Brother of Yeshua

Segment 1

Moreover, if you are a Christian, there is a whole other dimension to the problem: In ignoring the evidence of what the Lord himself has placed in your hands, what will be your excuse for not investigating the matter? How will you defend yourself when the time comes that you stand before the Judgment Seat of God, and must give an accounting of what you accomplished in this life? In view of the fact that The Way to the Truth and the Light is still very clearly defined even in our present-day Bibles, if you fail to pick up your cross and follow, what will be your excuse?

The truth is that Christians have no excuse -- the corruption of both the church and the written word has been well predicted in the Bible itself. What the scriptures very clearly warn us about is that these tares in the field where the Word has been planted are the work of the evil one. They have been put there to entrap us, and keep us in subjection to the devil. The initial problem is that only when we begin to acknowledge that the tares exist, can the Lord direct us beyond these entrapments that have been put there to ensnare us. If we are workers in the Lord's harvest, then faith means that we believe the Lord will guide us into what is right. If we allow him, the Lord will show us what are the tares, and what is the wheat that we are to gather and store in the Lord's barns. The problem is that the Lord cannot teach us, so long as we remain in denial, and continue to ignore the very examples of the devil's work that plainly exists for us to see. If, then, we continue to choose to ignore the Lord, it is not only an almost worthless endeavor that we call ourselves Christians, but it is a sinful violation of the Ten Commandments with respect to calling on the name of the Lord in vain.

Segment 2

The Corruption Of Origen's Commentary: Do we need more proof? Further evidence that has been preserved for us in our evaluation of the passages of scripture pertaining to the little ones is seen in the fact that, in his commentary, Origen makes no mention of the inserted verses: "Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us" . Why wouldnt Origen comment on the placement of these verses? In view of the facts, it is a no brainer to conclude that this separate and alien teaching does not belong in the middle of the Lord's discourse pertaining to children. If these verses were present in the scriptures that Origen used in the second and third century, then he would have noted them when he compared the differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke in his commentary on Matthew, which we still have today.

Segment 3

Going still one step further: As with all writings pertinent to the Christian religion, even the copy of Origen's Commentary of Matthew has verses removed, as can be seen in the following:

And next to that He says, that "He," - Jesus to-wit - "took a little child, and set him in the midst of His own disciples, and taking him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of the little children in My name receiveth Me." But what was the little child which Jesus took and placed in His arms, according to the deeper meaning in the passage?

it the Holy Spirit? And to this little child, indeed, some were likened, of whom He said, "Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in My name receiveth Me." According to Luke, however, the reasoning did not arise spontaneously in the disciples, but was suggested to them by the question, "which of them should be greatest."

Segment 4

Origen did not end one sentence with a question mark, and then write "it the Holy Spirit?" In the same exact place where Origen poses the question pertaining to the "deeper meaning in the passage" , is the insertion in our Bibles of the alien verses beginning with "Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name". Thus, in the same way that the Church of Constantine did not what you to see the verses that were originally written in the scriptures with respect to the little ones, neither did they want you to see what Origen wrote about these verses that were removed from our scriptures, as well as what Origen called the "deeper meaning in the passage". What can be clearly seen is that whatever was at one time was contained in Origen's commentary between the words: "the deeper meaning in the passage? " and "it the Holy Spirit?", has been edited out of the text by the censors of the Roman Church.

In view of the fact that we can easily demonstrate the corruption of the written word of the biblical text, it is also simple to understand why Origen and the first disciples and followers of Yeshua believed differently than most Christians do today. When the Church of Constantine edited our scriptures, they removed those verses that contained the teachings which were most offensive to their very Pagan doctrines of belief. With these verses removed -- not only from our Bibles, but also from the writings of the earliest of church authorities such as the Church Father Origen -- is it little wonder that we believe differently than did the Christians who possessed a more pure copy of the scriptures?

Throughout my web sites I demonstrate that Origen and many other early Church Fathers wrote openly about the Christian teaching on reincarnation. I have already demonstrated that the scriptures which Origen used in the second and third centuries were very different than ours are today -- more pure -- and since we do not at present have the means to look into Origen's Bible, we are unable to know with certainty whether or not the scriptures that Origen used contained additional teachings such as the need to live in accordance with the Royal Law of God -- or verses that supported the belief in reincarnation and the pre-existence of the soul. We can say with certainty, though, that Origen -- a man who was known to many as the greatest Bible scholar in the history of the church -- saw many great truths in his copy of the scriptures that we fail to realize today.

Segment 5

It is a fact that the Christianity of the Church Father Origen was so different than what is commonly believed today, that the biblical scholar Wescott wrote: "We have not yet made good the positions which he marked out as belonging to the domain of Christian philosophy" (Wessott: Religious Thought In The West; p.252). In view of the fact that Origen was one of the most competent and respected biblical authorities in the history of the church, and he could prove every tenet of his theological positions by using the scriptures, the modern Christian should be greatly concerned with respect to why his (Origens) Bible was different than ours is today. This fact should alarm Christians who know that, without any doubt, the Bibles we use at present are very different than those used by all the Church Fathers prior to the fourth century.

Corruption - Tertullian Vs Marcion: One of the things that we can say with certainty, though, is that the Bibles that Church Fathers such as Tertullian used were the forerunner of our own corrupt copy of the scriptures. In fact, Tertullian, who places the verses pertaining to the millstone in the seventeenth chapter of Luke, like our scriptures today, does not even know that these misplaced verses belong to the little child, and references Jesus words as speaking instead of his disciples. This is seen in his writings pertaining to Luke: "Then, turning to His disciples, He says: 'Woe unto him through whom offenses come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones,' that is, one of His disciples".

In the above we see that the Bible Tertullian used was altered in the same manner as ours is today, and both Tertullian's and our's are far more corrupt than was the bible that Origen used. That Tertullian accused Marcion, and Marcion accused Tertullian of possessing corrupt copies of the scriptures is seen in the words of Tertullian when he wrote: "We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is".

Segment 6

Regarding Tertullian's assertion pertaining to the corruption of Marcion's scriptures he writes: "I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us) or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on".

Demonstrating that the statement regarding the millstone in Origen's Bible was in its original position connected with the teaching on the children in chapter 9:47-48, rather than 17:1-2, as is the case with ours and Tertullian's scriptures, it is now shown that Tertullian's scriptures were just as corrupt and deformed as is ours today. Further, we can also establish that Tertullian's scriptures contained verses that ours do not.

Tertullian quotes the passage found at Matthew 5:17, which reads: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" as being contained in his version of Luke. This verse in Tertullian's scriptures preceded what remains in our Bibles at Luke 16:17, which reads: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" . Tertullian also quotes the verse at Matthew 15:24, which reads: "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" , as also contained in his copy of Luke.

Segment 7

In addition to all the many corruptions that each side accused the other of making, in the course of removing the offending teaching about the children that was unacceptable to at least one school of thought in the Gentile church, these verses in our Bibles are now separated by eighteen chapters. Perhaps, though, what is even more important than the corruption of the text is the question with regard to the dissertation pertaining to the "little ones" and the entrance into the kingdom of heaven! Why was Yeshua censored? Why were these verses removed from Origen's Commentary on Matthew? What sacred truth did Yeshua teach that those who wished to rewrite Christian doctrine in accordance with their own beliefs didn't want their perspective followers to know? Since present day Christians have inherited these profaned scriptures, the offending teachings of Yeshua are missing from our Bibles also.

Withholding of Scriptures

and

Segment 8

The Mysteries of God

Now that we have seen that the most spiritual of Gospels was withheld from the Gentile converts, and we have demonstrated that the Gentile converts and later Roman Church altered the scriptures to make them affirm their (Pagan) doctrines of belief, lets revisit the words attributed to Peter and James/Jacob as found in the Clementine writings: "Therefore James, having read the epistle, sent for the elders; and having read it to them, said: Our Peter has strictly and becomingly charged us concerning the establishing of the truth, that we should not communicate the books of his preachings, which have been sent to us, to any one at random, but to one who is good and religious, and who wishes to teach, and who is circumcised, and faithful. And these are not all to be committed to him at once; that, if he be found injudicious in the first, the others may not be entrusted to him. Wherefore let him be proved not less than six years. And then according to the initiation of Moses, he that is to deliver the books should bring him to a river or a fountain, which is living water, where the regeneration of the righteous takes place, and should make him, not swear for that is not lawful but to stand by the water and adjure, as we ourselves, when we were re-generated, were made to do for the sake of not stoning. And let him say: I take to witness heaven, earth, water, in which all things are comprehended, and in addition to all these, that, air also which pervades all things, and without which I cannot breathe, that I shall always be obedient to him who gives me the books of the preachings; and those same books which he may give me, I shall not communicate to any one in any way, either by writing them, or giving them in writing, or giving them to a writer, either myself or by another, or through any other initiation, or trick, or method, or by keeping them carelessly, or placing them before any one, or granting him permission to see them, or in any way or manner whatsoever communicating them to another; unless I shall ascertain one to be worthy, as I myself have been judged, or even more so, and that after a probation of not less than six years; but to one who is religious and good, chosen to teach, as I have received them, so I will commit them, doing these things also according to the will of my bishop."

Segment 9

Having said these things, James/Jacob then said: " James having thus spoken, the elders were in an agony of terror. Therefore James, perceiving that they were greatly afraid, said: Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. If we should give the books to all indiscriminately, and they should be corrupted by any daring men, or be perverted by interpretations, as you have heard that some have already done, it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error. Wherefore it is better that they should be with us, and that we should communicate them with all the fore-mentioned care to those who wish to live piously, and to save others. But if any one, after taking this adjuration, shall act otherwise, he shall with good reason incur eternal punishment. For why should not he who is the cause of the destruction of others not be destroyed himself? The elders, therefore, being pleased with the sentiments of James exclaimed, Blessed be He who, as foreseeing all things, has graciously appointed thee as our bishop; and when they had said this, we all rose up, and prayed to the Father and God of all, to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Segment 10

Only the most naive and misinformed believer today would fail to understand that Yeshua was well aware of future events, and he knew full well of the wholesale corruption of the Word that would take place once the Gospel message was placed in the hands of the Gentiles. "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matt 10:5-6 NIV), Yeshua commanded his disciples. That the Gentile Church made an alliance with Pagan Rome, demonstrates conclusively that they placed political power, and the things of this world, above the purity of the Word. Thus, the disciples of Yeshua were merely following out his commandment not to give the most sacred scriptures into the hands of the Gentiles (" Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" [Matt 7:6 NIV]) who have not sufficiently consecrated themselves in order to comprehend the Higher Mysteries of God, and would corrupt the scriptures to make them support their manmade (Pagan) doctrines of belief.

The Doctrinal Flaw Created

By A Lack Of Understanding Of The

Segment 11

Mystery Of The Children

As Christians we must ask what is the significance of children? In the message of the scriptures the Lord pays particular attention and importance to the little ones -- being warned that if we do not turn about , and become as little children, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. How can we fulfill the vision of Yeshua respecting the requirement to turn about and become as a little child, unless we can understand the meaning that Yeshua placed upon this condition which he said was absolutely necessary for our salvation.

In view of the fact that I previously demonstrated in a preceding chapter that a whole section of scripture was removed from our Bibles because the Church of Constantine did not agree with the vision of Jesus with regard to the little children, we must question as to what importance from a spiritual perspective was the understanding of children that was conveyed by the Lord to the hearer or reader of the Gospel? More importantly, while men such as Martin Luther were sincere in their effort to save the teachings of Yeshua from the clutches of the Paganism and vileness of the Middle Age Church of Rome, it also remains true that because they depended upon corrupt scriptures the Fathers of the Reformation were deprived of this most important teaching of Yeshua when they broke away from Rome, created the present-day doctrinal foundation that man is saved by faith alone, and re-established the course of the Christian Church in a totally new direction.

Segment 12

If Jesus warned us that we cannot gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven -- and yet, his teaching on this all-important subject was kept from us when the Bible was edited in order to support the religion of Constantine -- a very important question for the modern believer to answer is this: How can be sure that we have fulfilled this requirement today? Actually, modern Christian doctrine which was born out of the Protestant Reformation totally negates this all-important teaching of Yeshua. If we are saved by faith apart from what we do with respect to our actions, then why did Yeshua teach that we must become as a little child to enter the Kingdom? Because the Gentiles did not understand the doctrine of faith which was preached by Paul, and then altered the scriptures to support their (Pagan) doctrines and heathen lifestyle, they negated the very foundation and essence of Yeshua's teachings -- as seen in the quotation from a popular Christian web site: "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" (see http://www.christiansunite.com/terms.shtml). Ultimately, regardless of the fact that good and sincere people believe this,

The defectiveness of the present-day doctrinal foundation of the Church as presented in the above quotation is easily demonstrated: Can there be a Christian porn site? Can a Christian own and run an abortion clinic? If it is true that we are all sinners, and we are thus saved by faith regardless of works, then the homosexuals may very well be correct in their assertion that they are saved regardless of their homosexuality. If it is true that all believers are sinners who are saved by the blood of Christ -- and "...salvation is immediate and eternal upon acceptance of Jesus as a one-time sacrifice for your sins" -- and Yeshua is all-inclusive in his love for those who have called upon his name, then isn't it the conservative Christian who judges and condemns the homosexual and believer who lives an immoral lifestyle, the one who is actually the greater sinner?

From a doctrinal perspective, the solution to the dilemma is not easily resolved. If Martin Luther could see the wholesale immorality and lack of standards that would envelop the church as a result of his umbrella doctrine that man is saved by faith irrespective of the manner in which purported believers live their lives, he would himself rise up and call for a new Reformation!

Segment 13

The problem is that

How can I make such a statement? The moment we poke our heads out from under Luther's doctrinal umbrella, and begin to say that regardless of faith, we are accountable to a certain standard of works, we literally open Pandora's Box with respect to what is required to be saved and inherit eternal life. If all people are sinners -- and all people must be saved by the blood of Christ -- then why are homosexual sinners often held to a different standard than heterosexual sinners? If all are forgiven by the blood of Christ, then the liberal believer must be correct in his assertion that regardless of each individual flavor and variety of sin, all who call upon the name of the Lord are saved!

Once we attempt to place qualifiers and restrictions on the believers forgiveness through Grace, then from a doctrinal perspective we enter dangerous territory, and we can no longer be sure of anything. In view of the fact that man is a congenital sinner who cannot save himself -- and thus he must come to Jesus -- if works are required and man can in fact work out his own salvation, then the whole structure of modern Christian thought becomes undermined. Further, whose concept of what is required with respect to works is correct -- i.e., the Fundamentalist who condemns drinking, dancing, sex outside of marriage,

Segment 14

Whose interpretation of the Bible is correct? While as Christians we can argue and contend among one another until we have taken our very last breath, it can also be argued that the conflict among present-day believers is in fact superficial -- and from a spiritual perspective, the position of the right wing extremist is no different than the more liberal believers they condemn. How can I make such a statement? The answer is simple once it is realized that in the same way that the liberal Christians claim that works are not more important than faith, the more conservative Christians profess a parallel position with respect to the meaning of faith and works from a modern-day perspective, in relation to the meaning of faith and works from the perspective of the original people of the New Covenant.

While the Fundamentalist Christian claims to live in accordance with the Bible, we must pose the question: Whose interpretation of the scriptures do they adhere to? If their interpretation of the Bible is not the same as it's authors -- and if their perception of Jesus has been colored and tainted by manmade doctrines

From a purely spiritual point of view, both the present-day liberal believer as well as their conservative brother and sister, are actually in the same boat -- i.e., both not only ardently cling to the manmade doctrines and the philosophy of their beliefs, but each are equally gambling with their own salvation by virtue of the fact that each awaits the event of their physical death as the means to prove their dogmatic position. Where the liberal Christians proclaim that the love of Jesus has no bounds, and all are saved by grace and the blood of the lamb irrespective of the manner in which the people live, the conservative Christian is literally betting their lives on their fundamental interpretation of the Bible and strict adherence to the elementary teachings of Christ and the gospel of the simple faith.

Segment 15

The verse that was removed by the later Roman Church was very similar in structure to that of the eunuch in Matthew -- and in fact represents the original meaning before being moved to its present location. First and primary is the reality that only a prodigal son who has turned about in his travels along the broad-way of self-destruction into the far country, and has begun the return journey in TheWay back Home to the Edenic Kingdom of Origination, can be a true spiritual child of God who was dead and has again come alive. That the journey of the prodigal son took place over the course of many lifetimes as we are presently living, is easily demonstrated to be an original teaching of Yeshua and his Disciples of TheWay (see The Unanswerable Question ). Thus the words:

For there are some children, which were so born from their mother's womb

And there are some who God returned, and were made the children of men

Segment 16

And there be children, who have made themselves children

for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

What Of Those Who Fail To Become The Required Child?

For there are some children, which were so born from their mother's womb

And there are some who God returned, and were made the children of men

And there be children, who have made themselves children

for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

The modern believer can never get a correct perception of either the purpose of the Gospel or the essence of the teachings of Yeshua, until they first restore the teachings of the children and why Yeshua warned: "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:2-3 RSV). Why? Because as Christians who have been imbued with the doctrines of Constantine and Luther, we have a totally different perception of a child than was originally taught by Yeshua! What is a child? We would say that it is a new soul that was created 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 attempt to doctrinally refute the wisdom of the Bible using Church logic, and use the example of a new-born baby as something that is new. Surely this baby is new -- i.e., 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 .

One of the primary truths which the very first followers of Yeshua professed, was that each of us is the Child of God -- not philosophically, as we believe today -- but rather, in the very genuine sense -- and this was founded upon the realization that our soul, which is the inner being that we truly are, is as much the direct offspring of God, as in the case of our bodies that are drawn from the genetics and vital substances of our physical parents. What this means is that, from the perspective of modern science, if we performed a DNA test on our soul and spiritual natures, what we would find is that it is not born of earthly matter -- but rather, it is the direct emanation from God -- our soul and spirit's true Parent/Source of Being.

Segment 17

What Did Yeshua Teach?

An interesting observation is made by Nemesius, the fourth century Bishop of Emesa, who writes: Moses does not say that the soul was created at that moment at which it was put into the body, nor would it be reasonable to suppose it... that the soul is not thus mortal and that man's destiny is not bounded by his present life.... While these concepts may appear alien to us initially, we must pose the question: How can we, a people who the Bible warns are too carnal to understand the Mysteries of God, say with any degree of certainty when the soul of man was created? We can't! There is nothing in the scriptures which states the soul was created at either the time of conception or birth -- and yet there is overwhelming biblical evidence that conveys to us that the soul pre-existed the body. And when we seek to know which doctrine is true, we are left with the reality that this is one of the many mysteries of life that we must learn directly from the Lord, rather than adhere to the doctrines of such men as the Roman Emperor Justinian.

An interesting article on the soul is found in the Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary where it reads: "This idea is also present in the Old Testament. For example, the soul of a dying person departed at death (Gen. 35:18). The prophet Elijah brought a child back to life by stretching himself upon the child three times and praying that God would let the child's soul come back into him (1 Kin. 17:19-23)" . This concept is similar to that 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.

Segment 18

What this means is that, from a biblical perspective we can see that while the soul is separate from the physical body, there is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that teaches us when the soul was created. On what basis the Roman Emperor Justinian deemed that the soul did not exist prior to the body -- and upon what authority other then for purely political reasons, Justinian condemned Origen and the many Church Fathers who wrote extensively on the pre-existence of the soul -- and upon what basis the church continues to claim that Justinian was correct, while the most prominent of Jewish and early Christian religious authorities were all in error -- remains an obstacle that must be dealt with by every sincere believer today! Why? What we fail to realize is the fact that we can never move beyond the "milk" of the gospel and the simple faith, and draw nearer to God, until we learn and comprehend the relationship of ourselves to our pre-existent soul and spiritual natures. Moreover, while we can listen and cling to the speculation of other man until the day we die, we can only learn the Truth by moving beyond the limitations of this world, and coming into the Presence of the Son of God.

"The truth that makes men free

is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." (Herbert Agar)

Segment 19

In the Gospel of Thomas the question is posed to Jesus by his disciples: They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?" And with the corruption of the scriptures by the Church of Rome, the reality portrayed in the remaining teachings on the children can only be understood within the context of Jesus' answer to his disciples on the question they posed to him. But to even begin to understand the process of birth and becoming a child, we must first recognize that a child can only be formed by the intimate interaction of what constitutes male and female -- of which the child is the direct expression thereof.

Most people are bound and shackled to their adopted beliefs -- to the degree that whatever is not in accord with their beliefs, they reject in defense of those beliefs. In the following I will demonstrate that the knowledge and understanding of the first-century Christians -- many of whom personally knew and were directly taught by the historical man Jesus -- was totally different and even in conflict with the thinking and beliefs of modern Christians. But, the vast majority of people will demonstrate the wisdom of Winston Churchill when he emphatically stated: Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

In his famed work De Principiis, the pre-Nicene Church Father Origen wrote in reference to the proper application of the Key of Knowledge that few men even imagine that they possess knowledge before they really learn -- and then adds that the consequence is that they never begin to have knowledge . Why? And in the enigma of these words that few possess the insight to understand the ramifications of, perhaps even more important is the reality presented in Origen's words that men somehow "...possess knowledge before they really learn . What this means is that even before a child or person begins to learn, they possess a Source of Knowledge that they are consciously unaware of -- and that because they attempt to acquire knowledge from outward sources, they inhibit the process of taping into the inner source of Knowledge that they are unaware of the existence within them. And the answer to the dilemma is seen in the (above) statement with respect to the second reality that "each person possesses an innate connection to an Inner Source of Knowledge and Truth that he must learn from and acquire the ability to tap into" . Which gives new meaning to the words of Jean Piaget who stated: When you teach a child something you take away forever his chance of discovering it for himself.