On Apr 3, 1:21 am, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 7:19 pm, "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 1:36 am, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 12:07 pm, "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 11:02 pm, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > ..
> > > > > > > There's only one dubious (false) story, and it's at your
link.
>
> > > > > > No arguing with a true believer, I suppose....
>
> > > > > That your author lied is a demonstrated fact.
>
> > > > "My author"?? I don't have an author in this fight.
>
> > > ----------
> > > From: "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
> > > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > > ..
> > > This pseudo-gospel apparently came to a Victorian eccentric named
> > > Ouseley in a dream. For some interesting background see:
>
> > >http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html
>
> > > Sorry, it is not "another bible".
> > > ..
>
> > I still don't know who you think is "my author".
>
> The author of the piece at the link you posted.
Are you referring to James Patrick Holding, the first writer on that
page, or Samuel Hopgood Hart, whose name appears at the end of the
lengthy quote which follows?
>
> > > ----------
>
> > > > I don't even know which part of this collection of stuff you
consider
> > > > a lie.
> > > > And how do you imagine this has been "demonstrated"?
>
> > > Again, from your "interesting background" link
> > > <http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html>
...
>
> > > 'In his Preface thereto, Rev. Ouseley claims that The Gospel
> > > of the Holy Twelve as received by him was a translation of
> > > "one of the most ancient and complete of early Christian
> > > fragments", written in Aramaic, and "used in the first Christian
> > > Church in Jerusalem", and that this was "the original Gospel
> > > from which the four were more or less copied, with numerous
> > > variations and im****tant omissions". The translation, he says,
> > > was communicated to him "in numerous fragments at different
> > > times, by Emmanuel Swedenborg, Anna Kingsford, Edward
> > > Maitland, and a priest of a former century giving his name as
> > > Placidus, of the Franciscan Order, afterwards a Carmelite",
> > > who were the translators thereof (8). '
>
> > > What that *later preface* actually says:
>
> > > "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
> > > a 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.
> > > ..'http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/Preface.htm
>
> > > Got it? Rev. Ousley's name doesn't even appear in this text.
>
> > So the big lie is that Ousley himself didn't say all this, but "The
> > Editors" did? And who are "The Editors"?
>
> Seems to rhyme well with "correctors". Damage limitation.
Actually it doesn't rhyme with "correctors".
But are you suggesting these "Editors", too, are covering up, i.e.
lying?
I thought you were quoting them to prove that Holding (or Hart) was
lying.
Maybe it would be less confusing if you could state briefly what you
regard as the true facts about Ousley and this gospel.
Ross Clark
>
> > > > But sure,
>
> > > > > the Church didn't hold with /arguing/ with 'true believers'...
>
> > > > Don't worry, I don't plan to burn you or boil you in oil. And I'm
not
> > > > a church, or even a christian.
>
> > > You leaped into bed with Christian apologists quickly enough.
>
> > I didn't leap into anybody's bed.
>
> Uhuh.
>
> > > > I'm just keeping in mind that rational discussion may not get far.
In
> > > > that case, my strategy will be to ignore you.
>
> > > 'Abuse is about control and the fear of losing it. Ill-treatment is
> > > an absurd effort to maintain and enhance the abuser's hegemony -
> > >social, cultural, legal, and, above all, psychological. Abusers
exploit,
> > > lie, insult, demean, ignore (the "silent treatment"), manipulate,
and
> > > control. There are a million ways to abuse, directly and by proxy.
> > > To expect too much, to denigrate, to ignore - are all modes of
abuse.
> > > There is physical abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse, ***ual
> > > abuse. The list is long. Most abusers abuse surreptitiously.
> > > ..'http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/verbal_emotional_abuse
>
> > Your point?
>
> Wise up to yourself. And others.
|
