Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Adam and Eve: Guilty Not of Original Sin but of Heresy

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



The Gods of the Old Testament and the New Testament are two different characters.

Adam and Eve did not live in paradise.

The serpent of Eden was not evil.


The Gods of the Old Testament and the New Testament Are Two Different Characters.

There’s a very good reason why the “God” of the Old Testament—hereafter referred to as “god,” with a small “g”—was such a miserable bastard—because he’s not what “God is…”, as stated in the New Testament, which is “…love,” and thus he is not the one, true God.

According to the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, before the manifest world came to be there was a distorted being created known as Yaldabaoth, king of the Archons.

Yaldabaoth is a non-physical being who has a tremendous power of creation. He is the one who created the low-density, or veiled, physical Earth that we inhabit, as well as this form of human.

In the Old Testament, god says that he is a jealous one and there is no other greater.

Strange thing to say, is it not?

Imagine sitting down at the dinner table and your spouse unexpectedly says, “You know, I think the woman who works in the cubicle next to mine is super attractive, but I love you, and I wouldn’t cave in to kiss her if she happened to come-on to me.”

Why would your spouse ever even think to say such a ridiculous thing if his love and fidelity toward you were true; unless he had doubts and felt the need to try to prove to himself that it weren’t so by rationalizing aloud?

In this case, Yaldabaoth had imagined himself to be alone; he hadn’t yet realized that any being/essence/God had already existed that is greater than he.

The angry, vengeful, and insecure nature of the Old Testament god is proof that he is not the one, true God spoken of by Jesus.

Adam and Eve Did Not Live in Paradise.

Seeing that the Old Testament god is a fraud, I think it’s fair to conclude that he wouldn’t give us all we are due nor allow us to know exactly what our due is.

In the Old Testament it’s stated that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God.

How this is interpreted by most people is incorrect because it assumes that
  1. Yaldabaoth, who is never mentioned by name or origin, is one and the same as the one, true God, and
  2. the “image and likeness” are referring to the same being/essence when they are not.
The image is the physical human form which Yaldabaoth created based on seeing the pure Spirit-Human that had already existed in a higher density realm.

The likeness, however—which is the Spirit of God itself—did not come from Yaldabaoth. In fact, Yaldabaoth did not even have the power to animate the physical human body that he had created. This breath-of-life- or Spirit-giving act was provided by an essence of far greater purity and ability than that of Yaldabaoth.

This life-giving act was greatly to Yaldabaoth’s dismay because it meant that the truth of the human Spirit and it’s worthiness we’re of pure Godliness in its nature, far above his own.

Yet, through Spirit’s placement in a dense, physical human form and like existence, it was made ignorant of its true, divine nature.

Whatever delights the “paradise” of Eden may have offered, not only had Adam and Eve been imprisoned by ignorance from the get-go in a place also created by Yaldabaoth, but, once they’d eaten the apple—or awakened to their ignorance—Yaldabaoth threw them out and into the darkest depths of his realm—Duality—in hopes they would never find their way out.

The Serpent of Eden Was Not Evil.

Think about this in the context just provided.

Adam and Eve were ignorant.

The serpent—the one the Church forever claims to be the devil—tempted, or persuaded, Adam and Eve to eat the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Is this really so bad?

If one is ignorant of their true nature and of the reality of life, is being urged to eat of the knowledge of good and evil an indisputably devilish thing?

Wouldn’t the devil be the one who says, “Don’t eat! You’ll die!” because he would rather there be ignorance than awareness?

And wouldn’t God be the one to say, “Eat up, kids! Know the truth, and it will set you free!”?

The serpent (a metaphor for kundalini energy, by the way) knew exactly what it was doing and who it was working for—the serpent was working for the greater good of God.

In truth, eating the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the mind’s awakening to the illusory, dualistic nature of this form of existence.

Like Plato’s Cave, only by becoming aware of the illusion can one escape from it. The serpent therefore offered Adam and Eve not Original Sin but the greatest of gifts—an open door to Self-/God-realization, to Oneness.

This Ain’t Your Mother’s Christianity

There’s vastly more material covered in the Nag Hammadi texts, but we can see in this little bit alone that it’s no wonder the Church has rejected any and all of these scriptures and has claimed any adherents as heretics.

Acknowledging potential error and variations between different accounts of the same information, the Nag Hammadi’s books still pose a great threat to Christian indoctrination.

This collection of books stands way too close to the truth of creation, who has been working avidly to control the world, and the revelation of who and what humanity actually is. Religion runs rampant with guilt, shame, and victimhood indoctrination, and, where these books are accepted, individually or collectively, it becomes impossible to continue on with such distorted programming.

And get this… Jesus wasn’t actually a super-serious, tight-assed SOB. There are plenty of occasions where Jesus is talking with the apostles and the author writes, “Jesus laughed…” It is also written that Jesus had spent a significant amount of time with a woman named Mary of Magdala whom he had regularly kissed on the lips.

Hmmm…

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures I’ve read is the collection edited by Marvin Meyer.

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume (HarperOne; 1st edition; 2009)

I don’t have anything negative to say about it.

The introductory texts to each book, the translations, and the footnotes are very comprehensive.

The contributors offer their views from very open-minded and well-versed perspectives, and they include plenty of references to other cultures, lines of thought, etc. from that time period that resonate with the scriptural material.

Although the Nag Hammadi has a Christian bent, the intention of the contributors is clearly about extrapolating the truth rather than catering to conventional Christian teachings and expectations.

Don’t Take My Word For It: Do Your Research

As necessary, take what has been said here and what is stated in the Nag Hammadi largely as a metaphor and with a grain of salt. For one, scripture is always heavy with metaphorical value, and, two, in the Nag Hammadi there are numerous similar but varying accounts of the same situations.

What I provide above is a bare-bones generalization of a portion of the Nag Hammadi in an effort to bring awareness to a deeper truth and reality of life.

At no time do I claim this to be any sort of be-all-end-all set of accounts. But, for me, the basic concepts of the Nag Hammadi hit far closer to home than almost anything I’ve ever heard out of the mainstream Christian domain.

I would also direct you to educate yourself regarding Anu and the Annunaki. Here’s one resource of many:

WingMakers: The Neruda Interviews
(Click: “Fifth Interview”)

The Anunnaki, Mankind’s Enslavement
(YouTube video, transcript reading)

I see a fair number of similarities between the Nag Hammadi texts and the story of the Annunaki, only the latter can be interpreted far more literally.

What If…?

In closing, I want to take a moment to address the topic of disbelief and denial regarding this material. The information regarding the Annunaki especially, it seems to me, will come to many as a shock—or maybe as stupid.

It’s always your choice to believe and accept—if only as a possibility—or disbelieve and deny.

If you lean toward the latter, would it not be better to look objectively with an open mind in the context of What if it is true?

As stated earlier, there’s a lot of metaphor involved and I don’t view this as any kind of be-all-end-all account of history.

But it’s information—information that could well have a high degree of truth. (After all, the Church has rejected Gnostic-type literature and thought as heretical and had wantonly tortured and slaughtered any who’d believed such things on their way to becoming the greatest power in the world. So, yeah, it’s probably true…)

By any means of mainstream theology or conventional research, what do any of us actually know regarding the creation of the world and how man-as-we-know-him came to be?

Taking the scriptural approach, although the opening of the Book of Genesis provides some very valuable information, at least symbolically, it simultaneously says very little due to the distortions it contains (as noted above) as well as its lack in length and detail. From the beginning of the world to the time Adam and Eve are thrown out of Eden, everything fits into 3 chapters at about 2.5 pages.

The Nag Hammadi, on the other hand, discusses the same material—including what came before the creation of the world—from a variety of perspectives in roughly 10 books and 150 pages.

If one prefers a scientific approach, well, obviously, it’s hard to say anything about anything when interpreting what is metaphorical and/or had taken place on a different plane of existence.

As for what had taken place here, where does one start? If we assume that Adam and Eve metaphorically represent humanity as we know it, what about all the precursors to the modern human that we’ve supposedly evolved from?

The theory of evolution can’t even explain this because no fossil records show a gradual shift from one form to another. Either we were seeded here more or less as we are now, or there occurred some grand shift that miraculously turned everything up a notch.

As for combining mainstream theology and conventional research to create a cohesive picture—forget about it! Talk about cognitive dissonance!

All the more reason why I and many others see significance in the information regarding the Annunaki—it can be accepted fairly literally and it fills in many of the gaps left open by metaphor, the “mysteries” of religious dogma, and half-baked science.

Again, you can believe and accept or disbelieve and deny whatever you want. It’s your choice.

But as you engage with this information, if and when rejection arises, I’d ask you to look into what your rejection is about.

Is it the material itself? Really?

Or are you being challenged, perhaps, to shift your worldview in ways you’ve never imagined?

Are you being challenged, perhaps, to change your beliefs, to step out of the status quo, and you fear the rejection you imagine you will receive from others for doing so?

Are you being challenged, perhaps, to admit that the egoic bubble of “knowing” that you’ve been living in is very fragile and on the verge of popping?

There are many people who claim to want the truth.

It’s not an accident that only a few ever actually find it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated.
1.) Be kind.
2.) Be constructive.
3.) Be coherent.
4.) No self-promotion. (Use "Comment as: Name/URL" to include your personal link.)