____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
            *** The Little Worker ***
  ____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  Published by CDTTT-The Committee for the Difussion of The
  Third Testament
                               Issue of February 2002
  _________________________
  TABLE OF CONTENTS:

               - First Word
               - The Gifts Within Part XV Part 2
               - The Original Sin
               - Myths
               - Final Word
  ____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

  -First Word

  Dear brothers and sisters:

  In this issue, we will cover a very interesting topic: the
  concept of an original sin. As you know, many things have
  been said and written around this concept, but alas! most of
  them are hearsay, and for that reason, they are not based in
  the truth. So, we will take a short journey into the genesis
  of that notion that up to this day, troubles many good folks.
  ____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

  - The Gifts Within Part XV

      · Spiritual Vision Part 2

  One of the major tasks we face when trying to find the
  meaning of a vision (or of a dream, for that matter), is
  similar as the difficulty we encounter while trying to read
  and understand a letter written in a foreign language.

  Of course, we all know that each language has its own lexicon
  and grammar rules, but also we must take in consideration
  that even knowing this, in order to have a trustworthy
  translation of the original content of that letter, we need
  to be aware of semantics and subtleties underlying some
  phrases.

  As you know, tt is not the same to translate an inventory of
  clothing than to properly translate a poem.

  Imagine then, the kind of subtleties that a spiritual vision
  could contain!

  That is why one of the first things we should take in
  account, while trying to interpret a dream or a vision, is
  the cultural background, the peculiar idiosyncrasy of the
  person that received that vision or dream.

  Just as human languages have slight, but significant
  differences (e.g. vernacular British compared to "American"
  English), dreams and spiritual visions are "decoded" (so to
  speak) by the person that has them, thus rendering them from
  his/her very unique standpoint.

  So, it is useful to begin the interpretation of a dream or
  vision, by finding out what a sign or "thing" seen in that
  dream or vision usually means or evokes to that person. This
  way we can start modulating our own perception through that
  person's own perception; in other words, "speaking" his/her
  own symbolic "language".

  Take, for example, John's vision in The Book of Revelation.
  As a Jew, John was raised in a culture that kept its more
  important written documents in rolls of papyrus. So it did
  not come as a surprise that when he had his vision in Patmos,
  it followed the pattern of his cultural bias. On the other
  hand, if John were born as a rich Roman person, he probably
  will have seen a book very similar as the ones we have today,
  in a form of a stack of sheets of papyrus bonded together by
  their left side. But he was Jewish, therefore a roll of
  papyre he saw.

  Next time you try to analyze a dream or a vision, I suggest
  that first you find out if the content is from a spiritual
  nature or not; in other words, see if it is an inventory of
  clothing or a poem. Not all dreams and visions are spiritual.
  In fact, many of them come from our state of mind which
  sometimes is painted with earthly worries and thoughts.

  But now and then, a spiritual communication will reach some
  of us and then, something far more elevated than a beautiful
  poem will arrive, bringing along a lesson, a prophesy or a
  profound explanation of relevant things.

  And when this happens, we must look into it carefully, trying
  to discover the meaning of each element and the subtleties
  underlying   there.

  Next, just as you do with a puzzle, give it a overall look so
  you can capture as much as possible of the entire message.

  Only then we can reach the true meaning of a spiritual vision
  or dream.
  __________________________________________________________

  HIGHLIGHTS: Things to take in account while analyzing vision
  or dreams: 1) Decide wheter that vision or dream is from a
  spiritual or an earthly nature. 2) Consider the cultural
  background and idiosyncrasy of the person that received it.
  3) Find out the subtleties contained in each element of that
  message, if it happens to be a spiritual one. 4) Then give it
  a overall look to comprehend it in its entirety.
  ___________________________________________________________

  ____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  -The Original Sin

  Original sin, as teached by many Christian religions and
  sects, is not a doctrine, it is a theory.

  In fact, although as shocking as it could sound to many
  persons of good will that were raised in the belief that this
  concept comes from a divine source, not one single word that
  supports this theory can be found in the Bible. Modern
  Christians believe these theories to be Bible doctrines
  because theologians, preachers, and Sunday school teachers
  teach them as if they were Bible doctrines quoted directly
  from the Bible, and give them a semblance of credence with
  Bible texts quoted totally out of context. However, these
  theories are not Bible doctrines and the early followers of
  Jesus never heard about them. Jesus Himself never addressed
  this issue, it is inexistent in the Gospels.

  This theory or at at least the basis of it, was initially
  sustained by Augustine, bishop of Hippo in two books, written
  against Pelagius and Coelestius in the year 418 A.D. Later
  on, three different versions of it emerged, each of them
  denying and accusing the other ones as being false. But the
  basic principle in all of these theories is that mankind,
  starting from Adam and Eve, has a depraved nature and that we
  all, as descendants of them are born in sin.

  Of course, when you take the Bible and read not only Ezekiel
  but mainly the book of Exodus, you will find just the
  opposite: Each man is responsible for his acts and therefore,
  an original sin that is passed from generation to generation
  does not exist.

  Deuteronomy 24:16 says:

      "The fathers shall not be put to death for the
      children, neither shall the children be put to
      death for the fathers: every man shall be put
      to death for his own sin."

  In Ezekiel 18:20 you can read:

      "...The son shall not bear the iniquity
      of the father, neither shall the father
      bear the iniquity of the son: the
      righteousness of the righteous shall be
      upon him, and the wickedness of the
      wicked shall be upon him."

  Furthermore, the fact that man is created in the image of God
  is evident from the Scriptures and not only in chapter I of
  Genesis, in chapter 6 it is stated again after the fall. If
  man (understood as a gender) is an image of God, how could he
  be born depraved by reason of his own nature?

  The divine teachings of this Third Era explains all this very
  clearly:

      "The original sin does not originate
      from the union of man and woman. I, as
      the Creator, established that union,
      saying to both: "Be fruitful and
      multiply". That was the first Law. Sin
      has been in the abuse which has been
      made of the gift of the freedom of will.

      "You know that God said to all men: "Be
      fruitful and multiply and fill the
      Earth." That was the primitive law that
      you were given, My people. After that,
      the Father will not ask men that they
      only multiply and that the species
      continue growing, but rather that his
      sentiments become more elevated each
      time and that his spirit embarks on a
      sincere development and evolvement.

      "But if the first law was for the
      propagation of the human race, how can
      you conceive that the Father Himself
      would apply a sanction for obeying and
      complying with His own mandate?  Is it
      possible, My people, that such a
      contradiction would exist in your God?

      "Notice how such a materialistic
      interpretation men gave to a parable in
      which you were only told about the
      awakening of the spirit in man;
      therefore, analyze My teaching and do
      not say any longer that you are paying a
      debt because of the disobedience
      incurred toward your Father by the first
      inhabitants. Have a more elevated idea
      about the Divine justice."


  ____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

  -Myths

  Here are some myths regarding the topic above, that no one is
  sure where or when it started to be taken as truth by many:

  1) God forbode Adam to take the fruit from the tree of the
  knowledge of good and evil. Wrong. The Bible text reads:

  "Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of
  every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of
  the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
  eat of it:"

  As you can see, there is no mention of a fruit at all.

  Actually, it was Eve who first mentioned that it was a fruit
  the object of the prohibition, in Genesis 3:2

  "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit
  of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree
  which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall
  not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it".

  Why did she misquote God's words? Because according Genesis
  2, she wasn't even created yet when the prohibition took
  place!

  2) The forbidden fruit was the apple. Wrong! It doesn't
  matter how popular and extended this myth could be, there is
  no mention of any apples in the whole Book of Genesis.
  Furthermore, the first time that an apple is mentioned in the
  Bible is in the Book of Proverbs. So, where did Adam's apple
  history come from?

  3) Sex was involved in the fall of man and woman in the
  Garden of Eden. Wrong. Eve was a virgin and stayed that way
  until Genesis 4, after both she and Adam were expelled from
  the Garden of Eden, when "Adam knew Eve his wife".

  Hmmm....

  ____________________________________________________________
  «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  -Final Word:

  At this moment, we are working very hard in the French
  language version of the Third Testament. In a matter of a few
  days we will be posting it in our main page.

  Love and best wishes for all...

  Your Brother in the Lord
  The Little Worker


  **** PAST ISSUES AT http://144000.net/newsletter/ ****