The Parable Of TheCall To The Wedding Banquette: The Gospel parables present Universal Truths that are important to the life of every person alive today.   And among the parables, one of the most important parabolic teaching that is relevant in the life of every man, woman and child, is TheCall to the Wedding Banquette.  This parable is as relevant to the Christian as it is the Jew, the Muslim, the Atheist, the Hindu, the Buddhist and every person from every walk of life today.   And if this parable was to be understood and put into practice, the division between all religions would not only be healed, but each would be restored to their original core spiritual condition prior to being corrupted by mankind.  In fact, the desired peace on earth can only come when the parable of TheCall is understood as being relevant across the spectrum of all mankind.   When rightly understood, the parable of TheCall must be recognized as an Organic Fact of Life that is essential for every person to comprehend the meaning of, from both a personal and group perspective.   Further, the core principle of all religions and all of man's quests to seek the meaning and his/her true destiny in life, are all presented in the parable of TheCall.   Not to understand how the parable of TheCall is relevant to one's own personal life, is to dwell in abject ignorance of the very purpose and objectives of the life you are presently living.  

The Great Truths that are presented in the parables -- and especially TheCall to the Wedding Banquette -- is relevant to all of mankind regardless of their religion or lack of religious beliefs.  The parables and their fulfillment deal universally with the higher realities and purpose of the lives we are all presently living in this world.   Therefore, what is relevant to the believer, is just as relevant to the unbelievers -- primarily because what is being presented is a matter and reality of the Natural Laws of this world and Creation.  But from a Christian perspective, there exits an even greater looming question based upon the fact that the Truths presented in the parable is in direct opposition to man-made Christian Church dogma.   And this is seen in the fact that the parable of TheCall possesses a serious enigma that remains virtually impossible for the modern believer to even begin to deal with.  The problem: If the Christians are personified in the parable as the invited guests, then it is nearly impossible for the modern Christian to correctly interpret the meaning of the parables as they universally apply to all of mankind.   Why?  Because modern Church doctrine has absolutely nothing in common with the original teachings as restored at http://OriginalGospel.Ebionite.com -- which purpose of the Original Gospel teachings and objectives of TheWay as revealed by the historical man Jesus.   Further, because of the infusion of man-made dogma and the suppression of ultra-important original teachings, the Church itself has been rendered spiritually impotent -- and actually inhibits the believer's ability to come to TheCall.  Why? Because the dogma and teachings of the modern Church has virtually nothing in common with the original Gospel teachings of Jesus and TheWay.   Yet, each person's success in their present life, can be gauged by their response to TheCall, and their place at what is allegorically portrayed as the Wedding Banquette.   The parables in the Gospels present Universal Truths that are relevant to all of mankind -- which means that the modern Christian must choose between the Original Gospel Teachings, or the manmade dogma of the Church -- and it cannot be both. 

In our understanding of the above, it is imperative to recognize that the parable of TheCall is universal to all of mankind -- every man, woman and child must come to TheCall in order to be Whole and Complete.  Which means that the reality that is allegorically portrayed is true with respect to all nonbelievers and believers of all religions.  Among the many questions the parable raises is:  What is TheCall?  How does a person come to TheCall?  In the parable, who are the invited guests who did not come?  How did they come to be invited?  What makes the invited guests different than the uninvited who the parable portrays as being found in the "intersections of the highways" of life?   What is the wedding garment?   How does a person put the wedding garment on?   What is the "outer darkness" (of mind and being) that those who failed to put on the wedding garment were cast into?   What is the consequence of being cast into the "outer darkness" (see Outer Darkness)?   If it is true that the "outer darkness" in TheCall, is a diminished condition of mind in the Far Country in the parable of the prodigal son, then it is important to understand how and why this mentally and spiritually suppressed condition of mind is overcome?  How does one escape the "outer darkness" of the Far Country?  When the king states: "those who were invited weren't worthy" -- what constitutes being worthy?   What is the fate of the invited guests who did not come?   Modern Christians can't answere these important questions, because they have been alienated from the Gospel teachings by the dogma of carnal men.

If the Christians are representative of the invited guests, in the version found in the Gospel of Luke it states: "For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet” -- which provokes the question: How can the Christians be saved by faith apart from their actions -- making claim to a guarantee and free gift of salvation the moment they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior?  Further -- and quite contrary to Church dogma -- if non-Christians were those who had not been called as invited guests -- and the non-Christians were not doomed to the destruction imposed upon the invited guests who did not come -- the question still remains as to what is the fate of those who were cast into the "outer darkness"?  What does it mean: "For many are called, but few chosen"?  Which, from a Christian doctrinal perspective the question must be posed: Aren't all those who call upon the name of the Lord saved?  

Paul has traditionally been called the Apostle of Faith, because he portrayed the "works" of the Law of Moses as having been done away with.   But Paul also portrays the literal seemingly (historical) accounts of the Torah and Old Testament as an allegory -- i.e., "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory..." (Gal 4:22-24); meaning, historically the alleged events never happened -- which is why Paul portrayed the scriptures as "letter that killeth [and] Jewish folktales" (see 2 Cor 3:6; Titus 1:14).   What this means is that if the two sons of Abraham did not historically exist -- and what is presented in the scriptures is an allegorical portrayal of mind and spirit -- then the whole foundation of the scriptures are an allegorical portrayal of mind and spirit.  As would be the Law of Moses.   Yet, the great truths that are being presented to the seeker/believer in the spiritual meaning of the (allegorical) scriptures, is of the utmost importance -- i.e., of far greater value and importance than the ritual observance of the allegorical literal text -- much of which has been drawn from what Paul portrays as the "letter that killeth [and] Jewish folktales".  Which also means that only those who respond to TheCall -- and begin to put on the required "wedding garment" -- are able to perceive and understand the true spiritual meaning of the written word of the scriptures.    And all those who fail to put on the required "wedding garment", see nothing more than the "letter that killeth [and] Jewish folktales" when they attempt to read and understand the scriptures.   And sadly, all the manmade doctrines and dogma of the Church is based upon the written text of the scriptures. 

The doctrine that a Christian is saved from the moment they believe, is said to be drawn from the theology of Martin Luther who not only was a proponent of deriving his understanding solely from the written text of the scriptures, but he also rejected over half of the New Testament because the Gospels and Epistles he rejected failed to confirm his theology.  What does the Apostle of faith say?   To the Roman Christians he warns: "Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.  Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off" (Rom 11:20-22).    What does it mean "...provided that you continue in his kindness"?  And if Christians are saved by faith the moment they say their prayer accepting Jesus as the personal Lord and Savior, how can Paul warn them that if they fail to hold to the original intent and meaning of the Gospel teachings, that they "also will be cut off"?  What happened?  Because the Christians entered into a covenant with Pagan Rome -- installing the emperor who was not even baptized as the head of the Church -- and in a state of absolute arrogance, hunted down and murdered all sincere spiritual Christians and original Ebionite Nazirenes who did not accept the doctrines of the pagan emperor of Rome -- even editing and corrupting the very words of God spoken to mankind (see The Corruption Of The Words Of God http://BrotherOfJesus.org#CorruptionOfGodsWords ) -- the Church has not only been "cut off" -- but the Christians themselves dwell in a Spiritual Diaspora under the cloud of abject spiritual ignorance.    

  The Problem: The Original Gospel Teachings Have Nothing In Common With Modern Church Dogma: The primary doctrine of the Church is not drawn from the Original Gospel teachings of TheWay -- but rather is based upon a quasi faux-gnostic Manichaean and Mithraic foundation of teachings which states that all of mankind are equally tarnished with Original Sin, and must be redeemed by Jesus the savior.   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).   Before this verse can be understood we must first understand what it means to be Whole.   Which provokes the question: How is Wholeness achieved?   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.  

One of the many scriptural verses that appears to be contrary to the foregoing is at John 9:32-34 where it was stated of the man who was born blind: "Never before has anyone heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind.  If this man were not from God, He could not do anything like this. They replied, You were born in utter sin, and you are instructing us? And they threw him out".   The problem is that while the verse supports the philosophy that a person can be born in sin, the verse does not in any manner state that all men are born in sin -- only those born with hardship and infirmities -- and in this case, the reference is being made to the man who was born blind.  Contrary to the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, the Pharisees who threw the man out ("And they threw him out"), did not believe that they were born in sin -- which they saw as the cause of the man's blindness from birth.   Therefore, the question must be posed: Were the Pharisees correct that some men were born in sin?  While others were not?   The problem is that to correctly answer these questions, there is a missing dimension to the doctrines of the Church that has created this seemingly unanswerable enigma.   And when this important teaching was removed and suppressed by the Church, it made the Gospels virtually impossible to understand the original meaning.   Further, 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 created.   Thereby creating a pagan foundation to the Church that rendered Christianity spiritually impotent. 

As I will prove in the below, the original followers and disciples of Jesus who walked and talked with him daily did not believe he was God incarnate.   As the first of the prodigal sons to return to the Edenic Kingdom of Origination, Jesus taught them that he was a man -- just as all other men -- and as a true holy man who fulfilled the Law within himself, had become At-One with the Indwelling Logos/Son of God.   And he taught that all men and women who become Whole and Complete, are able to do and accomplish all that he did.   Therefore, if, as Jesus said that all who "...are whole have no need of the physician" -- and the historical man Jesus himself emerged out of humanity as the first of the prodigal sons to fully escape this world and return to our Source in the Edenic Kingdom -- then it must be recognized that modern Christianity has virtually nothing in common with the Original Gospel teachings of TheWay.

The doctrinal foundation of modern Christianity is built upon the gravely flawed construct of what has been portrayed as quasi faux-gnostic teachings based upon Manichaean and Mithraic dogma.   Before his conversion, St Augustine who is the author of the doctrine of Original Sin, drew upon his Manichaean background, and the faux-gnostic concepts that were the bedrock of his doctrine as presented in the Widipedia:   "Manichaeism  was a major religious movement that was founded by the Iranian prophet Mani in the Sasanian Empire.  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."  

The Foundational Paradigm of Failure is erected 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 fully embraced by Martin Luther, Calvin and other Protestant leaders of the Reformation, it is the faith-based believers own spiritual immaturity that causes them to cling to such preposterous and carnal ideas about God.   There is in fact a totally different explanation of the words "...light is gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of light, whence it came" -- which explanation and understanding is totally absent from Augustine's theology of Original Sin.   But both Manichaeanism and Mithraism were what can be portrayed as ancient Mystery Religions that only revealed the meaning of their doctrines and teachings to initiates within the system.    

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 article: "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 the Iranian prophet Mani which both Manichean and Mithraic Dualism was based upon, also served as the Foundation of the Doctrine of Original Sin that was championed by St. Augustine was based truly Gnosticism?  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 (see http://SoulSelf.org#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 it is true that Duality exists -- all evil is in the Separation of the Opposite Male/Female or Positive/Negative or Active/Reflective Polarities of Creation.  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, each prodigal son or daughter must 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).  The "Homoousion" is of course the doctrine of the Trinity that declares that Jesus was God incarnate.  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 which was drawn from a 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 appeared to have 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 in the foregoing link on the Allegorical Fall of Man, the Fall was forced upon all souls as stated at Rom 8:19-22.   And this Fall was brought about (1) because of the lack of experiential knowledge; (2) instituted by the Laws of Creation for the good of all of mankind. 

Based upon the theology of Martin Luther who in the creation of his doctrine of faith apart from actions, rejected over half of the New Testament -- modern Christians maintain that they are saved by faith totally apart from their actions and works -- claiming that their salvation is guaranteed from the moment they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.   But is this the original teachings of Jesus?   When Martin Luther created his doctrine of salvation by faith alone, Luther rejected the teaching of Paul that: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who ...then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." (Heb 6:4-6;10:26-27 RSV).   If a believer who comes to the knowledge of the Gospel sins -- and this sin revokes any sacrifice for his sin -- then Paul's position totally refutes both the theology of Martin Luther and the doctrines of the modern Church that salvation is guaranteed from the moment they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.   Further, Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James which made the case for "faith apart from actions is dead" -- calling the Epistle authored by the first leader of the New Covenant Church and brother of Jesus an "epistle of straw".   And in the same way, Luther rejected the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke because the teachings and message of these primary Gospels did not agree with his theology.   Yet, with respect to the dogma of instant and immediate salvation authored by Luther, Jesus warned: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matt 7:21-23 NKJ).   In Luther's defense, he had no idea that the most spiritually important Original Teachings had been removed from the Gospels, and these teachings were then suppressed by the Roman Church. 

Do these words apply to the modern Christian where it proclaims: "You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men’” (Matt 15:7-9).  "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46 KJV).   And this is why Jesus warned those who would call themselves his followers and believers: “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matt 10:38-39 NKJ).   The requirement that has been set forth is that “ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:45 KJV).    In the words of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa: “…it is imperative on all those who have an equally earnest desire for the Good as He has, to be followers by the path of an exact imitation of Him Who leads the way to salvation, and to carry into action what He has shown them. It is, in fact impossible for persons to reach the same goal unless they travel by the same ways”.   And this is why the requirement was set forth by Jesus with respect to his disciples and followers:  “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48 RSV).

When Martin Luther promoted his doctrine of faith apart from actions by rejecting over half of the New Testament, the only scripture that was acceptable to him was the Gospel of John.  But in light of the more recent discovery of both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library of pre-Nicene Christian scriptures, even his understanding of the Gospel of John is questionable.   In his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity, Dead Sea Scroll expert Prof. John Allegro writes: “It is a fact that the Qumran Library has profoundly affected the study of the Johannine writings and many longheld conceptions have had to be radically revised. No longer can John be regarded as the most Hellenistic of the Evangelists; his gnosticism, and the whole framework of his thought is seen now to spring directly from a Jewish sectarianism rooted in palestinian soil, and his material recognized as founded in the earliest layers of Gospel traditions.”   What is being stated is that with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Gospel of John is no longer viewed as being Hellenistic or Greek-influence, and very much has sprang from the very Gnostic Essenes.   Once this connection was made through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is imperative to recognize that Gnostics do not write historical accounts -- but rather, compose allegorical writings that conceal the true inner meaning from those who are not initiates of the sect.    

In order to begin to understand why the theology of Martin Luther was profoundly in error -- especially in view of the fact that he based his doctrines on a Gospel that has sprang from a very mystical Essene-Gnostic Foundation -- the question must be posed: What is the meaning of the word mysticism?  Briefly, mysticism is descriptive of the ability of man to look beyond the limitations of the five senses in order to gain a better understanding of life, God and Creation.  The whole concept of mysticism is rejected by the institutionalized thinking of the Church who rejects the existence of anything beyond the perception of the five senses.    The word Gnostic, as used by Prof. Allegro, is the Greek word used to describe the acquisition of knowledge gained through the mystical process of man's inner and direct connection with God.   While Christians today embrace the doctrine of faith that was defined by Martin Luther, the flaw in their many perceptions is seen in their inability to understand that the doctrine of faith was based upon the foundation of mysticism that was laid by the Apostle Paul when he wrote: “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).    And the very essence of all genuine religious movements are "foolishness" to the mind of the untransformed organic man, because the essence of the spiritual movement is based and founded upon those realities that are beyond the vision and scope of the man's physical senses -- i.e.,  "while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor 4:18 NKJ). 

Paul portrayed the baptized and committed Christians who he personally taught as still being of an "animal-soul" level of consciousness who were incapable of receiving the Higher Sacred Knowledge -- a.k.a., Divine Manna or Gnosis.   And this reality is expressed in the meaning of the Greek text of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (2:14) where Paul states that the "natural" organic man cannot comprehend the higher reality of the Soul and the Mysteries of the Kingdom.   Which profound statement provokes the question: What is meant by the term that Paul used when he described the very people who he had himself taught who were incapable of comprehending the higher reality of the soul and the Mysteries of the Kingdom when he portrayed them as being of a "natural" organic level of mind and consciousness?   The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary writes with respect to the meaning of the word in the original Greek language: "natural man—literally, 'a man of animal soul'."  Further,  the Treasury Of Scriptural Knowledge states of this ignored and profound statement at 1 Cor 2:14 which reads (quoting Paul): "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" -- wherein the proper interpretative-meaning of Paul's words with respect to the reality of what is portrayed by Paul as the natural man is then presented: [Psuchikos,] the animal man, one who lives in a natural state, and under the influence of his animal passions; for [psuche] means the inferior and sensual part of man, in opposition to the [nous] understanding, or [pneuma,] the spirit. And this is not only true -- but it is a fact of life that all mystics and enlightened souls must deal with when interacting with organic man.   Which is exactly why Paul profoundly stated to the very people who he had personally taught the Gospel message: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.  I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal" (1 Cor 3:1-3 NKJ).   Stating to the body of confirmed and baptized believers who he acknowledged had received all truth and knowledge pertaining to the elementary "traditions" of Christ: “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).   

An important insight into the very essence, purpose and higher spiritual objectives of the Original Teachings of TheWay is contained in an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the heading, The History of Christian Mysticism, where it reads: “Although the essence of mysticism is the sense of contact with the transcendent, mysticism in the history of Christianity should not be understood merely in terms of special ecstatic experiences but as part of a religious process lived out within the context of the Christian community. From this perspective mysticism played a vital part in the early church. Early Christianity was a religion of the spirit that expressed itself in the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness”.     What is expressed in these words is of the utmost importance.   Why?   Because the original teachings of Jesus was not the blind faith and belief in a prophet or god-man -- but rather, the means to transform all Christian disciples of TheWay into prophets and mystics as demonstrated in the words: "...From this perspective mysticism played a vital part in the early church. Early Christianity was a religion of the spirit that expressed itself in the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness”.   But, we must then pose the question: Just what is a "...religion of the spirit"?    Like an astronaut who travels beyond the limits of the earth's atmosphere into outer space, a spiritual religion prepares the seeker/disciple to transcend the barrier of this physical world, and enter into what the biblical authors portrayed as the Kingdom of God which Jesus taught was within us.   But to accomplish this spiritual transcendence, you had to first prepare the physical body to make it an environment that would permit "...the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness” to be brought about -- and this requires a great amount of effort and preparation.   Which reality created a great divide among the Christians from the second century onward -- i.e., there was the Christians who called themselves Orthodox who were Fundamentalists who believed in a god-man; and there were the Spiritual Christians who embraced the Transformative Power of the Gospel Teachings, and through the process of "...the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness”, became Anointed and received the Sacred Knowledge or Divine Manna of the Kingdom which can only be conveyed to those whose mind are prepared to receive this Higher Knowledge.  A Higher Knowledge which Paul warned the faith-based Christians could not receive because they were spiritually immature, and of an "animal-soul" level of consciousness (see Organic Man Ruled Over By His Lower Animal Nature  http://SoulSelf.org#AnimalNature ).    

What Jesus taught and revealed to his disciples with regard to who he was, is exactly what was stated by Peter after he was himself totally enlightened by the Holy Spirit: “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22 NIV).   Where did Peter get the notion that Jesus was a man -- a man "accredited by God" -- a man that God performed miracles, wonders and signs  "...which God did among you through him"?   Didn’t Jesus himself say that “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself...” (John 5:19 NAS);   “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (John 14:10 NKJ); “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30 NKJ); “...I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him” (John 8:28-29 NIV); “for the works which the Father has given Me to finish -- the very works that I do -- bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36 NKJ); “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You” (John 17:6-7 NKJ).  

The important spiritual truth that is demonstrated in the above is that EVERY PRODIGAL SON AND DAUGHTER has the capacity to become Anointed and arise to perfection as their elder brother Jesus did.   And this is further confirmed in the quotation of the Apostle Peter by his disciple Clement in the Homilies where it is written: “For even the Hebrews who believe Moses, and do not observe the things spoken by him, are not saved, unless they observe the things that were spoken to them. For their believing Moses was not of their own will, but of God, who said to Moses, Behold, I come to thee in a pillar of cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. Since, therefore, both to the Hebrews and to those who are called from the Gentiles, believing in the teachers of truth is of God, while excellent actions are left to every one to do by his own judgment, the reward is righteously bestowed upon those who do well. For there would have been no need of Moses, or of the coming of Jesus, if of themselves they would have understood what is reasonable. Neither is there salvation in believing in teachers and calling them lords”.

In absolute opposition to the dogma of Pagan Rome and the teachings of the Iranian prophet Mani which both Manichean and Mithraic Dualism served as the Foundation of the Doctrine of Original Sin that was championed by St. Augustine, Peter proclaims that "...For there would have been no need of Moses, or of the coming of Jesus, if of themselves they would have understood what is reasonable. Neither is there salvation in believing in teachers and calling them lords”.  Why did Peter state that  "...if of themselves they would have understood what is reasonable" -- which was to totally keep the Commandments and fulfill the Law within themselves and "...they are able to become Christs".  And in total opposition to the prayer of the modern Christian beseeching the man Jesus to be their savior -- on faith alone with no requirement of actions -- Peter states: "...Neither is there salvation in believing in teachers and calling them lords”.   Thus, the instant salvation that modern Christians have been seduced into believing they have, has no foundation in fact.   That man has the capacity to arise from the carnal elements of this realm -- keep and live in accord with the Royal Law and Commandments of God -- is why Paul warns the Christians that if they knowingly sin after coming to the Gospel teachings, that they will be totally rejected as apostates to the Kingdom: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who ...then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." (Heb 6:4-6;10:26-27 RSV).  This is why Paul stated with respect to those who call themselves Christian, and continue to live a sinful life: "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).   Which confirms the alternate ending of the Gospel of Mark which reads: "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). 

That the later Church of Rome which existed as a puppet under the pagan sun worshipping Emperor Constantine, censored and changed the very words of God spoken to mankind, is the primary reason why the Christian world remains shackled to the abyss of spiritual ignorance to this very day.    In the below article it will be demonstrated that all the pre-Nicene Christian authors who quoted the baptism sequence in their writings, confirmed that prior to the fourth century editing of the scriptures by the Church of Rome, that the Gospels confirmed that Jesus was a holy man who became the Lord's Anointed (Messiah/Christ) by fulfilling and overcoming the Laws.  Or, as stated by Dead Sea Scroll expert Edmund Wilson “Jesus... had been trained in the discipline and imbued with the thought of a certain Jewish sect [the very mystical and Gnostic Essenes], and that he had learned from it the role that he afterwards lived...”.   And it was Jesus' fulfilling the Royal Law within himself that God acknowledged to mankind when he said at Jesus' baptism in the Jordan:  "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee".   Moreover, in addition to the six (6) pre-Nicene Christian authors who are cited in The Ten Words, this fact is further confirmed in the more ancient surviving biblical texts that modern translators continue to ignore to the spiritual pearl of the Christian world today.     That the modern Church continues to reject the very words of God spoken to mankind, in favor of the censored and corrupted words of the fourth century Emperor of Pagan Rome, is the reason why the modern Church which has caused itself to be spiritually flat-lined, only possesses what Paul portrayed as the "elementary" doctrines that the Church Father Origen defined as being “...preached in the Churches …for the simpleminded and for the ears of the common crowd who are led on to live better lives by their belief”  (see Origen, Contra Celsum).  These 10 words demonstrate conclusively that the text of the New Testament has been altered in order to make it support the doctrines of the Pagan Roman/Greek world.   These 10 words further demonstrate that the essence of the teachings of Yeshua/Jesus has little in common with the Christian religion today.   In fact, these 10 words are to Christianity, what the 10 Commandments were to Judaism -- i.e., the foundation from which every other aspect of the religion springs forth!  When Jesus taught that believers must pick up their own cross and travail in TheWay, this required a total change in the person's thinking, mindset and lifestyle.  

   Spiritual Apostasy: In the fourth century that segment of the Church which portrayed itself as Orthodox, entered into a covenant with the Roman Emperor Constantine -- wherein the Church fell into the pit of corruption.  How corrupt had the Church become?  In his letter to Pope Leo X on September 6th, 1520, where Martin Luther wrote of the Christianity of his day, that the church, “…once the holiest of all, has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death, and hell. It is so bad that even Antichrist himself, if he should come, could think of nothing to add to its wickedness” (Quoted in: The Great Thoughts; compiled by George Seldes).   Confronted by the massive corruption of the Roman Church when the emperor hunted down the Spiritual Christians who refused to embrace the dogma of Constantine -- i.e., In the words of Gibbon 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”.   Being forced to rely upon corrupted scriptures -- "...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"  (Prof. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture).  With the most important higher level spiritual teachings removed -- creating a dogmatic void in the foundation of the Church -- Martin Luther and many of the other framers of the Reformation relied upon the theology of Augustine and Original Sin to explain away the important foundational teachings that were suppressed by the Church. 

Martin Luther who fully embraced the doctrine of Original Sin, based his theology on Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin -- which was itself founded upon the teachings of the Iranian prophet Mani which the tenets of both Manichean and Mithraic tenets were based upon -- that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, that mankind was a congenital sinner who had to be redeemed from his fallen condition -- and even after his redemption, man could not cease to sin -- teaching that Christians should live in sin as seen in his words of Martin Luther: "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.  We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides...  No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;'  'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).   Martin Luther even went as far in opposition to the teachings of Jesus and TheWay, as to condemn those who strove to live the Consecrated Life that the Gospel Ordained -- as seen in the words: "Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin."  (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122).   Thus, there is simply very little that the modern Church holds in common with the original teachings of Jesus and TheWay which was the path of spiritual transformation and Completion -- and the Command: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2 Cor 6:17 KJV).

What was the source of the Roman Church's 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].  St. Augustine, one of the most important figures in the history of the Roman Church, was a Manichaean before converting to Christianity.   And while Augustine after his conversion vehemently opposed the Manichaean views of God, his teachings on original sin were directly drawn from what he had learned in Manichaeism.

When the Church embraced the man-made doctrine of Martin Luther that a Christian inherits the promise of salvation based solely upon faith -- totally irrespective of their lifestyle and actions -- using Jesus as a one time sacrifice for their lives immersed in perpetual sin -- the Christian world became apostates to the Original Gospel teachings and the Kingdom.  The Flawed Doctrine Of Perpetual Redemption totally ignores the many statements by Paul where he warns: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who ...then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." (Heb 6:4-6;10:26-27 RSV).   Why did Paul make such a statement?   Because the original Gospel teachings in their original form was one of spiritual transformation -- a process that would evolve the mind of the seeker/disciple from their embryonic condition, to that of spiritual maturity and Wholeness -- and those who reject these teachings and fall back into the thinking and lifestyle of this world -- who willfully sin after coming to the knowledge of the Gospel message -- are not only unbelievers and apostates to the teachings of the Gospels, but in Paul's words these counterfeit believers crucify the Son of God afresh.  And, in total opposition to what is preached in the modern Churches, Paul warns that "...there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." 

In the Original New Covenant Sacraments ( http://Sacraments.Nazirene.org ) Baptism was the required wedding garment to come to TheCall to the Wedding Feast.  And in accord with the Original Gospel Teachings, if a person knowingly sins after baptism, then they have defiled the Wedding Garment -- and there can be no more forgiveness of sins. And I believe that Paul answers the question in the statement. (quoting from http://sacraments.nazirene.org/#SpiritualAbuseOfSacraments ): When Paul wrote and warned that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord -- i.e., "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. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor 11:27-29) -- the question should be posed as to what constitutes a lack of discernment?  While a more exacting translation of the above is found in many of the older versions which state: "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself", few Christians who have been taught the modern man-made doctrines of the Church, are able to understand how a baptized and confirmed Christian can eat and drink damnation and judgment for their failure to properly discern the Lord's body.

Thus, the question that must be asked in light of the Biblical experts who have raised the question as to "...the source and originality of Christian doctrine”,  is what exactly constitutes the required "wedding garment"?   Which also raises the question: While it is true that Paul rejected the ritual observance of the Jews, what was the requirements that Paul did set forth for the congregation of believers?   To the faith-based Christians Paul stated: "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature..." (Col 3:5 NIV) -- stating that "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24 NIV).     Therefore it can be concluded that from Paul's perspective, living in accord with the Gospel teachings requires repentance and change -- and thus, the reality of the words of Isaiah have enveloped the modern faith-based believers: "For they that lead this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed" (Isa 9:6).    And when rightly understood, the resounding truth is that the modern believers have chosen tradition and dogma over the Knowledge of the Original Teachings associated with the New Covenant -- i.e., "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee..." (Hos 4:6).  

  The Allotment Of Talents To The Invited Guests: In the parable of TheCall to the Wedding Banquette, Christians cannot even begin to understand why some people are categorized as "invited guests", while others are not.   From a purely dogmatic and doctrinal perspective, a modern Christian is only required to say their prayer accepting Jesus as their personal lord and savior to receive the Promise of the Gospel -- but is this factual and true from an Original Gospel perspective?   After accepting Jesus as their personal lord and savior, the modern Christian believes they are free to go about their business and normal affairs of life with no other requirements -- being saved by faith apart from works or actions.  Yet, in the version of TheCall to the Banquette in Luke, Jesus states: "But one after another, they all began to make excuses. The first one said, ‘I have bought a field and I need to go see it. Please excuse me.’ Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen and I am going to try them out. Please excuse’ me. Still another said, ‘I have married a wife, so I cannot come’" (Luke 14:17-24) -- and yet, because these invited guests did not abandon their obligations of this world, and come to TheCall, it is stated that: "For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet” -- which presents the fact that a believer or invited guest can't continue in their normal life in the manner they are accustomed to living, and there are requirements set forth for the invited guests to fulfill.   Quoting the prayer which has come to be accepted by modern Christians: "You must believe in salvation by grace alone, and that salvation is immediate and eternal upon acceptance of Jesus as a one-time sacrifice for your sins, and not obtained through works, sacraments, traditions or merits of our own".   The teaching that this is "...a one-time sacrifice for your sins, and not obtained through works, sacraments, traditions or merits of our own" -- means that no other actions or requirements are necessary for the believer who repeats the prayer. 

To understand what is being stated in the foregoing with respect to the invited and not-invited guests, one must understand from the perspective of the parable of the talents -- i.e., "And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey" (Matt 25:15 NKJ).   The key concept here is that each person was not only entrusted with a different amount, but that each person was entrusted with an amount "...each according to his own ability."   When rightly understood within the construct of the original Gospel teachings prior to being corrupted by the Church, each person is given their lot in life in accordance with this predetermined criteria of what each soul has accomplished in their own past.  Further, what Jesus taught was that what the spiritually poor people possessed, would even be taken away and be given to those who had an abundance: “Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away” (Matt 25:28-29 NKJ).   Thus, on the surface, Jesus appears to be a Robin Hood in reverse -- take from the poor, and give to the rich.

One of the many paradoxes that confront the believer is explored in these biblical verses by the Wycliffe Commentary which writes: “Herein is the crux of the interpretation. If this reckoning is the judgment of the believer's works, then we apparently have a true believer suffering the loss of his soul because of the barrenness of his works. But that interpretation would contradict John 5:24. Or, if the unprofitable servant represents a mere professing Christian, whose real nature is thus unmasked, then it appears that the judgment of believers' works and the damnation of sinners occur together, although Revelation 20 separates these judgments by 1,000 years”.

What does John 5:24 say?  “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24 NIV).   What we must recognize is the fact that there is only a contradiction with respect to our interpretation of the word belief.   The Bible is very clear that those people who claim an allegiance to the teachings of the Lord, and yet continue to live in the manner of unbelievers, are themselves self-condemned; as seen in the words: “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 7:21 NIV).   Thus, belief is sustained through a person's actions -- and only those who actually live in accordance with the Royal Law of God, and do the Will of the Father, are those of whom John 5:24 states will be saved.

The problem is that these verses, as in the twentieth chapter of the Revelation and many other places in the Bible, appear to declare two conflicting doctrines -- i.e., some state that believers get into heaven on the basis of their profession of faith, while other biblical passages clearly state that the believer will be held accountable for their deeds.   With regard to the requirement of works, in the parable of the Sower And The Seed Jesus clearly warned believers that they are required to increase what has been given to them: “…multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times” what was initially received (Mark 4:8 NIV).   Yet, as the Wycliffe Commentary points out, John 5:24 is one of those seemingly all-inclusive verses which appear to generally state that all believers will be saved -- but who is a believer?   And from a spiritual perspective, who is able to hear the word -- i.e., "...whoever hears my word" -- and do we understand the words from a spiritual perspective: "...he has crossed over from death to life”???

Paul goes even one step further and warns that if any believer intentionally sins after coming to the Gospel teachings, that there is no longer a sacrifice for their sins, and they are doomed to destruction.   Based upon the dogma of Martin Luther, modern Christians maintain that they are saved by faith totally apart from their actions and works -- and their salvation is guaranteed from the moment they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.   But is this the original teachings of Jesus?   The Flawed Doctrine Of Perpetual Redemption totally ignores the many statements by Paul where he warns: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who ...then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." (Heb 6:4-6;10:26-27 RSV).   Why did Paul make such a statement?   Because the original Gospel teachings in their original form was one of spiritual transformation -- a process that would evolve the mind of the seeker/disciple from their embryonic condition, to that of spiritual maturity and Wholeness -- and those who reject these teachings and fall back into the thinking and lifestyle of this world -- who willfully sin after coming to the knowledge of the Gospel message -- are not only unbelievers and apostates to the teachings of the Gospels, but in Paul's words these counterfeit believers crucify the Son of God afresh -- and, in total opposition to what is preached in the modern Churches, Paul warns that "...there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."   These, and other such spiritual concepts, were totally unacceptable to the fourth century heathen Church of Rome -- and while these few passages continue to exist, the scriptures were corrupted (see http://BibleCorruption.com ) in order to make the Gospels support the doctrines of a series of Roman Emperors who ruled over the Church from the fourth century onward.     That the Church has abandoned the original teachings of Jesus -- to the degree that when it is proven that the fourth century Church even edited and corrupted the very words of God spoken to man (see http://TheTenWords.com ) -- means that until the Church itself repents of this great sin against the Holy Spirit, they will remain under a cloud of ignorance in an exiled state in a Spiritual Diaspora. 

  The Talents And Each Person's Spiritual DNA: All of the above provokes the question: What is the determining factor as to why one servant was given "one talent", another was given "two talents", while another was given "five talents"?  It is virtually impossible for modern Christians to answer this question, because a Roman Emperor suppressed and outlawed the teaching on the pre-existent soul that evolves to perfection over the course of many lifetimes (see The Religion Of Roman Emperors).   And that each person enters this life in accord with the past accomplishments of their soul -- i.e., "...each according to his own ability".  

Origen then goes on to demonstrate this truth by using the very example which the Apostle Paul gave with regard to why Paul wrote that God hated Esau, and loved Jacob -- even before they were born into that life -- making reference to Paul's words: So it is written at Romans 9:13-14: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Absolutely not! For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."   With the teachings on the pre-existent soul removed, it remains virtually impossible for the modern Christian to understand why God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before they were born into that life.  And we can see the modern dogmatic void in Origen's answer when he writes: “‘What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?' And that he might furnish us with an opportunity of inquiring into these matters, and of ascertaining how these things do not happen without a reason, he answers himself, and says, 'God forbid.' For the same question, as it seems to me, which is raised concerning Jacob and Esau, may be raised regarding all celestial and terrestrial creatures, and even those of the lower world as well. And in like manner it seems to me, that as he there says, 'The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,' so it might also be said of all other things, 'When they were not yet' created, 'neither had yet done any good or evil, that the decree of God according to election may stand,' that (as certain think) some things on the one hand were created heavenly, some on the other earthly, and others, again, beneath the earth, 'not of works' (as they think), 'but of Him who calleth,' what shall we say then, if these things are so? 'Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.' As, therefore, when the Scriptures are carefully examined regarding Jacob and Esau, it is not found to be unrighteousness with God that it should be said, before they were born, or had done anything in this life, 'the elder shall serve the younger;' and as it is found not to be unrighteousness that even in the womb Jacob supplanted his brother, if we feel that he was worthily beloved by God, according to the deserts of his previous life, so as to deserve to be preferred before his brother”.