| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Admin |
Posted - 05 Apr 2002 : 14:07:04
Some say this "lost Gospel" is the original. Others say no. We leave it up to the discernment of His ekklesia to discuss this for the edification of all Believers:
------------------------
"In 1881, an Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley, claimed to have discovered the Original Gospel from which the present Four Gospels were derived. He claimed this original gospel “was hidden by some of the Essene Community for safety from the hands of the corrupters, and is now for the first time translated from the Aramaic.” Rev. Ouseley made this statement in a preface to his publication of this Gospel in a book entitled Gospel of the Holy Twelve.
E. F. Udny, in an introduction to Ouseley’s book, wrote “At the time of the corruption of the Gospels, the Epistles and Revelation were presumably already in existence, and if the Gospels were tampered with, so no doubt was the rest of the New Testament, which is now equally destitute of the teachings removed from the Gospels.”
According to Ouseley, ”The early Christian Fathers did well their work of destroying the sources and records from which they gathered the information and data put by them in the Bible. But they failed to destroy it all. Some escaped, and as it is discovered here and there by patient research workers, it is astonishing to see how the world has been deceived by the Christian Fathers. These ‘correctors’ (men authorized to ‘correct’ the text of Scripture in the interests of what was considered orthodoxy) cut out of the Gospels, with minute care, certain teachings of Our Lord’s which they did not propose to follow; namely, those against flesh eating, such as accounts of our Lord’s interference, on several occasions, to save animals from ill treatment, and even the interesting and important teachings ever prominent in Eastern scriptures.”
These early “correctors” were hired by the Church Fathers at the Council of Nicea to alter the original text of the Gospels, leaving out those doctrines that were obnoxious to their emperor, Constantine, whom they desired to convert to Christianity, of which he opposed. Chief among these objectionable doctrines were the prohibition against the use of flesh meat and alcohol, and the recommendation of kindness to animals, all of which constituted the fundamental doctrines of the teachings of Christ. On this point, Udny wrote, “The great significance of the corruption of the Text lies rather in the nature of the matter stricken out by the ‘correctors’ than in the amount. It is evident that the ‘correctors’ and those who appointed them were at least unwilling to denounce their beef and beer, a convenient alliteration for flesh and alcohol.”
In the original Aramaic gospel, the duty of abstaining from meat and wine were emphasized, while in the later “canonized” versions, they were omitted. Since those who founded the organized Christian Church, like their emperor Constantine, were meat eaters and drinkers of wine, they were obviously opposed to these doctrines whose acceptance would involve a transformation of their living habits. They interpreted “Thou shalt not kill” to imply that the commandment applied only to humans and that the slaughter of animals was not killing.
The Original Gospel, representing the teachings of Christ, the Lord of Love, taught harmlessness and compassion to all living beings, including both animals and humans. For the reasons stated above, the Roman Churchmen at Nicea opposed these doctrines and eliminated them from the Gospels, which they radically changed so as to be acceptable to Constantine who loved the many meats and flowing wine of his midnight feasts far too much to accept a religion that prohibited these fleshly pleasures. This was a main reason why he so bitterly persecuted the early Christians who advocated these doctrines. For this reason, these “Church Fathers” changed the Gospel in such a way that Love and Compassion were limited only to human beings, but the animal expressions of life were excluded from receiving these benefits.
The Love of Our Savior embraces not only mankind, but also the so-called lower creatures of God, sharers with us in the one breath of life. Are we to ignore the words of our Savior, “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, but not one of them is forgotten by God”? How is it possible to doubt that the Savior would have pity and compassion on the creatures that must bear their pain in silence? Would it not seem a blasphemy if it were said that He would endorse the ill treatment of any helpless animals? When he brought redemption to a world of flesh oriented selfishness, hard-heartedness and misery, and proclaimed the gospel of all embracing love, there was a share in this redemption for all suffering creatures that are subject to man. When man opened his heart to His divine love, there could be no room left in it for hardness toward the other creatures of God, who have, like himself, been called into life with a capacity for enjoyment and suffering.
Those who bear the mark of the Redeemer practice His abounding love. The minimum of compassion for helpless creatures demands of us not to inflict on them torture; to help them when they are in trouble, or when they appeal to us for succor; and, if out of necessity we must take their life to end their suffering, to let it be a speedy death with the least pain. How little we now perceive these divine lessons of mercy and compassion. How many grievous tortures are inflicted on them, under the pretense of science, or to gratify an unnatural appetite of our own flesh, or cruel lusts, or the promptings of vanity.
In this Original Gospel written in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus the Christ while here on the earth, teachings concerning the barbarous practice of animal sacrifices recommended by the Old Testament - a book currently accepted as holy and divinely inspired by both the Jews and Christians - was abolished and rejected by the New Christian Church, so that it never played a part in Christianity as it did in original Judaism. After the Council of Nicea, when this original gospel was changed to suit Constantine and converted into four separate gospels, “Jesus Christ” was replaced by a false supernaturalism.
During the last century, many old fragments of the original gospel have come to light. Some of them have been found in old libraries while others have been discovered during excavations. These fragments are called Logins or Agraphas. They are older than and more original than the canonized gospels. Their great value is due to the fact that they are uncorrupted. The curious thing is that many parts of these fragments mostly agree, word for word, with the Gospel translated by Ouseley, though they are completely missing in the newer canonical gospels."
------------------------------
The entire manuscript as written by Ouseley can be downloaded on the ECC site at http://ecclesia.org/forum/library/GospelHoly12.zip |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| n/a |
Posted - 17 Nov 2003 : 10:48:06
Peace be unto you!
Why aren't all the books written by Gideon Ouseley presented on the Internet? How can I get other works of Gideon's like: "The Original Book of Genesis" "Palingenesia", "The Apocalypse of St. John", "New Light on Old Truths", "A Basket of Fragments", "The Church of the Future"?
Can the book "The Original Book of Genesis" be found in any of the libraries in England i what is its call number?? Has anybody published that precious book?
Is Ouseley, in his book "Palingenesia" (1884.), giving the following lines from the book "Gospel 12" (1880.): 19:6, 66:13, 69:10, 88:5?
Who is the "woman" (... "as the whole world have been ruined by the sin and vanity of woman, ...") mentioned in "Gospel 12", 88:7?
How many Days did it take God to create the universe according to "The Original Book of Genesis": 6 or 7 Days? What is the Tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolic of?
Do the four Cherubims represent the first four Archangels (out of seven), or some special board/class/choir of angels? (Revelation, 15:7)
In early Christianity, what day was taken as Sabbath: Saturday or Sunday?
Let Peace be with you!
brother Vasa (ex-YU) aurora_a@ptt.yu |
| SilkPurse |
Posted - 15 Aug 2002 : 22:49:29
This is in reply to ParadiseGardens:
Greetings,
First, I would like to say there is an inherent danger in examining individual words for meaning. The danger being to miss out in the spirit of the writing by becoming obsessed with the minutae.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
1) God does not create evil, adversity or calamity, man does, directly, by disobeying God!
Who created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if not God? God Himself in His infinite wisdom truely diserns good from evil. Does this mean he created them? Each man creates his own ideas of what is good and evil. Each following his own path and not seeking God's. Surely we must be like children to enter the kingdom of God, seeking after the good and being ignorant of what is evil. Let seek after God's will for surely that is goodness and righteousness.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
When Jesus was in the garden at Gethsemane, he prays to the Father (why is he praying to himself if he **is** the Father, speaking through the body of Jesus 'of Nazareth'? 'if it be your will, let this cup pass from me'.. if Jesus believed in the idea that his body had to be sacrificed or that any body of an innocent (animal or man) had to be sacrificed, then why does he ***ask*** the Father if it's really His will that Jesus be crucified? Hmmm.
Christ our Lord was once called a good man. He rebuked the person who said it saying that only God was good. Indeed Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him, but He came because the Father sent Him to do the Father's will. He was lifted up that other men may be drawn to the Father. Through His blood we are cleansed. We eat of His body and drink of His blood, for we are part of His body and draw subsistence from it.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
Jesus repeats this when he says 'Abba, Abba, [translated]: why hast thou forsaken me?" ... he obviously doesn't believe in 'sacrifice' of innocents in place of the guilty!
What greater suffering and burden can a man know than to be forsaken by the one he most loves in the greatest hour of his infirmity. Our Lord took that on Himself to save us that horror. What greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friends? If I was to be crucified then my suffering would be less than our Lord's for He would comfort me and give me strength and I have not earned it He gave me it through taking it upon himself. Blessed be the Lord.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
I finally found another fundamental contradiction between Paul and Jesus... namely that Paul advocates eating innocent slaughtered animals "without complaint and without conscience", whereas Jesus himself went to his physical torture and death on the crucifix, specifically for having tried to upset the sale of animals for sacrifice in the "temple" (the temple then was nothing more than a shambles, a meat market, presided over by "priests" of the Sanhedrin (the chief group of pharisees which Jesus despised the actions of), which were all subject to the overseeing of Tiberius Augustus Caesar; even tribunals which were to be eventually directed to king Herod for 'the Jews' had to pass by him first for approval, it appears... to determine if any statute laws of the Roman imperium had been violated first!
Jesus was infuriated because it had become a trade like indulgences became to barter God's mercy and forgiveness for coin ect... In the end even the sacrificial Lamb was brought for 30 pieces of silver.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
Jesus stated that the temple would be thrown down in three days... the temple is where the shambles (the meat market and its hideous animal slaughter tables were)...
The temple Jesus was referring to of course was the the true place werein the Father was. For the Father was in Christ Jesus.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
(How's that again? Doesn't that go against the "thou shalt not covet" commandment, 'written directly by the finger of God'? Here Paul is justifying the ripping off of the people with the lies about innocent animal sacrifice being pleasing to God, and also profiting on it by selling the people 'unblemished' animals for sacrifice [and keeping the 'good' spotted ones for themselves.. ] :( )
He is of course saying let every man not look out for his own welfare but look out for the welfare of every other man.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
(Oh, so there's a double standard here, ey Paul? If Paul does sin, it's his "liberty", if another man [who disagrees with Paul, like Jesus for instance!] does what Paul calls sin, it is only their own conscience?? Whew!, the True and Living God would never put up with this sort of evil, putting light for darkness and darkness for light!)
What Paul is saying here is that one should seek peace with his fellow man. One should try and avoid affronting them and causing them to judge the gift of Jesus (to be free) thus putting a obstacle between them and being saved.
quote:
ParadiseGardens:
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
(or you might wind up like Jesus, hanging from a crucifix in pain, being ridiculed by all the people and fed gall and vinegar... interesting that he uses the words "Jews", "Gentiles" and "the church of God", never "Israel" or "God's people", etc.. Hmmm.)
Or end up having your head cut off. Jesus gave no offence to the Jews or Gentiles nor expecially not the church of God. He gave the possibility of salvation that is not offence. Paul was beaten and castigated and killed for not giving offense. As for Israel that term is normally used to mean the complete twelve tribes or more specifically the grouping of tribes containing the tribes of the son's of Joseph. The Jews on the other hand belonged mainly to the tribe of Judah hence Jews.
I am tired so you will have to forgive me for not examining the rest of you post in detail. One question you should ask yourself though is whether your judgement comes from yourself and your knowledge of good and evil or whether it comes from God who in being good in and of Himself defines that which is evil.
May God bless and keep you.
SilkPurse |
| n/a |
Posted - 15 Aug 2002 : 16:39:48
To DanielJacob and all:
After much study and soul-searching, I have decided to publish this statement:
*********Moderator's Note*********
The remainder of this post has been removed since it is a duplicate of ParadiseGarden's post at http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=85 |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 14 Aug 2002 : 18:52:20
Paradisian, brother Richard,
Thank you for posting Mr. Akers web site.
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/strange_new_gospels.htm
I believe that he made my point much more succinctly than I. That point being that there is absolutely no proof that this purported manuscript exists. Mr. Akers, commenting on the preface to Ouseley’s book, states:
quote:
From this passage, it is clear that no manuscript in Aramaic has ever been seen, or is claimed to have been seen, by Rev. Ouseley. Rather, it is Swedenborg, Maitland, Kingsford, and Placidus (all having died, some very recently, by the time Ouseley received this work) who received the gospel, and who simultaneously translated it into English, and then communicated this to Ouseley and his associates in some miraculous manner. So whenever and however Ouseley received it, it was already in English. Presumably, although this information is not spelled out, the fact that the manuscript is in Tibet in some monastery was also communicated to them by Swedenborg, Maitland, Kingsford, and Placidus. No one has every discovered any such manuscript, in Aramaic or any other language, in any Tibetan monastery.
However, to make things more interesting, there are several versions of this gospel which are circulating without Ouseley’s "Explanatory Preface." This has left some people are under the impression that this is a text which really was originally found in Tibet and translated from the Aramaic. In fact, in Europe there are German and Swedish editions of this work which leave the impression that Ouseley actually did discover the manuscript during a trip to Tibet in 1881. Never mind that Ouseley himself never claimed to have gone to Tibet, and in fact was fairly open about the process by which he received it, making it clear that this is in fact a "channeled" work. Annie Besant, one of the leaders of the Theosophical movement, understood the situation quite well and gave the book a rather negative review, describing its spiritualist sources and calling it "a strange book."
Pay particular attention that the "Reverend" is purportedly to have received this revelation from the dead.
I have no qualms with those who have chosen to abstain from the eating of meats, and I will further admit to the possibility that the Christ abstained from eating meat. I do have a problem though when those that have a particular agenda that has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God, try to show that their’s is the superior or right position, by claiming that it was what the Christ taught through the display of some unsubstantiated so-called manuscript purportedly found in some infidel’s temple in Tibet. Even Mr. Akers states that when the monks were questioned concerning these documents they replied: "Lies, Lies, Lies".
Several years ago, there was an other effort to discredit the King James Bible by those who would promote a photo copy of the Geneva Bible( I have a copy of it.). They claimed that because king James was a deviant that of course we shouldn’t put any stock in that book. I may be wrong but I believe that king James’ intent was to produce a bible without the margin notes that where contained in the Geneva Bible that denounced the "divine right of kings" among other items that were disconcerting to the king. I find it interesting that people who promote these alternative views and items can not let these views or items either stand or fall on their own merits, but have to resort to some un provable tale of the spurious content of the KJV. While I know that there are problems with the KJV and that there are better translations in circulation (Benton’s Septuagint and Berry’s Interlinear, both which I use.), it has stood the test of time and continued attacks from thousands of people that have tried through the ages to discredit it and other works translated from the received texts. I wonder if all those millions of believers that have passed over the centuries that used these received texts and followed the commandments therein are just damned because our Father has hidden His "true" words from us all this time? Just musing.
Our Father is not the author of confusion. There is one that is the author of confusion, and I do believe that he has ministers that pose as ministers of the Christ. I believe it is these ministers that introduce subjects of contention into the body of Christ. They introduce things like the healing powers of crystals and communications with the spirits of the dead and eastern belief of reincarnation. They create confusion in the body and, like a cancer, they do their work in obscurity because the message that they teach has a sound of plausibility because the elect have become lazy and inattentive. Instead of standing on the wall and keeping watch, they have gone over the wall and joined the enemy, because that enemy has tickled their ears with his sweet sounding words.
One more comment. Virgin or "maiden" as used in the original Hebrew texts, even though betrothed, still has the same connotation; a young woman having not had sexual relations with a man.
May the peace of our Lord, Christ Jesus, be with you.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 09 Aug 2002 : 19:44:55
(Paradisian's comments interspersed below:)
quote:
Originally posted by DanielJacob:
I am always skeptical when something like this work shows up. Especially when it shows up on so many web sites that have to do with eastern mysticism, Animal Rights, Vegetarianism, and new age religion.
"Paradisian":
I don't see the mysticism here... please explain. What is wrong with animal rights or kindness to animals? What gives any man the right to take another's life? Remember that according to Scripture, the Law of the Ten Commandments *written by the finger of God* directly, said "thou shalt not kill"... it was later changed to "thou shalt do no murder" in some editions, to keep with the language of the modern courts. Actually, even the word "murder" means simply "killing" anyway! What is wrong with being vegetarian? Wasn't Daniel (who refused to eat the King's food or drink his wine, and asked for "pulse" [vegetables] instead), better at interpreting the King's dream, and appeared "fuller and fatter in countenance" than all those that ate from the King's table (**note: 'royalty' are called 'blue bloods' because the food they ate caused their bloodstreams to turn acidic and toxic; oxidised, impure blood appears blue, and travels through the arteries, and the pure, neutral pH red blood travels through the veins... the word 'venue' refers to the veins, not the arteries!)???
quote:
DanielJacob :
Maybe that is just me, but let us take a critical look at some of the facts concerning this book.
In this "Gospel", it appears to me to be a mixture of the four canonical Gospel episodes, unchanged in some places but very different in others; for example: the birth of our Saviour is not by the virgin birth, but He is the physical son of Joseph and Mary (wasn’t this one of the primary tests of the true Messiah?, well, the correctors must have changed that part of Isaiah also, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls.).
"Paradisian" :
The word "virgin" actually means "a young woman" or "a woman about to be married" and should not be construed in the way the word has come to be translated in modern dictionaries ... it also means the same in Hebrew as it does in Greek.
quote:
DanielJacob:
Our Lord is said to have learned "magical arts" in Egypt (I suppose a little slight of hand can always be useful)
"Paradisian":
Uhhh... no. It does not say that at all! It says he learned "wisdom" from them... I quote:
"Lection VI, The Childhood And Youth Of Iesus the Christ. He Delivereth A Lion From The Hunters: 14. And Jesus, after that he had finished his study of the law, went down again into Egypt that he might learn of the wisdom of the Egyptians, even as Moses did. And going into the desert, he meditated and fasted and prayed, and obtained the power of the Holy Name, by which he wrought many miracles. 15. And for seven years he conversed with God face to face, and he learned the language of birds and of beasts, and the healing powers of trees, and of herbs, and of flowers, and the hidden secrets of precious stones, and he learned the motions of the Sun and the Moon and the stars, and the powers of the letters, and mysteries of the Square and the Circle and the Transmutation of things, and of forms, and of numbers, and of signs. From thence he returned to Nazareth to visit his parents, and he taught there and in Jerusalem as an accepted Rabbi, even in the temple, none hindering him."
It should also be noted at this point that even the 'Bible' says that the stars "shall be for signs and seasons...". Interesting, I thought that the Bible didn't have God saying astrology was good, but here it is:
Genesis 1:14 ¶And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
DanielJacob, if you are going to knock something, at least get your quotes right, okay? :)
quote:
DanielJacob:
...and also traveled to India and Persia, (I suppose that this is possible) where he performed miracles (what other purpose would he want to go to Persia or India for?).
"Paradisian":
He didn't just go there to perform miracles, he went there to preach the gospel to every living creature... I don't see a difference here...besides, what's wrong with him performing miracles? Who are you to judge him?
quote:
DanielJacob:
Our Heavenly Father is called "Parent" and "Father-Mother", He, our Father, being sex neutral (sounds like the Holy Twelve were ahead of their time with political correctness).
"Paradisian":
Quite correct on the use of the neutral gender! The word for "Father" is the same as "pater", paternal, and parental. In Spanish, the word for fathers (padres) and the word for parents (padres) are identical. The same goes for Latin and Greek, which have similar origins. This also agrees with the gender-neutral interchangeability of 'he' and 'she', and the singular including the plural, in Hebrew. This has nothing to do with political correctness, it has only to do with proper understanding of the original languages that the Bible is derived from.
quote:
DanielJacob:
Our Lord is also tempted a fourth time . This time by a woman whom He rejects. (This must have been where Scorsesee got his idea for his movie "The Last Temptation of Christ").
"Paradisian":
So what? It says the same thing (though not so specifically) in the 'Bible':
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
note the words "in all points"! That would include him, as a man, being tempted by a woman, to be sure. Please also note that he didn't *give in* to the temptation, which totally agrees with the accounts of Jesus being tempted by the devil in the wilderness...
quote:
DanielJacob:
There are also several examples of Jesus' protection of animals. This of course would be in keeping with our Father's mandate that we be stewards over His estate which also includes those creatures which mean you no harm and I have no problem with that except where Jesus is said to have weithered the arm of a man that abused his cat. Of course it also says that when the man repented Jesus healed him.
"Paradisian":
Well, I will admit that this sounded a bit odd to me at first, but after having spoken with Richard Anthony on this subject, he pointed out to me that God not only creates good but creates evil (in response to the sin of man in his unrepentant condition:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
At first I was shocked reading this, it was even pointed out to me by atheists, and I had quite a bit of difficulty comprehending this, until I read Richard Anthony's article, "The Devil & Satan - God and Evil"
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/satan.html
I mean, the guy really deserved that weathered arm, Jesus still had compassion on him, and God has done way worse things to those that have disobeyed him... again, I see no contradictions with 'Scripture' here.
It should also be noted here that criticism has even been cast upon the "non-biblical animals" idea... that there were no cats in those days. Well then what are the lions that are so often mentioned all throughout both the New and Old Testaments?...
quote:
DanielJacob:
Lets examine the evidence for authenticity. We are told that this work is derived from "one of the most ancient and complete of early Christian fragments, preserved by one of the monasteries of the Buddhist monks in Thibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene community for safety from the hands of the corrupters…". I wouldn’t put too much stock in this tale since one of the editors, Emmanuel Swedenborg, didn’t actually "see" this document, apparently it was given to them "By the Divine Spirit of the Gospel" as a revelation of "a higher Christianity". We are told that it is of Essene origin and that it was given to some Buddhist monks for save keeping. This on its face seems rather strange to me, given that the Dead Sea Scrolls are all of Essene origin and found near Qumran, an Essene community from the 2nd century B.C. until about 68 A.D.
The Essene where forced to leave this area at that time because of the advancing Roman legions that were in the process of destroying all of Judea and eventually Jerusalem. They hid their scrolls in caves in the surrounding hills. And what of these scrolls? We know that the complete book of Isaiah was among these scrolls, and we also know that it is almost exact, word for word, to that book found in the A.V. of the King James. I would be more inclined to believe that this "Gospel" was authentic if it had been discovered with the other lost works found among those Dead Sea Scrolls. (Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of James, Book of Jubilees, Essene Manual of Discipline, &c.)
"Paradisian":
It is entirely possible that the Essenes, who were ascetic and therefore sought to remain separate from 'the world', may very well have journeyed far from the area of the Qumran excavations... I'm still not convinced of your point.
quote:
Daniel Jacob:
And what do we know of these Essene, well from their "Manual of Discipline", also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know that they meticulously observed the Law of Moses, the sabbath, and ritual purity. They also professed belief in immortality and divine punishment for sin. But, unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body and refused to immerse themselves in public life. With few exceptions, they shunned Temple worship and were content to live ascetic lives of manual labour in seclusion. The sabbath was reserved for day-long prayer and meditation on the Torah (first five books of the Bible). Oaths were frowned upon, but once taken they could not be rescinded. The Essenes clustered in monastic communities that, generally at least, excluded women. Property was held in common and all details of daily life were regulated by officials. The Essenes were never numerous; Pliny fixed their number at some 4,000 in his day.
Clearly any group can make a claim just as verifiable, promulgating a Jesus supporting whatever political view they are expounding that week. It is also just as clear that many on the Internet have accepted this record as genuine without any research on the matter, which just goes to show that critical thinking skills have hit an all time low.
"Paradisian":
On this point I agree with you. I was one of the ones who hadn't researched the Gospel of the Holy Twelve enough to discover the "Explanatory Preface"... every copy I have ever seen or heard of of the Gospel.. has been missing the Explanatory Preface,
Here is part of what this Preface says (source:
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/strange_new_gospels.htm )
'Their "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" was communicated to the Editors, in numerous fragments at different times, by Emmanuel Swedenborg, Anna Kingsford, Edward Maitland, and a priest of the former century, giving his name as Placidus, of the Franciscan Order, afterwards a Carmelite. By them it was translated from the original, and given to the Editors in the flesh, to be supplemented in their proper places, where indicated, from the "Four Gospels" (A. V.) revised where necessary by the same.
To this explanation, the Editors cannot add, nor from it take away. By the Divine Spirit was the Gospel communicated to the four above mentioned, and by them translated, and given to the writers; not in seance rooms (where too often resort the idle, the frivolous and the curious, attracting spirits similar to themselves, rather than the good), but "in dreams and visions of the night," and by direct guidance, has God instructed them by chosen instruments; and now they give it to the world, that some may be wiser unto Salvation, while those who reject it, remain in their blindness, till they will to see.'
...so we see that the Four Gospels were copied directly out of other modern books ... and more importantly, that the non-copied parts of the Gospel.... were not from ancient manuscripts.. however:
What (if anything) would make the human authors of the 'Bible' any greater, holier or closer to God in their day, than the people who "received" this message contained in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve? To conclude, again quoting from the same website:
"There can be no objection to regarding this as a sacred text. Perhaps it was received through divine inspiration, just as many Christians regard the New Testament as divinely inspired. But as historical evidence, it would not convince anyone who was not already convinced of its divine origin."
Do we trust more in history or in direct inspiration of God? Do we trust more in writings, or do we trust more in the Living God? This question must be answered!
quote:
DanielJacob:
What other works are attributed to this G.J. Ouseley? How about these titles "Colour Meditations" and "The Power of the Rays". These also deal with the healling arts. I don’t know about any of the rest of you, but as for me, I think the "Reverend" didn’t follow the teaching of his own book, and spent just a little to much time bending the elbow at the local pub.
"Paradisian":
Uhhhh, again, I don't see your point. Is healing (spelled with one L, by the way) somehow un-Godly? Styling healing as an 'art' is very clever but appears to me to intend to put a negative spin on the subject of healing... remember that God does the healing, and Jesus and his apostles "healed all manner of sickness and disease". Read the Scripture again! Also, I don't quite get how Ouseley, who was promoting God's healing in this Gospel, would then go and drink alcohol at some pub or bar somewhere.... the whole tone of your criticism reeks with mean-spirited derision and self-righteousness. Physician, heal thyself!
quote:
DanielJacob:
By the way, I am very aware the "problems" that are attached to KJV. But until our Father shows me something more received and more profound I will just stick with it. However, in the "spirit of fairness", I am going to reread the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" just to make sure that I have given it adequate time.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (can I still rely on that?)
"Paradisian":
Yes, you most certainly can rely on that ... God's people are also destroyed through attacking others' writings and ideas which are inspired by God ... please remember that dissemblers have no place in the Christ's Lawful assembly and must repent on that score. Yes, maybe it is "just you". |
| Cowboy |
Posted - 31 Jul 2002 : 13:43:10
What a waste of ink, nothing new though, the truth and the word of God have been under attack since the garden..... "yea hath God said"
I wonder haw many lives and souls apollonius has changed compared to the Millions the Lord Jesus Christ has over the last 2000 yrs.
JN 17:17 |
| Shiloh |
Posted - 21 Jun 2002 : 02:07:18
DanielJacobs,
I can not agree with you more that this "Gospel" does not sound correct. It sounds like alot of what you hear or can read about in the Babylonian Talmud. It denies the virgin birth of Jesus. The Talmud also states Jesus went down to Egypt to learn "sorcery" and "black magic". The "defense of animals" is part of the "laws given to Noah" in the Talmud.
In the King James Version Jesus condemns the oral traditions of men that the "religious leaders" of his time contradicted and nulified the Laws given to Moses on on the mountian writen by the finger of God.
70 A.D. the "leaders of the Temple" fled and wrote down these "oral traditions given by Moses" in what we call the Babylonian Talmud.
The Talmud is filled with insults Jesus and threats to believers in him.
Shiloh |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 18 Jun 2002 : 00:49:49
Having started down this slippery slope, I thought there may be some of you that may want to take a comparitive look at this web page.
www.netcolony.com/arts/yperiwn/Apollonius_the_Nazarene.html
Just the shear length of the article demonstrates what effort Satan and his minions will go to to create confusion and strife among the Living.
Take heed that no man decieve you!
|
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 17 Jun 2002 : 18:40:22
I am always skeptical when something like this work shows up. Especially when it shows up on so many web sites that have to do with eastern mysticism, Animal Rights, Vegetarianism, and new age religion. Maybe that is just me, but let us take a critical look at some of the facts concerning this book.
In this "Gospel", it appears to me to be a mixture of the four canonical Gospel episodes, unchanged in some places but very different in others; for example: the birth of our Saviour is not by the virgin birth, but He is the physical son of Joseph and Mary (wasn’t this one of the primary tests of the true Messiah?, well, the correctors must have changed that part of Isaiah also, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls.). Our Lord is said to have learned "magical arts" in Egypt (I suppose a little slight of hand can always be useful) and also traveled to India and Persia, (I suppose that this is possible) where he performed miracles (what other purpose would he want to go to Persia or India for?). Our Heavenly Father is called "Parent" and "Father-Mother", He, our Father, being sex neutral (sounds like the Holy Twelve were ahead of their time with political correctness). Our Lord is also tempted a fourth time . This time by a woman whom He rejects. (This must have been where Scorsesee got his idea for his movie "The Last Temptation of Christ"). There are also several examples of Jesus' protection of animals. This of course would be in keeping with our Father's mandate that we be stewards over His estate which also includes those creatures which mean you no harm and I have no problem with that except where Jesus is said to have weithered the arm of a man that abused his cat. Of course it also says that when the man repented Jesus healed him.
Lets examine the evidence for authenticity. We are told that this work is derived from "one of the most ancient and complete of early Christian fragments, preserved by one of the monasteries of the Buddhist monks in Thibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene community for safety from the hands of the corrupters…". I wouldn’t put too much stock in this tale since one of the editors, Emmanuel Swedenborg, didn’t actually "see" this document, apparently it was given to them "By the Divine Spirit of the Gospel" as a revelation of "a higher Christianity". We are told that it is of Essene origin and that it was given to some Buddhist monks for save keeping. This on its face seems rather strange to me, given that the Dead Sea Scrolls are all of Essene origin and found near Qumran, an Essene community from the 2nd century B.C. until about 68 A.D. The Essene where forced to leave this area at that time because of the advancing Roman legions that were in the process of destroying all of Judea and eventually Jerusalem. They hid their scrolls in caves in the surrounding hills. And what of these scrolls? We know that the complete book of Isaiah was among these scrolls, and we also know that it is almost exact, word for word, to that book found in the A.V. of the King James. I would be more inclined to believe that this "Gospel" was authentic if it had been discovered with the other lost works found among those Dead Sea Scrolls. (Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of James, Book of Jubilees, Essene Manual of Discipline, &c.)
And what do we know of these Essene, well from their "Manual of Discipline", also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know that they meticulously observed the Law of Moses, the sabbath, and ritual purity. They also professed belief in immortality and divine punishment for sin. But, unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body and refused to immerse themselves in public life. With few exceptions, they shunned Temple worship and were content to live ascetic lives of manual labour in seclusion. The sabbath was reserved for day-long prayer and meditation on the Torah (first five books of the Bible). Oaths were frowned upon, but once taken they could not be rescinded. The Essenes clustered in monastic communities that, generally at least, excluded women. Property was held in common and all details of daily life were regulated by officials. The Essenes were never numerous; Pliny fixed their number at some 4,000 in his day.
Clearly any group can make a claim just as verifiable, promulgating a Jesus supporting whatever political view they are expounding that week. It is also just as clear that many on the Internet have accepted this record as genuine without any research on the matter, which just goes to show that critical thinking skills have hit an all time low.
What other works are attributed to this G.J. Ouseley? How about these titles "Colour Meditations" and "The Power of the Rays". These also deal with the healling arts. I don’t know about any of the rest of you, but as for me, I think the "Reverend" didn’t follow the teaching of his own book, and spent just a little to much time bending the elbow at the local pub.
By the way, I am very aware the "problems" that are attached to KJV. But until our Father shows me something more received and more profound I will just stick with it. However, in the "spirit of fairness", I am going to reread the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" just to make sure that I have given it adequate time.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (can I still rely on that?) |
| Cowboy |
Posted - 14 Jun 2002 : 14:33:52
Not sure I'm following your last statement, and I wasn't aware that the KJV was under that type of scutiny.
In any case I've studied the subject for many years and am quite assured that the KJV is the ONLY pure, written word of God, around today.
Most modern Bibles, other than the KJV, use the Siniaticus and Vaticanus texts to overthrow the Textus Receptus, and both of those are corupt.
I'm not familiar with the Essene Bible, but do know that the Septuagint is
questionable.
JN 17:17 |
| n/a |
Posted - 13 Jun 2002 : 14:18:51
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy:
Check out a book by Gail Riplinger on this called, "New age Bible versions". It is excellent and covers this subject very well. JN 17:17
I haven't read Gail's book, but based on reviews I've readd, it seems to mostly cover satanic and evil occult books, judging each compared with the KJV! (which would tend to nullify any earnest study on this subject, considering that the KJV itself, is also a subject in question in this sort of thing... The recent post in this thread by "doer" (particularly the second and third paragraphs in it) reflects my knowng, in that WE KNOW IN OUR HEARTS (as long as our hearts [and the blood within them] are pure and therefore open to the Living Good to fill them so that WE MAY KNOW THE TRUTH WHEN WE SEE OR HEAR OR EXPERIENCE IT. That is the only criteria that really matters, not what some archaeological or other modern, worldly evidence appears to suggest. We do not judge or know Good by science.
If the temple of Good is the body, and the temple is a sanctuary, and the sanctuary must be cleansed for Good to enter in, then obviously the body must be pure... only from Life comes Life; our bodies must first be purged of all death (the fruitarian diet is the only one that has no element of death in it!, which, according to the Essene Bible are to be our food. Jesus also mentions nuts and seeds and "milk of beasts good for eating"... still no-death except for the nuts (killing of future generations).. but then again, in the 'Holy Land' where Jesus taught, that is probably all they had to eat! ...
"Paradisian" |
| Cowboy |
Posted - 13 Jun 2002 : 13:02:58
Check out a book by Gail Riplinger on this called, "New age Bible versions"
It is excellent and covers this subject very well.
JN 17:17 |
| doer |
Posted - 07 Jun 2002 : 15:30:29
THE MASTER said,
Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
HIS WORDS speak to our hearts. WE KNOW THE TRUTH when we hear it. If there is a doubt, then we must wait patiently until HIS VOICE makes it clear -- as eventually it will.
This is how we can DISCERN THE TRUTH in all things. BUT be clear on this -- we MUST make TRUTH more important than anything in our lives. More important than our friends. More important than our family. More important than our country. More important than Life itself. ONLY THEN, will we be able to hear Truth's call clearly.
God Bless,
George |
| Cowboy |
Posted - 07 Jun 2002 : 14:26:07
I would say stick with the KJV, God said he would preserve his word.
JN 17:17 |
| Manuel |
Posted - 07 Apr 2002 : 22:10:47
I tell you brother, In His truth and spirit everything will be known, and blow up like a germinating seed with its gasses propagating His entire Kingdom.
Be patient and do not fall to the "old man."
Dios Con Vosotros,
Manuel
|
| All4Him |
Posted - 07 Apr 2002 : 04:09:48
I can't honestly agree that this is the real "Gospel" of the 12 Disciples as claimed, but from what I do know about the manipulations of many of the Roman Catholic Bible Canons, this may be just as believable as what un-Holy Rome has published for 1700 years acclaiming to be the "Gospel" truth. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 06 Apr 2002 : 14:57:11
Geetings Brother and all whom are in His spirit.
I thank Jesus The Christ to be able to keep me safe during this trying last hour. It is good to be able to read and feel His patience working and know you are holding in.
A Dios,
Manuel
|
|
|
