The Original Sin Of The Church

The Original Sin OF The Church:

 The Original Sin Of The Church: The teaching of the Church that each person is born in sin and is in need of salvation, is easily proven to be a bogus lie that has been used by the Church to enrich themselves and rule over the people.  Original Sin, which is the primary foundational doctrine of the modern Church, is not drawn from the Original Gospel teachings of Jesus and TheWay -- but rather, the doctrine of Original Sin was imported from the Mithraic based teachings of the Iranian prophet Mani.  What can therefore be portrayed as The Foundational Paradigm of Spiritual Failure upon which the modern Church is erected, is built upon the doctrine of Original Sin 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 and promoted by Martin Luther into virtually all sects of Protestantism, is the cause of 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 Core of the 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 Gospel teachings.   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.

The Original Gospel teachings were based upon the spiritual evolution of the Soul that attains Wholeness and Completion over the course of many lives (see The Removal Of The Crucial Teachings On the Pre-Existent Soul http://BrotherOfJesus.org#Removal ).   With the removal of the core teachings on the evolution of the Soul, the doctrine of Original Sin was imported into the core doctrines of the Church, 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 (see The Death Of The Gospels http://DevilSpawn.Ebionite.com#DeathOfTheGospel ).   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.   And in 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 http://BibleCorruption.com , the Gentile believers who portrayed themselves as Orthodox Christians, had been editing the Gospels to make them support their pagan thinking and mindset -- and this editing of the scriptures had been going on 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?

Once the original Christian teachings on the transmigration of the soul that evolves to perfection over the course of many lifetimes was removed from the Gospels and outlawed by the Church, it was necessary to fill the void that was left by the absence of this core teaching on the higher reality of the soul.   And this removed core teaching was originally an integral part of the questions posed by the disciples of Jesus when they asked: "Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'" (John 9:1-2 NKJ).   Thus, it is easily demonstrated that the original Gospel mindset was built upon a very different foundation than what has evolved into the modern Church.  What Christian today would ask the forgoing question?   "...Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'"   It must be immediately recognized that not a single modern Christian would even consider asking such a question.  Why?  As stated in The Hastings-Scribner Dictionary Of The Bible (New York, 1903. Bk 4, p. 63) "To affirm that Jews in Christ's time did not believe in pre-existence is simply incorrect".   Because modern Christians have been totally alienated from the biblical foundational mindset by the very doctrines such as Original Sin that was adopted while the Church was ruled over by Pagan Rome.    Thus, we must pose the question:  What prompted the disciples of Jesus to even ask such a question?  Turning to the historian, this ultra important element to the equation of life is made reference to by Edward Gibbon in the footnote regarding the question of the disciples at John 9:2: "The disciples of Jesus were persuaded that a man might have sinned before he was born, (John, ix. 2,) and the Pharisees held the transmigration [reincarnation] of virtuous souls, (Joseph. de Bell. Judaico, l. ii. c. 7;) and a modern Rabbi is modestly assured, that Hermes, Pythagoras, Plato, etc., derived their metaphysics from his illustrious countrymen" (Gibbon; Decline & Fall) -- metaphysics that embraced the concept of the pre-existence and transmigration of the soul. 

Again, let me pose the question as to what this statement means to us from a modern-day perspective?   It means that the mindset and doctrinal thinking of the modern believer is so alienated from the original biblical foundational mindset and thinking, that the modern believer has been disenfranchised from the Gospel teachings and rendered spiritually sterile.    In the question posed to Jesus there simply is no element of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin.   The question posed to Jesus by his disciples was whether the soul of the man born blind was caused by the sin committed by the man's Soul in a previous life, or whether his blindness was the result of the sin of his parents?  The original mindset and thinking with respect to the events of life from the perception of the disciples is explored in the Wycliffe Commentary where it is written: "The question of the disciples (v. 2) was grounded in the belief that bodily infirmity or suffering was due to sin, whether of parents (Exo 20:5) or of the man himself, presumably on the basis of the soul’s pre-existence, which some Jews held".   Thus we must ask: Is this concept that a soul can sin prior to birth some Jewish fable that the disciples of Christ conjured up themselves?   Or, is this belief based upon a foundational teaching of the Gospel that Jesus taught to them?   Once properly understood, the position of the disciples is founded upon the construct of Jesus' statement to the woman caught in adultery: "Go, and from now on do not sin anymore" (John 8:11).   Thus, Jesus did not tell the woman caught in adultery to believe in him (Jesus) as her personal lord and savior for the forgiveness of her sins.   If, as Augustine set forth, the woman sinned because of the congenial sin imposed upon mankind by virtue of the sin of Adam and Eve, then Jesus never would have stated to her to go forward in her life and cease to sin -- acknowledging that she had the power and ability to cease from sinning.   And this is especially presented in the example of the person Jesus healed and made whole where he said: "...sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14).   Once again we see Jesus rejecting the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin -- conveying to the man the need to begin to live a life wherein he would cease to sin -- i.e., "...sin no more".   But it was the second part of his statement to the man where he made reference to The Laws in the statement "...lest a worse thing come unto thee" that immerses each of us in our own personal Labyrinth of Laws that is molded by our previous actions, and has orchestrated the path and the choices of our destiny (see The Laws That Control Our Lives http://OuterDarkness.Nazirene.org#TheLawsThatControlOurLives ). 

Once again we do not see Jesus conveying to the man to believe in him as his personal lord and savior for the forgiveness of his sins.   We not only see Jesus instructing the man to "sin no more" -- which, in opposition to the Augustianian doctrine of Original Sin, meant that the man had the ability to live free of sin -- but also warning the man that if he sins again after being healed, that "...a worse thing [will] come unto thee".   Why?  Because the Laws of God that were instituted at the dawn of Creation, monitor our every word, thought, desire and deed (see The Laws Of Creation http://OuterDarkness.Nazirene.org#TheLawsOfCreation .  And it is these Laws of Creator-God that were put in place in the Alpha of man's beginning, that returns to each soul the fruit of their own thinking and actions.   And it is for this reason why both Peter and Paul affirm the reality that those who sin -- especially after coming to the knowledge of the Gospel message -- inherit a fate even worse than before they were exposed to the Gospel teachings.   To the degree that Paul warned the congregation of believers: , “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows” (Gal 6:7).    

What does it mean that "...God cannot be mocked -- [and that each person] reaps what he sows”?   To the degree that Jesus warned the man: "...sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."    Yet, to their own spiritual demise, the vast majority of modern Christians promote the belief that they are exempt from having their own sin and misdeeds come back upon them in the manner that is portrayed in these verses -- and that somehow they have been exempted from the fruit of their own ways, while everyone else is held in judgment.   In fact, Christians promote the doctrine that because they attempt to appease the Lord with their lips, they virtually have a license to live in sin.    And they cling to this doctrine even though the Gospel warns that their fate will be worse than the unbelievers (see Fate) -- and that because of their infidelity to the Gospel, wherein they are portrayed as crucifying the Son of God afresh, even the opportunity of salvation by virtue of the sacrifice on the cross has been denied to them (see Sacrifice).    And because of their infidelity to the Gospel, they have been rendered spiritually blind to the degree that they fail to perceive that they are dwelling in what Jesus portrayed as The Prison and the "outer darkness" of mind and being (see Blindness) -- incapable of understanding the core meaning of the Gospel and the scriptures.    

The original ending of the Gospel of Mark reads very differently than the present version -- i.e., "This Age of lawlessness and unbelieving lies under the sway of Satan, who will not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God; therefore, they said to Christ, reveal your righteousness now.   Christ answered them, The term of years for Satan's power has now expired, but other terrors are at hand.  I was delivered to death on behalf of sinners, that they might return to the truth and sin no more, that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven" (Moffatt, quoting Gospel Of Mark in Codex W -- Also quoted by St. Jerome as being the authentic ending of the Gospel of Mark).   This original ending of the Gospel of Mark that is still contained in some of the oldest biblical manuscripts, presents the core essential Gospel teaching that believes in Jesus will "...return to the truth and sin no more"  -- that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven".   Which is why Paul wrote: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom 6:1-2,12,16 KJV).   And again Paul wrote:  "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor" (Gal 2:17-18 KJV).   While the Mithraic Eucharist that was embraced by the Roman Church was for the forgiveness of sins, Paul warns that if you sin and partake the cup of the Lord, that you drink judgment unto yourself:  "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep" (1 Cor 11:27-30 NKJ).   Thus, while the modern Christian Church is founded upon the Augustinian (Manichaean/Mithraic) doctrine of Original Sin and a savior sun-god who was sacrificed to forgive the congenital sins of the people, the Original Gospel teachings were founded upon the pre-existent soul that evolves to perfection and having fulfilled the Royal Law within themselves, believers are able to live a life free of sin.  

In opposition to the Augustine Manichaean doctrine, of the monk named Pelagius (354–420 or 440) the Encyclopedia Britannica (1998 electronic edition) reads: “Pelagius, though not a priest, became a highly regarded spiritual director for both clergy and laymen. The rigorous asceticism of his adherents acted as a reproach to the spiritual sloth of many Roman Christians, whose moral standards greatly distressed him. He blamed Rome's moral laxity on the doctrine of divine grace that he heard a bishop cite from the Confessions of Saint Augustine, who in his prayer for continence beseeched God to grant whatever grace the divine will determined. Pelagius attacked this teaching on the grounds that it imperiled the entire moral law and soon gained a considerable following at Rome”.  Pelagius wrote that: “Man is able, if he likes, to live without sin and keep the commandments of God, in as much as God gives him this ability”.  Which is exactly what the Original Gospel teachings taught.  Notice that Pelagius stated that "...God gives [man] this ability”.  The Wikipedia states: "Pelagius rejected the Augustinian concept of grace. According to his opponents, Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will. Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. The Pelagians charged Augustine with departing from the accepted teaching (e.g.: John 8:11) of the Apostles and the Bible, demonstrating that the doctrine of original sin amounted to Manichaeism, which taught that the flesh was in itself sinful (and thus denied that Jesus came in the flesh). This charge would have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine had himself been a Manichaean layman before converting to Christianity. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through a free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had no free choice to accept or refuse."

When Jesus warned the man "...sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" -- he confirmed the doctrine that all the calamities of life that each individual person encounters and experiences, is caused by each soul's sin and disobedience to the Royal Law of God.   On the question itself that the disciples of Jesus asked -- i.e., Master, who did sin? -- the commentary Barnes’ Notes writes that: "It was a universal opinion among the Jews that calamities of all kinds were the effects of sin. The case, however, of this man was that of one that was blind from his birth, and it was a question which the disciples could not determine whether it was his fault or that of his parents. Many of the Jews, as it appears from their writings (see Lightfoot), believed in the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; or that the soul of a man, in consequence of sin, might be compelled to pass into other bodies, and be punished there. They also believed that an infant might sin before it was born (see Lightfoot), and that consequently this blindness might have come upon the child as a consequence of that".

On the question of who did sin, this man, or his parents, and the pre-existence and reincarnation of the soul, the Adam Clarke Commentary tells us: "The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees, and it was pretty general both among the Greeks and the Asiatics. The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. This seems to have been the foundation of the disciples’ question to our Lord. Did this man sin in a pre-existent state, that he is punished in this body with blindness? Or, did his parents commit some sin, for which they are thus plagued in their offspring!... The Jewish rabbis have had the same belief from the very remotest antiquity. Origen cites an apocryphal book of the Hebrews, in which the patriarch Jacob is made to speak thus: I am an angel of God; one of the first order of spirits. Men call me Jacob, but my true name, which God has given me, is Israel: Orat. Joseph. apud ORIG. Many of the Jewish doctors have believed that the souls of Adam, Abraham, and Phineas, have successively animated the great men of their nation. Philo says that the air is full of spirits, and that some, through their natural propensity, join themselves to bodies; and that others have an aversion from such a union. See several other things relative to this point in his treatises, De Plant. Noe-- De Gigantibus-- De Confus. Ling.-- De Somniis, etc.; and see Calmet, where he is pretty largely quoted".

It is important in our assessment of genuine biblical foundations of thought to recognize the fact that the pre-existence -- and what some call the reincarnation of the soul -- was a universally accepted belief among the people who Jesus taught the Gospel Precepts -- and in the case of the Disciples, the higher reality of the soul and the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God.  Once this fact is acknowledged, then we are forced to conclude that if this belief about the nature of life was in error, and the journey of the pre-existent soul is not a viable part of the teachings of Jesus, then Jesus would have had to condemn it -- or, we must recognize that it was removed by the later Gentile Church.

With respect to the question: Did the Jews in the first century believe in the pre-existent soul?  The Hastings-Scribner Dictionary Of The Bible (New York, 1903. Bk 4, p. 63) "To affirm that Jews in Christ's time did not believe in pre-existence is simply incorrect".   At Genesis 2:7, the Wycliffe Commentary writes: “Man's body was fashioned from the dust of the ground, while his spirit came from the very ‘breath’ of God. He is literally a creature of two worlds; both earth and heaven can claim him”.  More importantly, though, is for us to clarify our understanding of when the soul came into existence.   Thus, the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary notes the belief of both the Jews and early Church: “The... views of Origen and other Fathers, and the... Talmudists, that all souls had been created ‘in the beginning,’ and were lodged by God in a certain place, whence each one was taken out to inhabit the respective bodies of individuals”.   In this respect, it can easily be demonstrated the first followers of Jesus firmly believed that the soul pre-existed the body, and that our present physical forms are mere vessels that we inhabit during our sojourn in this life.

That the Pharisees understood that a man is born blind from the misdeeds of a previous life is seen in their words to the man: "You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?" (Jn 9:34 NAS).  Moreover, it is well documented that the Essenes -- who with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls are now understood to be the foundation of New Covenant teachings -- also believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of the soul.   In his Antiquity of the Jews, the Jewish historian Josephus, who had lived among the Essenes, and was a contemporary of the man Jesus, stated that the Essenes: “…resigned up their souls with great alacrity, as expecting to receive them again.  For their doctrine is this, that bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they came out of the most subtle air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward...”.  

Josephus openly wrote the foregoing words pertaining to the pre-existent soul that incarnates into the body, because it was a predominant belief held by the Jews in the first century.   This fact is also seen in the writings of Philo in his On Dreams Being Sent from God, section 22, where he speaks of the various kinds of souls and of the celestial bodies as being animated entities, quite in common with the general teaching of antiquity, and remarks: "Now all these souls seem to descend upon the earth with a view to being bound up in mortal bodies, those namely which are most nearly connected with the earth, and which are lovers of bodily habitations. Others, however, soar upwards, and are distinguished from others of their class according to the times and characteristics which Nature has appointed unto them. All these souls, those which are influenced by desires for mortal existence and which have been previously familiarized with it, return to mortal life. But others, refusing bodily life as a great folly, and as a mere trifling, pronounce it a prison or a grave, and fleeing from it by the impulses of their nature as from a house of correction or a tomb, raise themselves on the light wings of their nature towards the aether where they devote all their life to speculations of a divine type...".  And in the version of John 9:1 that is contained in the Gospel of the Nazirenes 53:1 (see Born Blind) we can see what the Gospel of John used to contain before being edited by the Church (see BibleCorruption.com ) where it is written: "And at another time as Jesus passed by, he saw a man who was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?  Jesus answered, To what importance is it whether this man or his parents sinned? The rewards of our actions return again to us so that the works of the Lord are made manifest. I must work the works of the Lord while in this season. As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."

Why is there no doctrine of Original Sin in Judaism?   The foundational doctrine which St. Augustine brought into the Church from his Manichaean background?  Modern Christians fail to realize that their religion evolved out of the Essenes, and Spiritual Jews have always founded their system of beliefs upon the concept of the pre-existent soul that evolves to perfection over the course of many lifetimes.   The following quotation is taken from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading of Souls, Transmigration of: “The doctrine of transmigration of souls, which was especially accepted by the Karaites… is generally attacked by Jewish philosophers, but is defended by Isaac Abravanel and Manasseh ben Israel.  It appears often in Cabala; it is found in organized form in the Zohar, it is further developed in the teachings of Isaac Luria (1534-1572), and in Hasidism it becomes a universal belief.   According to these teachings, all human souls have a common origin in the spiritual unity of the primordial man, sparks of which form the individual souls... The sin of Adam brought higher and lower souls into confusion; as a result, every soul has to pass through a series of incarnations... The soul itself has no sex, which is determined by the body and may vary from incarnation to incarnation”.  

In the Zohar which is the foundational doctrine of Jewish Mysticism, it is written that: “All souls are subject to the trials of transmigration; and men do not know the designs of the Most High with regard to them… The souls must re-enter the absolute substance whence they have emerged.  But to accomplish this end they must develop all the perfections, the germ of which is planted in them; and if they have not fulfilled this condition during one life, they must commence another, a third, and so forth, until they have acquired the condition which fits them for reunion with God”.   This reunion with God is the rebirth that was spoken of by Jesus to the Pharisee Nicodemus, “a ruler of the Jews”.  

Parallel to the Journey of the Soul as set forth in the Zohar in the foregoing, is the teachings in the Qur'an which states "God generates beings, and sends them back over and over again, till they return to Him"    Which again parallels the teachings of Jesus in the Pistis Sophia where it is stated: “But if he shall have sinned once, twice, or thrice, they shall reject that soul, sending it back again into the world according to the form of the sins that it may have committed; the form whereof I will declare unto you hereafter.   But verily, verily I say unto you, that even the righteous man that hath committed no sin at all cannot be brought into the Kingdom of Light, forasmuch the seal of the mysteries of that kingdom is not found upon him.  Once for all, I say unto you, a soul cannot be brought into the kingdom, if it be without the mysteries of the Kingdom of the Light.”   When it is understood that the "...seal of the mysteries" which is further stated in the pronouncement that "...Once for all, I say unto you, a soul cannot be brought into the kingdom, if it be without the mysteries of the Kingdom of the Light”  is parallel to the Zohar where it states that "...But to accomplish this end they must develop all the perfections, the germ of which is planted in them; and if they have not fulfilled this condition during one life, they must commence another, a third, and so forth, until they have acquired the condition which fits them for reunion with God”.

Virtually all of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas was removed from the traditional scriptures and teachings (see The Gospel Enigma That Modern Christians Can't Comprehend ).   Saying 84 (see The Foundation Of The Soul And The Threefold Self ) restores the teachings on the pre-existent Soul and our own relationship to the previous lives our Soul has lived.   Saying demonstrates that the traditional belief in reincarnation as embraced by the Eastern religions is in error -- and while the Pre-existent Soul does evolve over the course of many lifetimes, each of these lifetimes are themselves unique incarnations.   And this is why the pre-Nicene Church Fathers rejected the traditional belief in reincarnation, they embraced the teachings of the pre-existent Soul that evolves to perfection over the course of many (unique) lifetimes.   Therefore, as a soul-generated personality, most people don't remember past lives, because they never lived them -- yet, their own Soul generates as many soul-personalities as is needed to become Whole, Complete, and fulfill the requirement of perfection -- i.e., "You, therefore, must be Perfect, as you Heavenly Father is Perfect" (Matt 5:48).   And as demonstrated in the previous link, the great difficulty in explaining the reality of the Soul to organic man who Paul portrays as being of a "natural" mind (see Animal-Soul), is because the typical teachings on reincarnation are in error -- and the pre-existent Soul evolves over the course of many Incarnations -- with each soul-generated personality only living one life.  And because of the spiritual-amnesia of having been cast into the "outer darkness" of mind and being in which mankind as the prodigal sons/daughters have been cast, Paul is correct when he asserts that man in his "natural" untransformed mindset will reject his own higher Soul-Reality as utter "foolishness" -- i.e., “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14 NKJ).  

While Christians attempt to interpret the parable of the Prodigal Son in fragmented piecemeal, when taken as a whole, and understood as a universal reality common to all of mankind in the manner it was intended to be understood, it is recognized to be in total conflict with modern Christian doctrine.    Once it is understood that each of us is the Prodigal Son/Daughter of our Heavenly Father, then it must also be recognized that each of us at one time dwelled in the Kingdom prior to journeying out into this, the "far country".    We don't remember our more distant past prior to this present life, because this realm is the "outer darkness" that causes us to be stricken with Spiritual-Amnesia http://AnInconvenientTruth.org#SpiritualAmnesia .   Thus, we see this parallel concept in the above quotation from the Zohar where it states that each of us, like the Prodigal Son that we are, must return to our Source -- i.e.,  "The souls must re-enter the absolute substance whence they have emerged...."

In the parable of the Wedding Feast, those who come to TheCall must have put on the required Wedding Garment -- and thus, we see the parallel concept in the Zohar in the words with respect to the required perfection of each soul: "But to accomplish this end they must develop all the perfections, the germ of which is planted in them...".   To the degree that Jesus stated in the Sermon on the Mount at Matthew 5:48 that each soul must be as perfect as their Heavenly Father -- i.e., again parallel to the Zohar: "...and if they have not fulfilled this condition during one life, they must commence another, a third, and so forth, until they have acquired the condition which fits them for reunion with God”.   In the parable of the talents, when the distribution of Talents is understood within the Foundation of the Original Gospel Teachings prior to being corrupted -- and the difference is understood between those portrayed as "invited guests" and the majority who were not "invited guests" as pertaining to The Talents And A Person's Spiritual DNA http://TheCall.Nazirene.org#SpiritualDNA , a totally different picture of each of our more distant past begins to emerge -- prompting the Church Father Origen to explain: “Every soul... comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life” (Origen, De Principiis).  

God did not hate Esau and love Jacob for no reason!  Paul gives the example of Jacob and Esau, and writes: “For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, The older will serve the younger. Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom 9:11-13 NAS).   What the Apostle is very clearly stating is that, before either of the twins had been born, before either had “done anything good or bad”, God not only decided their fate in life, but for no apparent reason, He hated Esau and loved Jacob.   Why?   Paul offers no explanation other than God does what he wants to do -- and man does not have the right to question God's choices in these matters.   This is especially seen in the words: “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Rom 9:21 NKJ).   Origen then demonstrates that our lot in life is the result of our own deserts, and writes: “For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honor, and other vessels to dishonor; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity [an untarnished wedding garment] He makes a vessel unto honor, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonor. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honor or dishonor. Therefore every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honor or one unto dishonor. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all piety, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God either to honor or to dishonor, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and (believe) that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother”.  This same reality where each of us comes into the body in accord with the accomplishments of our Soul's past, is expressed in the Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20, where it reads: “Now I was a child good by nature, and… being good, I came into a body undefiled”.

To even begin to comprehend this higher reality of the perfection of the soul over the course of many lifetimes, the person must understand the cycle of the Prodigal Son/Daughter as presented in the words: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.  For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa 55:8-11 NKJ).   God cannot fail -- and nothing in Creation can be void -- and as the Prodigal Sons of the Most High, each of us emanated from the Edenic Kingdom of Origination -- and each us us must fulfill the requirement of perfection as presented at Matt 5:48 -- and if this required perfection is "...not fulfilled this condition during one life, [we] must commence another, a third, and so forth, until [our souls] have acquired the condition which fits them for reunion with God”
With respect to not only the example of Jacob and Esau in the womb -- but also all infants -- the question must be posed: What is a child?  From the perspective of the framework of modern Christian thought, we would say that a child it is a newly soul that was created at conception by God.  But is it?  The Bible itself states to us in Eccl 1:9-11 that “there is no new thing under the sun” -- and then asks the question: “Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See this is new”.  Let us refute the wisdom of the Bible, and use the example of a new-born baby as something that is new.  Surely this baby is new -- i.e., from a Christian perspective it has never had an existence prior to being born.  Yet, the scripture confutes us, and teaches that “It hath been already of old time, which was before us”.  So that we might be sure that the scriptures are speaking about a new born baby, it then goes on to clarify the statement by adding: “There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after”.   Based upon these words is can be said that, from a biblical perspective, even though a baby (or person) will not remember its past: “It hath been already of old time”. According to the first Christians, this is true -- unless the Lord opens the mind of a person which would then permit them to remember the previous lives that their soul has lived.  That the majority of people do not remember the previous lives that their pre-existent soul has lived prior to their coming into being in their present life, is basically caused by the fact that by embracing the culture of this world, they have made themselves alien to their true self.

Once the teachings on the pre-existent soul was removed from the Gospels and suppressed by the Church of Constantine, it became necessary to fill the void with the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin as a means of explaining many of the inconsistencies left in the scriptures.  And in total conflict with Original Sin, Paul not only stated that mankind was forced into what is personified in the allegorical Fall of Man -- but the journey in the Far Country portrayed in the parable was absolutely necessary for each of our development.  As the Prodigal Sons/Daughters of the Most High, each of us was forced to leave the Kingdom and venture out into this world which is portrayed in the parable as the "far country" -- not by our own choosing, but by the Will of God who through the Natural Laws forced each of us into the "outer darkness" of the Far Country.   But what is the Far Country?  A realm where each of us is able to grow and evolve to perfection -- i.e., “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Rom 8:20-22 NIV).   What the Apostle states in the above quotation is that it was (the Laws of) Creator-God that subjected mankind to the frustration of what we perceive as the Fall of Man, in order that “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage” through the process of the soul-evolution in this world which is God's Spiritual University that perfects and brings about our eventual spiritual rebirth into the Kingdom -- i.e., “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time”.  Yet, it remains virtually impossible to convey to organic "natural" man that this realm of the "outer darkness" can be better portrayed as the "mental-womb" of Mother-Earth (see Mental Womb http://OuterDarkness.Nazirene.org#MentalWomb ).   And in the same way that a fetus is evolved within the womb of its mother to prepare for physical birth, mankind who is born into this world as a Cosmic Ovum or Sperm , must become a viable embryo that is prepared to evolve within the Womb of Mother-Earth, and bring about the next stage of birth that Jesus said was absolutely necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.  

What does Paul's words mean?  Take especial notice of the words:  "...For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it  ...For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now".   In the same way that Jesus stated that unless you bring about the next stage of birth, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven -- all of the trials of the prodigal son in this, the Far Country, is the process of birth that was brought upon mankind by the Laws -- Laws which evolve each and every soul from the Alpha of ignorance, to the Omega of Enlightened Light and Knowing (see The Laws That Control Our Lives).   The great truth that is not at all understood in the above words -- a truth that has been continually expressed by both Jewish and Christian visionaries is that the knowledge of the mysteries of God and the Divine Plan -- begins with the knowledge of ourselves as the Prodigal Sons of our Heavenly Father.    And it is for this reason that the second-century Church Father Clement of Alexandria said that it is “…the greatest of all lessons to know one's self. For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God… and that man becomes God, since God so wills”.    And that this statement is confirmed in the Gospel of Thomas in the words: "But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty... Whoever finds himself is superior to the world."   In his treaties on The Soul and the Resurrection, St Gregory writes that “the Resurrection is no other thing than 'the re-constitution of our nature in its original form’”, and states that there will come a time “…when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last”.   This statement should provoke great thought in the reader who is under the misconception that our Heavenly Father would destroy or forever cut off one of his sons or daughters who are lost in this world.   Moreover, the reality that mankind did not Fall from Grace because of the insane folly of what the Church of Rome portrayed as Original Sin -- but rather  "...the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it" -- and that what mankind is presently enduring is the "...groans and labors [of] birth pangs".   Which means that what is presented and concealed within the allegory of the letter of the written word, is simply beyond even man's imagination.    Which is why Paul warns that the higher reality of the soul and the Mysteries of the Kingdom is incomprehensible to the "natural" mind of man who, because of his own mental and spiritual immaturity, will reject the Truth as utter "foolishness" (see Mystery Of The Gospel).    Moreover, this means that if what the biblical authors and early Church authorities are saying is true, how could those who wrote the scriptures possibly put what is incomprehensible into a plain written narrative that those who totally lack the capacity to understand, would read and comprehend?   Further, so long as mankind remains what is portrayed as being  "glued" to the Citizen of this world -- and the Citizen or god of this world maintains absolute control over the thinking and life of organic man -- then it remains impossible for man to comprehend anything of a higher reality than the most mundane things of this world.