On Apr 2, 10:31 pm, "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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]
>
wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 11:02 pm, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > ..
> > > > > > > > There's only one dubious (false) story, and it's at your
lin=
k.
>
> > > > > > > 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?
Whoever attributed that "received translation" to Ouseley.
> > > > ----------
>
> > > > > I don't even know which part of this collection of stuff you
consi=
der
> > > > > 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".
ed=C2=B7i=C2=B7tor (=C4=95d'=C4=AD-t=C9=99r) .. corrector
(k=C9=99=E2=80=B2r=
ek=C2=B7t=C9=99r). I say start a
thread in sci.lang, and discuss it 'till Kingdom come..?
> But are you suggesting these "Editors", too, are covering up, i.e.
> lying?
Who'd have guessed, eh. You'd have thought that after
near two millenia of this 'they'd acknowledge the truth..
Perilously close - http://www.ejpress.org/article/15698
.
> I thought you were quoting them to prove that Holding (or Hart) was
> lying.
That too. The selective citing in order to misattribute this
"received translation" should by itself set off alarm bells.
> Maybe it would be less confusing if you could state briefly what you
> regard as the true facts about Ousley and this gospel.
Sure, all you need to do is ask. From what I've gathered,
Rev. Ouseley received a transcription of this do***ent
via some underground spiritual brotherhood. As it went.
|
