 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / October 2005Caution - 'VEGAN SUPREME' MARSHMALLOWS ARE NOT VEGAN
Caution - 'VEGAN SUPREME' MARSHMALLOWS ARE NOT VEGAN Forwarded message from Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com> [ Subject: Vegan Supreme Marshmallows are not vegan [ From: Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com> [ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 SAD BUT TRUE . . . Vegan Supreme Marshmallows are not vegan. The gelatin supplier misrepresented his product to the manufacturer who was under the impression that the gelatin they were buying was animal-free. It turns out that it contained animal collagen! As a result, Vegan Supreme is no longer manufacturing marshmallows & has unfortunately declared bankruptcy! End of forwarded message from Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com> Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti Dear Dr Maharaj, Most vegetarian cheese has rennet in it...many essential to life pharmaceutical products are made, coated or coloured with animal products. Nearly all children's sweets include animal products and other unnatural additives. The people who make them are often meat eaters too. Your world, your standards, and the conditions of living in it are getting rather impossible, even for yourself. Is it not better to love your neighbours, as they are, with all their faults? In Christ's love Carol T <..> > Is it not better to love your neighbours, as they are, with all their > faults? > > In Christ's love > Carol T ' Jesus Interprets The Law .. "And again I say unto you, if any lust and seek to possess the body of any creature for food, or for pleasure, or for profit, they defile themselves thereby, and thus deny my commandments, and are guilty." ... http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_3.htm l#anchor10520 > <..> >> Is it not better to love your neighbours, as they are, with all their >> faults? >> >> In Christ's love >> Carol T > ' Jesus Interprets The Law > ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > .... > http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_3.htm l#anchor10520 Eventually, Jesus learned Hindu wisdom: Jesus of Nazareth is said to have recovered from the serious injuries he received on the cross and traveled to Bharat. He married Marjan (aka Maryan) in Kashmir and settled there with their children, living beyond the age of 100. He learned Vedic-Hindu wisdom at the feet of Hindu sages. He is buried in Shrinagar at the Rozabal Here are two excerpts from an account published in 1983 by Harvard-educated Andres Takra, a member of the Venezuelan diplomatic corps in Delhi, the founder of the Sociedad Naturista de Venezuela, and director of the Takra Institute (I posted these about ten years ago]: "I visited twice the ROZABAL, or 'Burial Ground of the Saint,' allegedly the tomb of Jesus, Issa, Yusu, or Yuza Asaf, as he is called by Muslims . . . located in a miserable sector of Shrinagar. There, inside a dirty, desolate, ruined, unkempt, ugly shrine, an illiterate and dumb guide shows you, next to the tomb, the eloquent, scarred, big imprints of the feet of a man on a black stone smeared with candle wax. It is said Jesus expired here and was subsequently buried with his head facing east (following the Jewish custom) by his faithful disciple Thomas, who had accompanied him since Palestine and who could have gone with him to the Americas. Thomas was stoned to death in Madras, South India, and was buried there [...] ". . . This time we visited the Rozabal, Gulmarg and Yusmarg, or 'Field of Jesus,' [path of Jesus - JM] where Jesus went through when he came from Pakistan shortly after his mother, Mary, had died. . . ." Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti i hope the account of jesus burial in kashmir is not true. if the word catches on, there be annual stampedes of kirastanis congregating in kashmir by millions (like mommedans do in meccaw) - and, of course, they will blame it on hindus. > > <..> > >> Is it not better to love your neighbours, as they are, with all their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > and thus deny my commandments, and are guilty." > > .... http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_3.htm l#anchor10520 > Eventually, Jesus learned Hindu wisdom: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > http://www.mantra.com/jai > Om Shanti That area is stalked by Muslim terrorists these days. I doubt if many Christians will start visiting it in the near future. Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti > i hope the account of jesus burial in kashmir is not true. > if the word catches on, there be annual stampedes of kirastanis congregating [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > http://www.mantra.com/jai > > Om Shanti What the specific verse number for this? I don't think it occurs in scripture. "And again I say unto you, if any lust and seek to > possess the body of any creature for food, or for > pleasure, or for profit, they defile themselves thereby, > and thus deny my commandments, and are guilty." This is a saying of Christ when talking about which things are to be avoided: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." > What the specific verse number for this? I don't think it occurs in > scripture. > > "And again I say unto you, if any lust and seek to > possess the body of > any creature for food, or for > pleasure, or for profit, they defile > themselves thereby, > and thus deny my commandments, and are guilty." Jesus Interprets The Law The Essene Humane Gospel Of Christ http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_3.htm l#anchor10520 > This is a saying of Christ when talking about which things are to be > avoided: > > "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; which cometh out of > the mouth, this defileth a man." 'Lection XLIV The Confession of the Twelve Christ the True Rock 7. But there shall arise after you, men of perverse minds who shall through ignorance or through craft, suppress many things which I have spoken unto you, and lay to me things which I never taught, sowing tares among the good wheat which I have given you to sow in the world. 8. Then shall the truth of God endure the contradiction of sinners, for thus it hath been, and thus it will be. But the time cometh when the things which they have hidden shall be revealed and made known, and the truth shall make free those which were bound. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_5.htm 'Paul, the self-proclaimed Apostle, violently opposed the original vegetarian Essene Christianity of Jesus, first by killing and imprisoning its leaders, then by infiltrating the movement and leading a schism. The schism led by Paul -- a meat-eating version of Christianity -- replaced the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul. [...] "Paulianity" evolved into the Roman Catholic Church and gave birth to all of what is considered mainstream Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. ........' http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm ..&.. 'We have referred elsewhere to the "correctors" who 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, 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 writes: "The great significance of the corruption of the Text lies rather in the nature of the matter struct 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 Sanscrit and Aramaic gospel, the duty of abstaining from meat and wine were emphasized, while in the later versions, it was omitted. Since those who founded the Christian Church, like their emperor, Constantine, were meat eaters and drinkers of wine, naturally they were opposed to these doctrines, whose acceptance would involve a revolutionary transformation of their living habits, they interpreted the first promise to mean, "Thou shalt not kill". implying 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 reasons above stated, 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 red meats and flowing wine of his midnight feasts too much to accept a religion that prohibited these pleasures, which was a main reason why he so bitterly persecuted the early Christians who advocated these doctrines. For this reason the 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. But the savior of the Original Gospel, as Christ were represented to be, was a redeemer of the animal world, as he was of men, seeking to alleviate the sufferings of all living beings. "The all pitying love of Our Savior embraces not only mankind, but also the so-called lower creatures of God, sharers with us of the one breath of life, and with us on the road of ascent to that which is higher. Never has the providence with which the All-Merciful watches over man and beast alike been more impressively brought home to us than in the saying of the Savior, 'Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, but not one of them is forgotten by God'. How were it possible to doubt that the Savior would have pity and compassion on the creatures who must bear their pain in silence? Would it not seem a blasphemy if it were said that He would behold without pity or succor the ill-treatment of helpless animals? Nay, rather, when he brought redemption to a world sunk in selfishness, hard heartedness and misery, and proclaimed the gospel of all embracing love, there was a share in this redemption for all suffering creatures; since when man opened his heart to the divine love, there could be no room left in it for pitiless hardness toward the other creatures of God, who have, like himself, been called into life with a capacity for enjoyment and suffering. .... http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm Thank you for your response. It is good to know my observation was confirmed and the quotation was not from scripture. > Thank you for your response. It is good to know my observation was > confirmed and the quotation was not from scripture. Not from the version of 'scripture' you are familiar with, no. "Not from the version of 'scripture' you are familiar with, no." In fact, I was aware of and have read such before on the web. Ifind it and its presumed origins sadly lacking in credibility of the type serious scholors of all opinions would accept. Thank you again. > "Not from the version of 'scripture' you are familiar with, no." > > In fact, I was aware of and have read such before on the web. Ifind it > and its presumed origins sadly lacking in credibility of the type serious > scholors of all opinions would accept. Thank you again. "The Nazarean -... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. - Epiphanius (Panarion 1:18) ' http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/ezlaw.htm "He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23) 'In 1870, an Aramaic manuscript entitled "The Gospel of the Nazirenes" was discovered, translated and published. This ancient scripture, hidden away for centuries in a Tibetan monastery, seems in virtually every respect identical to the work by the same title, that was known and widely quoted from in the first century by the church. Many of the most revered early church fathers, as well as a surprising number of scholars today, have boldly declared that the legendary Gospel of the Nazirenes, later to be known as "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve," is nothing less than the long-lost original Gospel which, legend holds, was collectively written by the actual 12 apostles in the period immediately following Christ's death, and upon which all of the Biblical synoptic Gospels are based. .. For nearly 2,000 years, all we objectively knew of Jesus came to us primarily through the Biblical Gospels. And yet, for all this time, a great and enduring enigma has loomed over these lofty works. In the fourth century, the ruling authorities of Rome decided which of the countless texts, based on Christ's teachings in circulation at that time, would make up the present-day Bible and deciding once and for all, in effect, which works were to be judged as authoritative and which were not. This decision, unfortunately, carried the undeniable taint of political compromise, and the Bishops making these decisions were doing so at the direct command of the Roman Emperor, and their future financial and social well-being was, and everyone agrees, entirely under his control. It has been whispered ever since the fourth century that much of the true message of Jesus was edited out at that time, due to the oppressive and theologically obtuse influence of Constantine. The Christian scriptures that failed to be admitted into the Bible were then outlawed, collected, and destroyed. Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed in near-perfect unison, the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had all been based. Mentioned or quoted from by such well-known church fathers as Papias, Hegesippus, Iranaeas, Clement, Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, this document had gone variously by the title "Gospel of the Nazirenes" (The word "Nazirene" comes from the "Nazirite-Essene" sect, or a Nazirite sect of the Essene branch of Judaism), "Gospel of the Hebrews", "Gospel of the Ebionites", and "The Aramaic Gospel of Matthew". For nearly 2,000 years, historians considered this work to have been irrevocably lost, but in 1870 a forgotten copy was discovered, hidden away in a Tibetan monastery, and was quickly translated from the original Aramaic, published this time as "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve". This work was translated into the old-style King James English by Rev. G.J.R. Ouseley. The work was quickly rejected however, and considered blasphemous by the Church. This text certainly appears to be the very same gospel referred to by so many ancient commentators. Although this original scripture had indeed thought been lost, a number of its passages are well known, having been preserved by various church fathers who quoted them in their writings. Virtually all of the quoted passages can be found in this original Gospel and in their entirety. (as are also virtually the entire contents of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Numerous historical references thus seem to confirm the authenticity of the 1870 manuscript, and many modern scholars since 1870 have concluded as well that this work is, in all likelihood, the original source of much of the material that eventually found its way into the Biblical Gospels. If so, the Biblical Gospels would then be mere edited versions of this earlier, and therefore more authoritative work, just as many have argued over the centuries. ... This ancient manuscript claims in no uncertain terms to be the same work composed by the 12 apostles, and, in fact, it makes an intriguing and compelling case for being just that. Its antiquity seems beyond question, as this 19th century text contains words, phrases, and concepts identical to those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi, which were only unearthed in the 1940's. The text therefore cannot, as these connections prove, be anything but authentic. ...' http://www.thenazareneway.com/legend_of_the_lost_gospel.htm "Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed in near-perfect unison, the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had all been based. Mentioned or quoted from by such well-known church fathers as Papias, Hegesippus, Iranaeas, Clement, Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, this document had gone variously by the title "Gospel of the Nazirenes" (The word "Nazirene" comes from the "Nazirite-Essene" sect, or a Nazirite sect of the Essene branch of Judaism), "Gospel of the Hebrews", "Gospel of the Ebionites", and "The Aramaic Gospel of Matthew"." I'm sorry, this is not correct, before and a couple of centuries after that date the final books of scripture were not agreed upon universally in all places. Those collections of books then in use either had some omissions and/or added others which in time came to not to be said to be fully inspired by God until the final version was accepted. I would be happy to entertain any examples from among any of the fathers of the church, including those mentioned, which speak as above. There were scores of "gospels", "epistles" and "revelations" which were known and now not accepted fully as are those books now accepted as scripture. The church is the source of teaching, scripture being one of its tools, along with the writings of the fathers and the councils, and any "new" or "lost" books are now irrelevant because we are taught of "the faith once delivered" in scripture and these 2000 years hence. Thanks once again. > "Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included > in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > omissions and/or added others which in time came to not to be said to be > fully inspired by God until the final version was accepted. Said by... accepted by... ? > I would be happy to entertain any examples from among any of the fathers > of the church, including those mentioned, which speak as above. See; http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html . > There were scores of "gospels", "epistles" and "revelations" which were > known and now not accepted fully as are those books now accepted as > scripture. Accepted or not accepted by.... ? > The church is the source of teaching, scripture being one of its tools, > along with the writings of the fathers and the councils, and any "new" or > "lost" books are now irrelevant because we are taught of "the faith once > delivered" in scripture and these 2000 years hence. Thanks once again. The church, or Christ? I'd always thought it was about Jesus' teachings... > "Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included > in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed in > near-perfect uni > all been based. I'm sorry, the above is not confirmed in this link: http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html . It is said of the church fathers mentioned there they referred to the hebrews gospel, it doesn't say they reached the above conclusion. Even in scripture books other then scripture are mentioned, and the fathers mentioned many other religious books many of which are not known to us. In no case did this use of other ideas confirm the acceptance of them as being equal to scripture but as only making some point to which they wanted attention drawn. Sometimes the point was negative and some positive from the other material as the fathers directed our attention to make the point. Consider this link for a more complete view of the hebrews gospel and how it can be understood: http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-the-hebrews "The church, or Christ? I'd always thought it was about Jesus' teachings..." He is the head of the church, He started it and defined its role in human affairs and said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The church is the source of the scripture as directed by divine direction and as used within the church. > > "Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included > > in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed > in > > near-perfect uni > > all been based. What a mess! How relevant to the discussion! Great work! --restore-- > "Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included > in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Judaism), "Gospel of the Hebrews", "Gospel of the Ebionites", and "The > Aramaic Gospel of Matthew"." ----- > I'm sorry, the above is not confirmed in this link: > > http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html . It MOST CERTAINLY *IS* confirmed in that link! Just a few short cites from that page.. 'Many synoptic variances point to an underlying Semitic text as the common synoptic source document. .. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was a Gospel which was once used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Eusebius said that GH was “the especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah” (Eccl. Hist. 3:25:5). When speaking of the Ebionites, Epiphanius calls GH “their Gospel” (Pan. 30:16:4-5) and Jerome refers to GH as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use” (On Mat. 12:13). The actual document has been lost to history, but about 50 quotations and citations of this document are preserved in quotations and citations from the so-called “Church Fathers” and other commentators even into the middle ages. It is unlikely that the Hebrews themselves called their own Gospel “according to the Hebrews”. This is likely a title given the book by Gentile Christians. GH was also called “the Gospel according to the Apostles”; “the Gospel according to the Twelve”; and “the Gospel according to Matthew” and one of these may have been its name among the Hebrews who used it. Even the most conservative of scholars have given a very early date to the composition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict Josh McDowell (p. 38) assigns GH a date of A.D. 65-100. The book certainly had to have existed before the time of Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) who Eusebius tells us made use of GH in his writings (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22:8). Ignatious (98 C.E.) quotes from GH in his letter to the Smyraneans (3:1-2 (1:9-12 some editions)). Although Ignatious does not identify his quote as coming from GH, Jerome (4th Century) does later cite GH as the source (Of Illustrious Men 16). GH (in differing versions) was used by both Nazarenes and Ebionites. Since neither group would have been likely to adopt the other’s book after they split from each other around 70 C.E., it appears that GH in its original form must have originated prior to that time. .. While there is no reason to presume that there were three different Gospels called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is certainly clear that Nazarenes and Ebionites used different versions of GH. Epiphanius describes the version of GH used by the Ebionites as “called ‘according to Matthew’, which however is not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated” (Pan. 30:13:2) however in speaking of the Nazarenes he refer to the “Gospel of Matthew quite complete in Hebrew… preserved… as it was first written, in Hebrew letters” (Pan. 29:9:4). So it would appear that the Ebionite version of GH was “now wholly complete but falsified and mutilated” while the Nazarene version was “quite complete… preserved… as it was first written.”. This explains why the Ebionite version omitted the birth narrative and opened with the ministry of Yochanan (Pan. 30:13:6) while the Nazarene version is known to have included material parallel to the first two chapters of Matthew. .. Conclusion The Gospel according to the Hebrews which was the “especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah” was a primary source document either directly or indirectly for all four of our canonical Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew was an abridgement of that Gospel made originally to bring the message of Yeshua to the Pharisees. The Gospel of Luke was drawn largely from GH and was composed to present the message of Yeshua to the Sadducees. The Gospel of Mark was compiled from Matthew and Luke in order to present a shorter, simpler account to the Gentiles. And the Gospel of John made some use of GH in composing a Gospel account aimed at the Essene community. The resulting four Gospels covered all of the levels of understanding (PaRDeS) of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Mark gives us the pashat, Luke the remez, Matthew the drash and John the Sod. Thus the four canonical Gospels provide us with a complete understanding of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which lies at the root of all of them. http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html > It is said of the church fathers mentioned there they referred to the > hebrews gospel, it doesn't say they reached the above conclusion. 'The Gospel according to the Hebrews was a Gospel which was once used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Eusebius said that GH was “the especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah” (Eccl. Hist. 3:25:5). When speaking of the Ebionites, Epiphanius calls GH “their Gospel” (Pan. 30:16:4-5) and Jerome refers to GH as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use” (On Mat. 12:13). The actual document has been lost to history, but about 50 quotations and citations of this document are preserved in quotations and citations from the so-called “Church Fathers” and other commentators even into the middle ages. It is unlikely that the Hebrews themselves called their own Gospel “according to the Hebrews”. This is likely a title given the book by Gentile Christians. GH was also called “the Gospel according to the Apostles”; “the Gospel according to the Twelve”; and “the Gospel according to Matthew” and one of these may have been its name among the Hebrews who used it. ibid. > Even in > scripture books other then scripture are mentioned, and the fathers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the other material as the fathers directed our attention to make the > point. See above. > Consider this link for a more complete view of the hebrews gospel and how > it can be understood: > > http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-the-hebrews From that link: 'This Gospel of the Hebrews was little known among the churches founded by Paul of Tarsus, for even among Paul's literate followers few were fluent in Aramaic written in Hebrew script. ' Of course they were little known in Paul's churches! 'One point is clear: mainstream Christian writers withheld an authenticating name in labelling these gospels and intentionally characterized them solely by those who read them, perhaps giving a false impression of multiplicity.' Did you get that? 'In addition to Epiphanius, other mainstream Christian writers knew this text. Cyril of Jerusalem quoted from it. Eusebius mentions (Historia Ecclesciae, IV.xxii.8) that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was known to the church historian Hegesippus, who history he was using as source material. Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis, II.ix.45) and Origen used it, according to Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, ii: "Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered., a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour, quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son,' and 'for he shall be called a Nazarene.' " Right. 'Again Epiphanius records: "They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews" reports: "I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)' Now. > "The church, or Christ? I'd always thought it was about Jesus' > teachings..." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The church is the source of the scripture as directed by divine direction > and as used within the church. False! In short... 'When the soldiers of the Roman Emperor "Constantine the Great" were sent to confiscate all copies of the original Essene-Christian New Testament (Constantine had taken control of the meat-eating branches of the Christian Church -- those originally started by his hero Paul -- altered the New Testament in favor of Paul, and created a State-run religion known as "The Catholic Church"), some brave Essene-Christian monks went to India and deposited a copy of the authentic Essene-Christian New Testament in the Mystery School Library of a Buddhist monastery. (Several centuries later that manuscript was moved from the Indian Buddhist Monastery to a Buddhist monastery in Tibet.) It was that manuscript -- THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY TWELVE -- which was translated by Rev. Ouseley in the 1880's. (Even before Ouseley, several excerpts from this manuscript were known, having been quoted in various books written by early Church Fathers; but no complete "Holy Twelve" manuscript was available prior to the Ouseley translation. ... http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm Dear Pearl, >>>>>>>>those originally started by his hero Paul -- altered the New Testament in favour of Paul, and created a State-run religion known as "The Catholic Church"), <<<<<<<<< The word catholic simply means 'universal' or of 'concerning the whole of mankind'. Christian churches are not state led, they simply would not grow by the power of god's Holy Spirit if they were state led, they can _ONLY_ be Spirit led. Which they have been and there are millions and millions of Christians to prove this as a testament to His Holy power. The word 'Catholic' with a capital C is a denomination of Christian faith. It seems who ever wrote this text you quoted did not fully understand this. Hence, if we are to love our neighbours as Christ taught, we must also accept them along with all their idiosyncrasies and traits to show them this love. Even if we might find what they do repugnant, Christ's strength, Holy Spirit and teachings help us to over come this. This is how we come to know truth and what is 'The Word of God'. Will you let me pray for you in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ? In Christ's love Carol T > Dear Pearl, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of mankind'. Christian churches are not state led, they simply would > not grow by the power of god's Holy Spirit if they were state led, Why not? Paul's 'faith' is 'easy and convenient'.. 'salvation' assured...! > they can _ONLY_ be Spirit led. Which they have been and there are > millions and millions of Christians to prove this as a testament to His > Holy power. The word 'Catholic' with a capital C is a denomination of > Christian faith. It seems who ever wrote this text you quoted did not > fully understand this. Then why is it so radically different in many respects to what is known to be authentic scripture - the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'? > Hence, if we are to love our neighbours as Christ taught, we must also > accept them along with all their idiosyncrasies and traits to show them > this love. Even if we might find what they do repugnant, Christ's > strength, Holy Spirit and teachings help us to over come this. This is > how we come to know truth and what is 'The Word of God'. Lection LX Jesus Rebuketh Hyprocrisy 13. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of the bones of the dead and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and make believe. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_6.htm > Will you let me pray for you in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ? Again, I request that you do not. > Then why is it so radically different in many respects to what is > known to be authentic scripture - the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'? (- To be correct -- the Gospel according to the Hebrews. ) Dear Pearl, Regardless of what we have between us, whatever that is you 'think' may be between us, The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour of all. The presence of The Holy Spirit between neighbours resolves all matters. If you will not allow me to pray for you, then will you ask for help to forgive me through prayer in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ? In Christ's love Carol T > Dear Pearl, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for help to forgive me through prayer in the name of The Lord Jesus > Christ? Sorry, I'm too busy praying that all God's creatures may live in peace. Dear Pearl, >>>>>>>>.Sorry, I'm too busy praying that all God's creatures may live in peace.<<<<<<<< When the peace of men and the fabric of society breaks down, crops fail, the rich create poverty so that the poor can't afford to buy the crops grown in the ground, then men turn to eat meat to survive. If you are to rid this world of all the love of money, evil and corruption which prevents all men the land to grow for his own food, which keeps half the world in a poverty and living in barren places, of which you and I have never known, then the spiritual wisdom you teach with must be sound. Firstly this must come through the love of God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and the love of your neighbours as yourself. Nothing more should dominate your thoughts. If you deny a child milk she will not grow and tell others of the love you have given her through Christ and they will have no respect for what you say. This is true of God's Word too, children are not condemned by God's Word because of their parents' plates. If you cannot love your neighbours as Jesus teaches 'because' of what you are reading, then there is an inherent error in what you have been reading. Because you cannot realise what you want for this world without a pure love for others. If your love of animals is greater than that of your neighbours, then you must ask yourself if you have been hearing Christ's Holy Spirit and not something of a false and judgemental spirit. It is through His love and the power of His Spirit and forgiveness that you will come to forgive others as you have been forgiven. Being Holy is not about searching out power to justify condemnation, even self condemnation for past sins which horrify and haunt you now; it is about seeking out God's Holy power through His Spirit to resolve these matters which trouble you through having received Christ's forgiveness on the realisation of yourself. You are human, I am human, your neighbours are human, The Lord Jesus Christ is not as we are, and His death was not to sit in judgement of us, but to forgive us and clear the way for a relationship with God. If we are to be more like Him, then we must seek to forgive and pray for one another. In Christ's love Carol T > Dear Pearl, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fail, the rich create poverty so that the poor can't afford to buy the > crops grown in the ground, then men turn to eat meat to survive. 'Worldwatch states that 75% of the Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals and not people. "In country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is squeezing out staple production for the poor." The demand for meat among the rich takes precedence over grain production for the poor since "cash" crops come first. Two-thirds of the grain exported from North America goes to feed livestock which then filters back to only feeding the ones who can afford that type of food. .. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed only 6% of Mexico's grain. Today, that figure is more than 50%. The same trend can be seen in South America, North Africa, and the Middle East. The demand for beef is more lucrative, and farmers succumb. While a typical acre of land in Latin America can easily produce over 1200 pounds of grain every year, that same land is used to graze cattle and barely yields fifty pounds of edible food. ... http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vworld.htm > If you are to rid this world of all the love of money, evil and > corruption which prevents all men the land to grow for his own food, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all your heart, mind, soul and strength and the love of your neighbours > as yourself. Nothing more should dominate your thoughts. "While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad." Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries has supported such free trade and free market policies. .. http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm > If you deny a child milk she will not grow and tell others of the love > you have given her through Christ and they will have no respect for > what you say. This is true of God's Word too, children are not > condemned by God's Word because of their parents' plates. Because of their parents' 'plates' and ignorance. 'Throughout the Third World, livestock production is monopolizing the best land, undermining the local food supply, and barring the efforts of citizens to become food self-reliant. The trend continues to this day. The WTO, USAID, and development banks increase the trade in animal products, while U.S. corporations continue to reap the benefits. .. http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0070003 > If you cannot love your neighbours as Jesus teaches 'because' of what > you are reading, then there is an inherent error in what you have been > reading. ' This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die as a result of malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition every 2.3 seconds. One hundred million people could be adequately fed using the land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by a mere 10%. Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people. Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S. is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%. One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250 pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16 pounds of edible grain and soybeans, ...... http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html "If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human population of 20 billion or more" - Noted from the book Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics / Dr. Aaron Altshul . Jesus Condemneth The Ill Treatment Of Animals 3. God giveth the grains and the fruits of the earth for food: and for righteous man truly there is no other lawful sustenance for the body. 4. The robber who breaketh into the house made by man is guilty, but they who break into the house made by God, even of the least of these are the greater sinners. Wherefore I say unto all who desire to be my disciples, keep your hands from bloodshed and let no flesh meat enter your mouths, for God is just and bountiful, who ordaineth that man shall live by the fruits and seeds of the earth alone. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_4.htm > Because you cannot realise what you want for this world without a pure > love for others. If your love of animals is greater than that of your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > forgiveness that you will come to forgive others as you have been > forgiven. Jesus Condemneth The Ill Treatment Of Animals 1. AND some of his disciples came and told him of a certain Egyptian, a son of Belial, who taught that it was lawful to torment animals, if their sufferings brought any profit to men. 2. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, they who partake of benefits which are gotten by wronging one of God's creatures, cannot be righteous: nor can they touch holy things, or teach the mysteries of the kingdom, whose hands are stained With blood, or whose mouths are defiled with flesh. 3. God giveth the grains and the fruits of the earth for food: and for righteous man truly there is no other lawful sustenance for the body. 4. The robber who breaketh into the house made by man is guilty, but they who break into the house made by God, even of the least of these are the greater sinners. Wherefore I say unto all who desire to be my disciples, keep your hands from bloodshed and let no flesh meat enter your mouths, for God is just and bountiful, who ordaineth that man shall live by the fruits and seeds of the earth alone. 5. But if any animal suffer greatly, and if its life be a misery unto it. or if it be dangerous to you, release it from its life quickly, and with as little pain as you can, Send it forth in love and mercy, but torment it not, and God the Father-Mother will shew mercy unto you, as ye have shown mercy unto those given into your hands. 6. And whatsoever ye do unto the least of these my children, ye do it unto me. For I am in them and they are in me, Yea, I am in all creatures and all creatures are in me. In all their joys I rejoice, in all their afflictions I am afflicted. Wherefore I say unto you: Be ye kind one to another, and to all the creatures of God. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_4.htm > Being Holy is not about searching out power to justify condemnation, > even self condemnation for past sins which horrify and haunt you now; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > clear the way for a relationship with God. If we are to be more like > Him, then we must seek to forgive and pray for one another. 'Save by repentance and amendment only, there can be no remission of sins!" .. So, I say unto you now: Shed no innocent blood nor eat ye flesh ever, but walk uprightly, love mercy, and do justly, for if ye be Humane and keep my laws and commands, your days shall be long and pleasant in the earth; and good health shall cling unto you even into old age of many years. .. http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_3.htm l#anchor10410 <..> > > If you deny a child milk she will not grow and tell others of the love > > you have given her through Christ and they will have no respect for > > what you say. This is true of God's Word too, children are not > > condemned by God's Word because of their parents' plates. > > Because of their parents' Correction. No place here for "their parents"- who are also victims. Because of meat eaters 'plate' and ignorance. Plus criminal greed. > 'Throughout the Third World, livestock production is monopolizing > the best land, undermining the local food supply, and barring the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > .. > http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0070003 .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Save by repentance and amendment only, there can be no remission of sins!"<<<<<<<<<< Dear Pearl Do you not see that amendment comes out of salvation when a man takes on a good conscience towards God and it is not a condition of it. If that man has not heard The Lord's Spirit and taken on a good conscience towards Him, and in us this takes the hearing of The Holy Spirit speaking through preachers and others regularly, then he has not been saved by the death of Christ. Accepting that The Lord Jesus Christ has died for our sins is personal salvation, and coming to know ourselves in truth and against Christ's greater glory we can come to love our neighbours, even with the traits they have which we can find uncomfortable. Religious law is not needed, as without Christ it can end up in people wearing things which are not of God's instruction, taking part in rituals, spitting, hitting one another, murdering, slandering, hating, banning foods and drinks because of the personal sins of others, and so on and on and on, until men become seeped in the religious laws enforced on them, and God's central message of loving Him and our neighbour is lost. So therefore, we can give hope to the sinner who comes to Christ for salvation, that they will not be judged for ever more for their sins against God. We can trust that through God's Holy Spirit that they will know what are His laws of conscience and that they will come to know Him personally. Could _you_ love your neighbour if s/he eats meat? Can you love The Lord Jesus Christ more than you love animals? He died for you Pearl so that you can let go of the guilt you have and begin a new life in Him. In Christ's love Carol T > >>'Save by repentance and amendment only, there can > be no remission of sins!"<<<<<<<<<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you not see that amendment comes out of salvation when a man takes > on a good conscience towards God and it is not a condition of it. Isaiah 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. How are you going to stand in good conscience before God, knowing that you supported cruelty and killing? > If > that man has not heard The Lord's Spirit and taken on a good conscience > towards Him, and in us this takes the hearing of The Holy Spirit > speaking through preachers and others regularly, then he has not been > saved by the death of Christ. That's *you* that you are talking about, Carol. > Accepting that The Lord Jesus Christ has > died for our sins is personal salvation, ! Again.. 'Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. ... Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50). ......' http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm Jesus did die for your sins-- but not as you think. > and coming to know ourselves > in truth and against Christ's greater glory we can come to love our > neighbours, even with the traits they have which we can find > uncomfortable. According to Jesus, a 'neighbour' shows mercy to others. Why have you ignored everything in my previous post? > Religious law is not needed, as without Christ it can end up in people > wearing things which are not of God's instruction, taking part in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enforced on them, and God's central message of loving Him and our > neighbour is lost. Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. > So therefore, we can give hope to the sinner who comes to Christ for > salvation, that they will not be judged for ever more for their sins > against God. 'Save by repentance and amendment only, there can be no remission of sins!" .. So, I say unto you now: Shed no innocent blood nor eat ye flesh ever, but walk uprightly, love mercy, and do justly, for if ye be Humane and keep my laws and commands, your days shall be long and pleasant in the earth; and good health shall cling unto you even into old age of many years. .. http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_3.htm l#anchor10410 > We can trust that through God's Holy Spirit that they will > know what are His laws of conscience and that they will come to know > Him personally. 'they'? You! > Could _you_ love your neighbour if s/he eats meat? - In full knowledge that is unecessary for good health, in fact unhealthy, and that the consequences to others, animals, humans, and the environment were horrific? 'Luke 10 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. " Therefore, such a person could not be considered a 'neighbour' - someone compassionate and merciful. > Can you love The Lord Jesus Christ more than you love animals? Jesus Condemneth The Ill Treatment Of Animals 6. And whatsoever ye do unto the least of these my children, ye do it unto me. For I am in them and they are in me, Yea, I am in all creatures and all creatures are in me. In all their joys I rejoice, in all their afflictions I am afflicted. Wherefore I say unto you: Be ye kind one to another, and to all the creatures of God. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_4.htm Can you love The Lord Jesus Christ more than you love eating animals? > He died for you Pearl so that you can let go of the guilt you have and > begin a new life in Him. Paul's BS. He died for people like you, Carol, so that they/you could continue to kill and eat flesh. Dear Pearl, >>>>>>How are you going to stand in good conscience before God, knowing that you supported cruelty and killing? <<<<<<< I do not condemn my neighbours because I love them. I know that they are sinners, because we all are, as we are not Christ Himself. I still love them 'despite' their sins, why shouldn't I ? Do I want to share heaven with the people who have made hell on earth because they have condemnation for others through religious law, or do I want to share with those who have come to know their true selves against Christ's greater glory because all religious law has been removed from their sight? >>>>>Paul's BS. He died for people like you, Carol, so that they/you could continue to kill and eat flesh. <<<<<<< Like me ??????? Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins and I accepted that He did, I am humbled by that. His command is that I love The Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength and that I love my neighbours as myself. There are no greater laws than these and there is nothing and no one greater than my Lord God. I have no lesser love for these neighbours who haven't yet fully understood that Christ's love for them is unconditional. Having a neighbours as part of my life is not necessarily condoning the things they do which I consider to be sinful, but it is accepting them for who they are and who they can come to be in Christ's love. The Lord's Word, it is perfect salvation for all men as it stands, whatever their traits, preferences, culture, colour or position in this world. The Bible is God's Word for ALL of mankind. Such a Word comes from The Source who made man and knows that man has his humanity for which we need forgiveness. I am not asking you about Paul, any other individual or even an animal when I ask you about your love for The Lord Jesus Christ and your neighbours. In Christ's love Carol T > Dear Pearl, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > greater glory because all religious law has been removed from their > sight? YOU are a person who has made hell on Earth.. http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp . So what makes you think you're going to heaven? > >>>>>Paul's BS. He died for people like you, Carol, so that they/you could continue to kill and eat flesh. <<<<<<< > > Like me ??????? Yes. Like you. > Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins and I accepted that He did, I > am humbled by that. He was murdered by the killers of animals and eaters of flesh whom he opposed. Why do you think he was taken after the episode in the Temple before Passover? Lection LXXI The Cleansing Of The Temple 1. AND the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up again from Bethany into Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. 2. And when he had made a scourge of seven cords, he drove them all out of the temple and loosed the sheep and the oxen, and the doves, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 3. And said unto them, Take these things hence; make not my Father's House an House of merchandise. Is it not written, My House is a House of prayer, for all nations? but ye have made it a den of thieves, and filled it with all manner of abominations. 4. And he would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel of blood through the temple, or that any animals should be slain. And the disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for thine house hath eaten me up. .. 8. But the scribes and the priests saw and heard, and were astonished and sought how they might destroy him, for they feared him, seeing that all the people were attentive to his doctrines. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_8.htm#Lection710 Lection LXXIX The Hebrew Trial Before Caiaphas 9. And they asked him further saying, Dost thou abolish the sacrifices of the law, and the eating of flesh as Moses commanded? http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_8.htm#Lection790 Lection LXXXI The Roman Trial Before Pilate 1. THEN led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment, to Pontius Pilate, the Governor, and it was early, and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might keep the feast. 2. Pilate therefore went out unto them and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. We have a law and by our law he ought to die, because he would change the customs and rites which Moses delivered unto us, yea, he made himself the Son of God. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_9.htm#Lection810 > His command is that I love The Lord my God with > all my heart, mind, soul and strength and that I love my neighbours as > myself. There are no greater laws than these and there is nothing and > no one greater than my Lord God. Whose Law you transgress; Whose creatures you kill. > I have no lesser love for these > neighbours who haven't yet fully understood that Christ's love for them > is unconditional. Having a neighbours as part of my life is not > necessarily condoning the things they do which I consider to be sinful, > but it is accepting them for who they are and who they can come to be > in Christ's love. It isn't about your 'neighbours'- it is about *you*. > The Lord's Word, it is perfect salvation for all men as it stands, > whatever their traits, preferences, culture, colour or position in this > world. The Bible is God's Word for ALL of mankind. Such a Word comes > from The Source who made man and knows that man has his humanity for > which we need forgiveness. So just keep on sinning, eh? How convenient. > I am not asking you about Paul, any other individual or even an animal > when I ask you about your love for The Lord Jesus Christ and your > neighbours. That is without question. See previous post. ""Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included > in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed in > near-perfect unison, the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had > all been based. " "It MOST CERTAINLY *IS* confirmed in that link!" I'm sorry, the fathers were said in the link to be thought in some cases to have referred to the hebrew gospel, no where did it say anything like the conclusion above. They didn't conclude, nor does the author of the article at the link, put the above conclusion in their mouths. The author used these mentions as support that hebrew gospel might have been around for them to have knowledge. We have only fragments of that book so his is only at very best an inference that can not be demonstrated. It is far far from the fathers saying the ultimate source of the accepted gospels was the hebrew gospel. The link provided you in contradiction to the conclusion, offered various ideas about what the hebrew gospel was, including a variant of one of the accepted gospels. The above conclusion is trying to force mention into support and then you are trying to link that into accepting what is offered as a copy found in tibet of the hebrew gospel; all of which just happens to mention a view toward food habits that concur with your own. Thank you again. > ""Prior to 325 AD, however, many of the early Church fathers had included > > in their writings mention of an earlier Gospel, upon which they claimed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to > have referred to the hebrew gospel, The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Nope. No 'thought to have' about it. > no where did it say anything like the > conclusion above. They didn't conclude, nor does the author of the > article > at the link, put the above conclusion in their mouths. They all refer to the same Gospel. > The author used > these mentions as support that hebrew gospel might have been around Nope. No 'might have been around' about it, neither. > for > them to have knowledge. We have only fragments of that book Nope. We now have the entire Gospel. > so his is > only > at very best an inference that can not be demonstrated. It can be indeed be demonstrated. 'Again Epiphanius records: "They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews" reports: "I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)' http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-the-hebrews Do you find that in the NT? You have : Matthew 9:13 KJV ... I will have mercy and not sacrifice: ... ['11: And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with Publicans and Sinners? 12: But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be Whole need not a Physician, but they that are Sick. 13: But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have MERCY, and not SACRIFICE: for I am not come to call the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentance. It was this, as well as many other False reconstructions of Scripture that were similarly denounced in the Psalms, by the Prophets, and by the Essenes, as the garbled writings of False Scribes. “They make the Law into a Lie,” said Jeremiah. ........ http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/I_Will_Have_Mercy_Not_Sacrifice.html ] And in what is now known as 'The Gospel of the Holy Twelve'? Lection XXI Jesus Rebuketh Cruelty To A Horse Condemneth the Service of Mammon Blesseth Infants 8. He also said, I am come to end the sacrifices and feasts of blood, and if ye cease not offering and eating of flesh and blood, the wrath of God shall not cease from you, even as it came to your fathers in the wilderness, who lusted for flesh, and they eat to their content, and were filled with rottenness, and the plague consumed them. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_3.htm > It is far far from > the fathers saying the ultimate source of the accepted gospels was the > hebrew gospel. Who else's Gospel then, than that of the actual apostles? > The link provided you in contradiction to the conclusion, offered various > ideas about what the hebrew gospel was, including a variant of one of the > accepted gospels. Cite? > The above conclusion is trying to force mention into > support and then you are trying to link that into accepting what is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mention a view toward food habits that concur with your own. Thank you > again. No 'forcing' whatsoever. You just don't like the implications of it! As a study in curiosity I looked up: Ouseley 'GOSPEL OF THE HOLY TWELVE' Said to be the book from tibet which is a copy of the original 'gospel according to the hebrews'. This is being used to attempt to link the church fathers to it and further to assert they were in accord that it was the source of the accepted gospels, not that they might have possibly merely mentioned it in their writings,but spoke explicitly as above. According to the fragments of written history, from a time when copies were extant, about the hebrew gospel it is clearly said to have 2200 lines, 300 less then the accepted matthew, of which some suggest it is a variant. I compared the length of the first book above and estimate it has at least 8000 lines, to be conservative, based on randomly selecting sections and multiplying by the total. Just an interesting curiosity but perhaps insightful as to wishful thinking and the attempt to link parts into a whole that doesn't correspond to reality. Thank you again. > As a study in curiosity I looked up: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > whole > that doesn't correspond to reality. Thank you again. The incomplete Ebionite, or complete Nazarene Gospel? Length of lines differ. Are you using the same count? Insightful to your wishful thinking and lack of argument! "The incomplete Ebionite, or complete Nazarene Gospel? Length of lines differ. Are you using the same count?" Which ever book you claim is a now rediscovered hebrew gospel must be in the vicinity of 2200 lines, regardless of how defined. For example, an english text copy of the accepted matthew on my computer is 2759 lines in length, close to the hebrew gospel of 2200 which is less then the greek matthew of 2500. Thus what ever you advance as being the hebrew gospel would come close to that number. Please direct us to a copy of what ever you say is a now existing hebrew gospel on the web. Thank you again. > "The incomplete Ebionite, or complete Nazarene Gospel? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would come close to that number. Please direct us to a copy of what ever > you say is a now existing hebrew gospel on the web. Thank you again. You got that number from a somebody in the ninth century. ['Ironically, we know just how long the lost Gospel of the Hebrews was: 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than the canonical Greek Matthew. The figure comes from the Stichometry of Nicephorus, appended by Nicephorus, the 9th century Patriarch of Jerusalem, to his Chronography. The Stichometry lists scriptural books, in three categories, each with the count of its stichoi (lines). http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-the-hebrews ] What was he looking at? ['While there is no reason to presume that there were three different Gospels called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is certainly clear that Nazarenes and Ebionites used different versions of GH. Epiphanius describes the version of GH used by the Ebionites as “called ‘according to Matthew’, which however is not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated” (Pan. 30:13:2) however in speaking of the Nazarenes he refer to the “Gospel of Matthew quite complete in Hebrew… preserved… as it was first written, in Hebrew letters” (Pan. 29:9:4). So it would appear that the Ebionite version of GH was “now wholly complete but falsified and mutilated” while the Nazarene version was “quite complete … preserved… as it was first written.”. http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html ] Was there even a copy available then? Take your pick.... http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_1.htm http://www.thenazareneway.com/ght_table_of_contents.htm http://www.ashlandweb.com/human.capacities/gospel/ .... Thank you for confirming my first understanding of what you represent as a rediscovered book of hebrew gospel as: 'Gospel of the Holy Twelve' This is the same text I found to contain at least 8000 lines, far different then the 2200 said to be the hebrew gospel. Thank you again. > Thank you for confirming my first understanding of what you represent as a > rediscovered book of hebrew gospel as: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is the same text I found to contain at least 8000 lines, far > different then the 2200 said to be the hebrew gospel. In which language? English? The Ebionite or Nazarene? How did this ninth century person happen to have a copy, when all but the one that we know of were destroyed? You don't know the answer to any of these questions. "In which language? English? The Ebionite or Nazarene? How did this ninth century person happen to have a copy, when all but the one that we know of were destroyed? You don't know the answer to any of these questions." The difference in line count is 4 to1, which should easily accomidate any differences of language used. As to why a copy was still extant in the 9th cent., I doubt anyone knows the answer but there is little reason to doubt it. My knowledge about this or that or the other thing is not the question, the question is the large difference in line count. Do you think God, the Holy Trinity, might have put this clear clue in history so we may make a discernment on the question? I have a feeling picking and choosing among gospels, recall there were many in circulation for hundreds of years after the time of Christ untill 600 or so when the final decision of the canon was accepted, might reflect a desire to make one's prior feelings fit choices made. If one wanted to have a gnostic mindset then there are gospels to fit, for example. Thank you again. > "In which language? English? The Ebionite or Nazarene? How did this > ninth century person happen to have a copy, when all but the one that we [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The difference in line count is 4 to1, which should easily accomidate any > differences of language used. 1. According to what standard are you calculating the line length of the Gospel of the Holy Twelve text? 2. Letters + spaces = line length? Genesis 1 (From http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm ) Hebrew English 1:1 33 51 1:2 59 131 Say 2 : 1, English : Hebrew. Or are you going to try and force it upon us that he was referencing some Greek translation (unknown)? 3. You still haven't addressed which version he allegedly used - the incomplete Ebionite, or complete Nazarene. 4. This scholar states: 'I believe that Matthew was an abridgement of the GH designed to present Yeshua as the Messiah to the Pharisee audience. ...' http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html abridgement n : a shortened version of a written work [syn: condensation, abridgment, capsule] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abridgement > As to why a copy was still extant in the > 9th cent., I doubt anyone knows the answer but there is little reason to > doubt it. 'For nearly 2,000 years, historians considered this work to have been irrevocably lost, .... http://www.thenazareneway.com/legend_of_the_lost_gospel.htm > My knowledge about this or that or the other thing is not the > question, the question is the large difference in line count. You can't even base an assumption upon some figure (- and it seems to me that '2200' is too nicely 'round' to be anything but a rough guestimate) - of who knows what, and about which you/we know next to nothing! > Do you > think God, the Holy Trinity, might have put this clear clue in history so > we may make a discernment on the question? I see no 'clear clue', as you put it, but yes, I do believe there's a good reason behind most things. Why do you think these texts were rediscovered? ... Lection XLIV The Confession of the Twelve Christ the True Rock 7. But there shall arise after you, men of perverse minds who shall through ignorance or through craft, suppress many things which I have spoken unto you, and lay to me things which I never taught, sowing tares among the good wheat which I have given you to sow in the world. 8. Then shall the truth of God endure the contradiction of sinners, for thus it hath been, and thus it will be. But the time cometh when the things which they have hidden shall be revealed and made known, and the truth shall make free those which were bound. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_5.htm > I have a feeling picking and choosing among gospels, recall there were > many in circulation for hundreds of years after the time of Christ untill > 600 or so when the final decision of the canon was accepted, might reflect > a desire to make one's prior feelings fit choices made. If one wanted to > have a gnostic mindset then there are gospels to fit, for example. Lection XCV The Ascension Of Christ 3. [...] But the time cometh when darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people, and the enemies of truth and righteousness shall rule in my Name, and set up a kingdom of this world, and oppress the peoples, and cause the enemy to blaspheme, putting for my doctrines the opinions of men, and teaching in my Name that which I have not taught, and darkening much that I have taught by their traditions. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_10.htm -- P.S. Your clock is way slow. I use this nifty little program @ http://www.worldtimeserver.com/atomic-clock/ . 'Our freeware Atomic Clock Sync utility can help you keep your local computer up-to-date with the exact current time. ... '. > Thank you again. No problem. > 'We have referred elsewhere to the "correctors" who 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, which he opposed.... This is pure fiction, I'm afraid. The first council of Nicaea made no statements concerning the canon of scripture. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html All the best, Roger Pearse > > 'We have referred elsewhere to the "correctors" who were > > hired by the Church Fathers at the Council of Nicea to alter [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html Just a couple of cites from your own page; '# Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument. .. Jerome, "... But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..." .. After the council, Constantine ordered the burning of the works of Arius and his sympathisers, and the exile of himself and his supporters, and followed this later in his reign by action against Christian schismatics and gnostic heretics. ' Best wishes, Roger. I'm sorry, the two bits to which you refer are not persuasive in support of your claims. The first was an obvious reference to the formulation of the language content of the creed and the second by one who might have referred to discussion of scripture by which to discuss the creed. Jerome was obviously speaking of how he decided upon which aramaic sources to use in his translation of the ot into latin. The entire article on that page presents a very compelling argument against your views and any thing to the contrary would have to be as equally strong and well documented. As it shows, much is asserted and less is demonstrable. The same argument has been used by the mormons etc. who want to substitute another account for why their take on theology should be accepted in place of orthodox teaching, not unlike the apparent motivation for your group. Thank you again. > I'm sorry, the two bits to which you refer are not persuasive in support > of > your claims. Three. --restore-- # Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument. .. Jerome, "... But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..." .. After the council, Constantine ordered the burning of the works of Arius and his sympathisers, and the exile of himself and his supporters, and followed this later in his reign by action against Christian schismatics and gnostic heretics. ' -end restore- > The first was an obvious reference to the formulation of the > language content of the creed '# Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument. Either you can't read what's right in front of your eyes, can read it, but don't understand what you're reading, or are lying through your crooked apologist's teeth. I think that last is the case. Either way, you're proven wrong, yet again, and are making a fool of yourself. > and the second by one who might have referred > to discussion of scripture by which to discuss the creed. Huh? > Jerome was > obviously speaking of how he decided upon which aramaic sources to use in > his translation of the ot into latin. Obviously... *which* sources in accordance with the Nicene Council's views, or should we say demands! 'Jerome, "... But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..." > The entire article on that page presents a very compelling argument > against > your views and any thing to the contrary would have to be as equally > strong > and well documented. See above. Roger made a mistake posting it... again. > As it shows, much is asserted and less is > demonstrable. The same argument has been used by the mormons etc. who > want > to substitute another account for why their take on theology should be > accepted in place of orthodox teaching, not unlike the apparent motivation > for your group. Rather, ~your~ group. You yourself have written: "[...] before and a couple of centuries after that date (325) the final books of scripture were not agreed upon universally in all places. Those collections of books then in use either had some omissions and/or added others which in time came to not to be said to be fully inspired by God until the final version was accepted. There were scores of "gospels", "epistles" and "revelations" which were known and now not accepted fully as are those books now accepted as scripture. The church is the source of teaching, scripture being one of its tools, along with the writings of the fathers and the councils, and any "new" or "lost" books are now irrelevant because we are taught of "the faith once delivered" in scripture and these 2000 years hence. " I asked you then - accepted by whom? ' One of the most common biblical manuscripts used to make our modern English translations is known today as the Nestle Text. Yet it was Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself who warned us in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned." When the Church of Constantine endeavored to make the teachings of the New Covenant in sync with fourth century Roman Pagan thought and culture, to ignore the facts with respect to the manner in which the corrupters of the Word recreated the message of the scriptures in order to make it compatible to church doctrine, is to make oneself disingenuous to the very Son of God to whom we proclaim to be faithful to. ............... http://reluctant-messenger.com/biblical-corruption.htm I'm sorry, your views are not I'm sorry, your views are not persuasive. Not having the context for the little snips to which you refer we know nothing of the object to which they were directed. In the first example there is no reason to think decisions about choosing among books was the point. The specific language of the creed was the source of much of the debate and its choice was tied to scripture whenever possible. This was in reference to the nature of the Holy Trinity as to the exact nature of the relationship of the three persons to each other. Jerome did his translation several decades after the council and was apparently making reference to which source of scripture was used in the above debate. He was born around 347 a couple of decades after the council. One would have to start with the assumption that the books were the principal point of the council to reach any other conclusion. The use of words like "constraint" have no meaning without context. As he was seeking in his translation of the ot those most complete books of his time known only in hebrew and aramaic, it could equally and most probably mean academic constraint. As said before, any other view to the contrary would require evidence and documentation at the level of the article, which is very strong. Aside from unsupported articles based on repeating the assertion, I would be happy to see such articles on the web. Thank you again. > I'm sorry, your views are not I'm sorry, your views are not persuasive. Guess that's why yet again, you've snipped everything and chosen to go on an evasive little ipse dixit rant instead, eh. > Not having the context for the little snips to which you refer we know > nothing of the object to which they were directed. The meaning of these cites are perfectly clear. > In the first example > there is no reason to think decisions about choosing among books was the > point. # Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument. def·i·ni·tion n. 1. a. A statement conveying fundamental character. b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry. 2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning. 3. a. The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions. b. The state of being closely outlined or determined: c. A determination of outline, extent, or limits: the definition of a President's authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=definitions > The specific language of the creed was the source of much of the > debate and its choice was tied to scripture whenever possible. You're clutching at straws. > This was > in reference to the nature of the Holy Trinity as to the exact nature of > the relationship of the three persons to each other. Show us. > Jerome did his translation several decades after the council and was > apparently making reference to which source of scripture was used in the > above debate. He was born around 347 a couple of decades after the > council. Nevertheless, he wrote: "... But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures," Implying that the Nicene Council counted some books and texts -not- among the number of sacred Scriptures. > One would have to start with the assumption that the books were > the principal point of the council to reach any other conclusion. "the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument." > The use > of words like "constraint" "restrained" > have no meaning without context. "I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..." > As he was > seeking in his translation of the ot those most complete books of his > time > known only in hebrew and aramaic, it could equally and most probably > mean academic constraint. Demands of the Church authorities. It's in plain English. > As said before, any other view to the contrary would require > evidence and documentation at the level of the article, which is > very strong. Such as? > Aside from unsupported articles based on repeating > the assertion, I would be happy to see such articles on the web. Supported articles. And above. And in your own words. > Thank you again. Yeah, right.. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message