast to that system stand these verses:
"Likewise greet the assembly that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Ro 16:5
"The assemblies of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Master, with the assembly that is in their house." (1Co 16:19)
