Spiritual vs Man Made Religions

Man Made religions are always corruptions of the Original Spiritual teachings. Who is responsible for the corruptions?  In our present time-frame, you are.  Why?  Because in the past the facts were easily hidden and concealed from the faith-based believing community.   But this is no longer the case.  Because our Constitutional God-Given Rights and Individual Freedoms has set the facts before each person, which makes each person responsible for both the secular and religious leaders they follow and support.  And this personal responsibility has been brought about by the restoration of the Original Gospel teachings by the Original Author/Source which has been puclished free of charge at The Law Of The Gospels http://TheLawOfTheGospels.com

 

What is the difference between the original Gospel teachings and what is preached in the pulpits today? Quoting from The Essenes And The Dead Sea Scrolls http://OriginalGospel.Ebionite.com#Essene

 

 

How much does the modern Church have in common with the original teachings? Perhaps this can be gauged by a recent interview with Pastor Brian McLaren who made the rather profound statement: "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." And truth be told, it can easily be demonstrated that the core purpose and objectives of the original Gospel teachings are so radically different than what is preached from our pulpits today, that the Gospel of the first century would be condemned as heresy if it was presented to a modern congregation of believers. And while the congregation of believers have been largely kept in the dark, the biblical scholars understood this fact – and this is demonstrated in the words of A. Powell Davies who stated: “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 does it mean that the scholars acknowledge that the origin of Christianity is not what believers have been told by the Church? Worse yet, Edmund Wilson, an expert who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls further raised the question as to what difference it makes if “Jesus... had been trained in the discipline and imbued with the thought of a certain Jewish sect, and that he had learned from it the role that he afterwards lived...” (The Scrolls From The Dead Sea). To the uninformed and unknowing believer, it made all the difference in the world! And 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). What all the many recent archaeological discoveries have confirmed and demonstrated is that Prof. Allegro was correct in his assertion that our modern-day understanding of “the source and originality of Christian doctrine” is defective. Why? Because neither the original teachings or the corrupted scriptures simply does not support the tenets and structure of an organized dogmatic church as we have today. In the words of Prof. Elaine Pagles, in her book, The Gnostic Gospels: “It is the winners who write history - their way. No wonder, then, that the viewpoint of the successful majority has dominated all traditional accounts of the origin of Christianity… It suggests that these religious debates - questions of the nature of God, or of Christ - simultaneously bear social and political implications that are crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion. In simplest terms, ideas which bear implications contrary to that development come to be labeled as heresy; ideas which implicitly support it become orthodox”.

Biblical scholars basically told the people the truth about their beliefs, but the truth was and remains unacceptable to the multitude of Churches. Quoting from Examination of Modern NT Text Criticism: "Where history records that true sacred text survived this assault and is preserved in the traditional text, Westcott and Hort counter that the whole church participated in a conspiracy to fabricate a blended (and therefore corrupted) text. Westcott and Hort must not have believed the traditional Christian church to be genuine, but a sham. This thesis is supported by the biographies of Westcott and Hort. When J. F. D. Maurice was accused of false doctrine, Westcott commented that Orthodox Christians are like a new Islam persecuting a revival of the true Christians."

Why would biblical scholar Westcott portray the Orthodox Christians as parallel to Islam in its opposition and persecution of the original teachings of Jesus? When Islam came into being, they claimed that all the Jewish and Christian prophets and authorities were really Muslim prior to the formal inauguration of Islam. And when rightly understood, the Orthodox Christians who were pagan and Mithraic converts to the religion ordained by the Emperor Constantine, did the same exact thing. Why can the adoption of the corrupted scriptures be portrayed as "...a conspiracy to fabricate a blended (and therefore corrupted) text"? Because the Roman Emperor Constantine orchestrated a massive adoption of Christianity as the Universal Religion of the Empire -- which brought about the massive conversion of Mithraic pagans into the Roman Church. Jesus was portrayed as the latest incarnation of the Mithraic sun-god that was born on December 25 -- which is when the sun begins to move northward from the southern hemisphere. Constantine took the most corrupt New Testament scriptures and further edited and corrupted them to make them support the dogma of Mithraism which represented the common beliefs of the people. The original Ebionite Nazirene disciples and followers of Jesus were condemned as heretics -- portrayed as "too Jewish" to understand the meaning of the Gospel -- i.e., “…rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics” (Gibbon: Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, v.1, p.416). Further, the Spiritual (Gentile) Christians who understood the important purpose of the scriptures as a catalyst to develop the mind and enable the seeker/believer to begin to receive the Divine Manna of the Kingdom, were condemned as Gnostic heretics -- hunted down, their scriptures destroyed and those who did not embrace the religion of the emperor, were put to death. Resulting in the fact that the whole foundation of the modern Church which is based upon Original Sin, has been 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 has rendered Christianity spiritually impotent. Further quoting from Examination of Modern NT Text Criticism: "Westcott and Hort must have believed that what historians recorded as a defense against heretics was in reality a suppression of the true church. They believed that what the historians recorded as heretically corrupted texts were closer to the true autographs." And this statement is not only true beyond the comprehension of the modern believer, but has been proven and confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. The more pure the copy of the Gospels, the more offensive it was from the perspective of the dogma and religion of the emperor.