The Folly Of Original Sin

  The Folly Of Original Sin: The primary doctrine of the Church is not drawn from the Original Gospel teachings of TheWay — but rather, the doctrine of Original Sin had to be imported from the Mithraic based teachings of the Iranian prophet Mani, in order to explain and fill the great void that the Church suppression of important teachings on the pre-existent soul created.   Thereby creating a pagan foundation to the Church that rendered Christianity spiritually impotent.   Yet, Jesus himself in the Gospels stated just the opposite in the words: “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17).   Contrary to the Church dogma, if Jesus is the physician, then those who achieve and sustain a condition of Wholeness, do not need the physician — and as a physician, Jesus did not come for the salvation of those who are Whole, but only those who are sick and need the physician.   But in to all opposition to Church dogma, what this also means is that at the time of Jesus, there existed people who he portrays as “whole [and] righteous” who did not need Jesus the physician (see The Original Teachings Have Nothing In Common With Church Dogma http://TheCall.Nazirene.org#OriginalTeachings ).

When Prof. John Allegro was quoted as saying that what has been revealed in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a great amount of overwhelming evidence that “…may upset a great many basic teachings of the Christian Church.   This in turn would greatly upset many Christian Theologians and believers.   The heart of the matter is, in fact, the source and originality of Christian doctrine” (August 1966 issue of Harpers Magazine), few modern Christians have even begun to understand why Prof. Allegro made this statement, which confirmed the position of A. Powell Davies that: “Biblical scholars were not disturbed by what they found in the Dead Sea Scrolls because they had known all along that the origin of Christianity was not what was commonly supposed to have been” (quoted by Millar Burrows in More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls).  What was it about the Original Foundational Gospel teachings that had virtually nothing in common with what modern Christians believe today?   And perhaps the more important question: Does it matter?

While most Christians remain ignorant of why biblical scholars published these long ignored warnings, the majority of believers felt that so long as the Church had the Bible as their guide, that the facts they remained ignorant of really didn’t matter.   Yet, in light of a series of even more profound statement by scholars such as Prof. Bart D. Ehrman that the Bibles that the Church is using has been edited with core spiritual teachings removed — wherein in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he warns us that: “…theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy” — which orthodoxy was to bring the text of the Bible into conformity with the doctrines and tenets of the Church of the Roman Emperor Constantine.   As documented in the article BibleCorruption.com , the Gentile believers who portrayed themselves as Orthodox Christians, had been editing and in their manner of thinking, correcting the scriptures since the first century.   In his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, by Dr. F. H. Scrivener, he writes that: “In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest”. Scrivener states that “it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church” used inferior manuscripts.  Under the title of Bible in the Church, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics writes: “In the first two centuries nearly all the various readings of the New Testament came into existence, the majority of them by deliberate alteration of the text, many for the sake of style, and several in the interests of dogma… Often readings were rejected as falsifications of heretics, but often the heretics were right in their counter-complaint… Every province, every order, every monastery, has a tradition of its own…”   If every province, every order, and every monastery in the first two centuries had their own version of the scriptures which supported their favorite doctrines of belief, then we must seriously ask the question as to what has been passed down to us today?  

Fortunately, if the Christian begins to rebuild his thinking — the paradigm and framework of their mindset — supported by a lifestyle built upon the Original Gospel Foundation — learning how to use the scriptures in their intended function as the Key of Knowledge that opens the“narrow gate” within them to gain entrance to the Inner Kingdom — which through the process of Anamnesis the scriptures are designed to “open the eyes of the heart” to see and experience all Spiritual Truths that the Pure Gospel Teachings revealed to the Original Disciples of TheWay — then the corruption of the scriptures will no longer have the spiritually devastating effect as they have had upon the modern Christians who dwell in a self-imposed Diaspora of abject spiritual ignorance.   But to break free of the shackles that enslave the Church, they must begin to reject the Mesopotamian quasi-gnostic teachings that have totally alienated modern Christians from the Original Gospel Foundational teachings — thereby rendering Christianity in the words of The Adam Clark Bible Commentary with regard to the passage at Hebrews 1:5 to be based upon a “vain and baseless” vision of both the very nature and destiny of mankind.  If the source of what you as a Christian believes has virtually nothing in common with what Jesus taught — and his original followers and disciples believed — then when you arrive in the hereafter, how will you defend your reluctance to seek Truth during your life you are presently living?  When it is demonstrated to you that as the prodigal son or daughter, you possess the innate ability to tap into the Truth of all Truths, what excuse will you use to defend your complacency?  And if it is shown to you that not only do you — as the offspring of your Heavenly Father — possess the innate ability to tap into the Truth of all Truth — but it is in fact one of the primary purposes your soul is living your present life — are you prepared to admit to to a life of abject failure?   

The Foundational Paradigm of Failure is erected upon the doctrine of Original Sins and all the similar doctrines which have their existence within the domain of a savior who must be sacrificed for the salvation of a fallen mankind.   While modern believers cling to the dogma of the doctrine of Original Sin which was hatched by St. Augustine, it is the faith-based believers own spiritual immaturity that causes them to cling to such preposterous and carnal ideas about God.   What was the source of the doctrine of Original Sin?  Quoting from T.W. Doane, Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, 7th ed., 1910, p.194-5: “The Persians believed that they were tainted with original sin, owing to the fall of their first parents who were tempted by the evil one in the form of a serpent” [194:12].   Quoting from the Wikipedia: “The Romans attributed their Mithraic mysteries (the mystery religion known as Mithraism) to Persian or Zoroastrian sources relating to Mithra.”  With respect to Manichaeanism, the same article states:  “It was among the Parthian Manicheans that Mithra as a Sun God surpassed the importance of Narisaf as the common Iranian image of the Third Messenger; among the Parthians the dominance of Mithra was such that his identification with the Third Messenger led to cultic emphasis on the Mithraic traits in the Manichaean God.”   Quoting from The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves who writes with respect to those who believed in Mithra: “They observed all the Christian sacraments, even to the laying on of hands in the confirmation.” (211.) And the Christian Tertullian also tells us that “The priests of Mithra promised absolution from sin on confession and baptism,” while another author adds, that “on such occasions Mithra marked his followers (the servants of God) in their foreheads,” and that “he celebrated the sacrifice of bread, which is the resurrection.”

St. Augustine, one of the most important figures in the history of the Roman Church, was a Manichaean before converting to Christianity.   Why did he convert?   It is important to note that Augustine’s conversion came after the threat of death — i.e., quoting the Wikipedia: “Augustine of Hippo (354–430) converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, in the year 387. This was shortly after the Roman Emperor Theodosius I had issued a decree of death for all Manichaean monks in 382 and shortly before he declared Christianity to be the only legitimate religion for the Roman Empire in 391.”   So, in the same way that the Emperor Constantine hunted down the Ebionite Nazirenes and Spiritual Christians as heretics in the year 325, Theodosius hunted down the Manichaeans in the year 382.   And it was shortly after the decree of death by the emperor, that Augustine converted to Christianity.   Further, it is therefore important to point out that Manichaean teachings were based upon a form of Gentile-Gnosticism – and this form of Gnostic teachings which rejects the Original Gospel Teachings, has totally undermined the modern Church.   With respect to the Manichaeism of St. Augustine the Wikipedia states: Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. Through an ongoing process which takes place in human history, light is gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of light, whence it came. Its beliefs were based on local Mesopotamian gnostic and religious movements.   Thus, when rightly understood, these Mesopotamian teachings which have been classified as Gnostic have totally undermined the original spiritual foundation of the Church.   And with respect to the label Gnostic: It should be noted that the Roman Church labeled virtually every theological position contrary to their own as Gnostic heresy.  To the degree that the word itself and what it represents has been totally misrepresented by man’s countless opinions that have no basis in actual fact.

Was the teachings of Mani which both Manichean and Mithraic Dualism served as the Foundation of the Doctrine of Original Sin that was championed by St. Augustine was based truly Gnostic?   It must be acknowledged that there are what must be understood as quasi faux-Gnostic and various Mystery religions that have attempted to portray the physical as evil, and only spirit as good.  And while they may call themselves Gnostic, they are not — they are merely a different variety of the way of the monk.  Before his conversion, St Augustine who is the author of the doctrine of Original Sin (see The Folly Of Original Sin: http://AnInconvenientTruth.org#OriginalSin ) wherein he drew from his Manichaean background the faux-gnostic concepts that were the bedrock of his doctrine as presented above in the Widipedia: article.   While Duality exists — all evil is in the Separation of the Opposite Male/Female or Positive/Negative or Active/Refliective Polarities.  Which means that the only evil in the “material world” is in its separation from its spiritual opposite — and when rightly understood, all Duality is in fact the very Foundation of the Trinity and the Divine Pattern of Creation — and in view of the fact that the Third-Force Balance of the Trinity is the Reality of Mind, it must be recognized as anti-Gnostic to promote the belief that this world which is Feminine/Reflective, must be suppressed and negated.   Further, the Mind and the acquisition of the Divine Manna of the Kingdom (Gnosis) can only be achieved by embracing the reality of Wholeness as personified in saying 22 of the Gospel of Thomas: “Jesus replied, ‘When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; …then will you enter the kingdom'” — and thus, overcome all Duality by merging and marrying the opposites within the mind of the seeker/disciple.     Which means that the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is against and in opposition to the purpose and objective of the Original Gospel Teachings. 

To what degree the church had fallen under the control of blind carnal men can perhaps best be envisioned in the words of Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, when he wrote: “It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous, that there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them as arbitrarily. The Homoousion is rejected, and received, and explained away by successive synods. The partial or total resemblance of the Father and of the Son is a subject of dispute for these unhappy times. Every year, nay, every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those who we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin” (Quoted by E. Gibbon; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).  Led by religious politicians, the Christian world became immersed in a sea of manmade doctrines — doctrines that attempted to explain spiritual concepts that was beyond their ability to comprehend.   The doctrine that Augustine brought into Christianity Mesopotamian religious sect that had virtually nothing in common with the original Gospel teachings, which was later embraced by the framers of the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin, has totally undermined the foundation of the whole of the modern Christian Church.  Thereby exiling faith-based believers in a self-imposed spiritual Diaspora that has totally alienated them from the Original Core Gospel Teachings and Objectives.

While Augustine after his conversion and with the threat of death vehemently opposed the Manichaean views of God, his teachings on original sin were directly drawn from what he had learned and embraced in Manichaeism.   In answer to the question does the Bible support Original Sin?   And the question: Does Judaism Believe In Original Sin?  The answer is stated in the foregoing article: “The term ‘original sin’ is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets.”  The Wikipedia further adds: “The doctrine of ‘inherited sin’ is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world…”.  But what does this mean?   In the allegorical account of Genesis (see The Allegorical Fall of Man), Adam is not a person — the word Adam simply means man — and like the parable of the prodigal son, is representative of the universal pattern and reality of all of mankind.  The idea of what is presented in the written text as the sin of Adam, is what is portrayed allegorically — but as will be demonstrated below, the Fall was forced upon all souls as stated at Rom 8:19-22.   And this Fall was brought about because of the lack of experiential knowledge. 

We have seen it documented in the above that freedom of religion did not exist once the Roman Government adopted the religion of Christianity.   Constantine hunted down and murdered those Christians who did not embrace the religion of the emperor.  Thus, Gibbon writes in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: ”Constantine easily believed that the heretics, who presumed to dispute his opinions or to oppose his commands, were guilty of the most absurd and criminal obstinancy… Not a moment was lost in excluding the ministers and teachers of the separated congregations from any share of the rewards and immunities which the emperor had so liberally bestowed on the orthodox clergy. But as the sectaries might still exist under the cloud of royal disgrace, the conquest of the East was immediately followed by an edict which announced their total destruction”.    Thus, in the same way that whoever did not embrace the religion of the emperor met with the sentence of death, whatever scriptures did not conform to the approved version, was immediately destroyed (see http://BibleCorruption.com ).   And in like manner, we see in the above where Augustine converted to Christianity was the Emperor Theodosius I issued the edict for the death of all Manichaeans.  And this fact of forced conversions and secular imposed doctrines was acknowledged in a recent Christianity Today interview with Brian McLaren where he pointed out that “One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history” — what Brian McLaren is actually stating is that the vast majority of Christian believers would be “deeply disturbed” to be confronted by the historical fact that the doctrines and dogma of the Church — as well as what teachings in the Bible were correct — was determined by the emperors of pagan Rome and their approved bishops, priests and scribes of the Roman Church.