On Apr 3, 1:09 pm, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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]
>
wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 1, 11:02 pm, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > ..
> > > > > > > > > There's only one dubious (false) story, and it's at your
l=
ink.
>
> > > > > > > > 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.
But you say (below) that he "received a transcription...". Clearly he
had something to do with it. Maybe what you're objecting to is saying
that he was the _author_ of it, i.e. wrote it himself. I'm not sure
either of the above people actually says so in so many words, though
Holding is probably thinking as much. Interestingly, though, I came
across a web site (which I can't seem to find again) that had actual
photos of the covers/title pages of three editions, and one of them
had "_by_ Rev GJR Owseley" on the cover, as if he was the author. I
think it may have been the 1952 edition, the one that Hart wrote the
introduction to. So maybe Hart is the big liar? But why would somebody
go to the trouble of re-publi****ng something and writing an
introduction if they thought it was just a fraud?
> > > > > ----------
>
> > > > > > I don't even know which part of this collection of stuff you
con=
sider
> > > > > > 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=
=B2rek=C2=B7t=C9=99r). I say start a
> thread in sci.lang, and discuss it 'till Kingdom come..?
Yes, it's a side issue, but rhyme requires more than just having the
same final syllable.
> > 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.
? this seems incomplete. What does "As it went." mean?
Do you mean "received" in some material sense?
Does your view of the true facts include Swedenborg, Placidus and the
Tibetan monastery?
And what would convince us that your account is more true than the
others we've seen?
Ross Clark
|
