pearl responded in the precise manner I expected she would:
>>Yet you applaud Lesley for posting crap from "The Gospel of the Holy
>>Twelve," which is of very dubious and contrived origin. The following
>>three links address the historicity -- or rather lack of it -- of that
>>particular piece of... well, pseudo-scripture.
>>
>>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html
>
> Anna Kingsford

....had some pretty deep-seated issues.

Annie Bonus was born at Maryland Point, Stratford, Essex,
England at 5.00pm on 16 Sept. 1846.(She used various first
names, most commonly Anna.)

As a young child she could recall asking the fairy queen for
permission to come to earth to undertake a great humanitarian
work and being told she would suffer more than ordinary mortals
here on earth.Her fairy companions visited her in her dreams.
When taken to her first pantomime and seeing the fairies on
stage, Anna struggled to join "my people" and had to be taken
out of the theatre to quieten her down.

Anna always had a strong imagination....
http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~apert/kingsford.html

That's probably not a credibility-hurdle to someone who believes "inner
earth beings" inhabit Mount Shasta or who hasn't made up her mind yet
about leprechauns. Then again, neither was the Indian mystic who claimed
to get his sustenance from the sun's rays or any of the other bullshit
you believe in and peddle. Dummy.

> and Edward Maitland.

Similar story -- another charlatan.

After his return to England in 1857 he took up an advanced
humanitarian position, and claimed to have acquired a new sense
by which be was able to discern the spiritual condition of other
people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Maitland

Like Kingsford, he was a kook heavily involved in early vegetarian and
AR movements. Is it any wonder wacked-out AR freaks would find hidden
wacked-out messages in the ether and in "hidden" Scriptures about AR?

> The Gospel of the Holy Twelve

....is a fraudulent document produced by theosophist AR activists by
*channeling*.

But is it really derived from an Aramaic text, found in a
monastery in Tibet? After encountering Notovitch’s fraud, we
should certainly be suspicious of any works claiming to have
been found in Tibet. First of all, there are numerous problems
with the work. It quotes from all four of the gospels and from
the letters of Paul; it contains references to rituals from the
later church, and to the "trinity" (a word that never occurs in
the New Testament); it also contains references to such
non-Biblical species as cats, rabbits, and an ape. And in fact,
the real origin of the work is not hidden very far. In an early
twentieth century edition published in London, an "Explanatory
Preface" precedes the text. Ouseley’s name has been removed, and
the Preface is signed "The Editors of the Gospel of the Holy
Twelve" (though evidently a similar explanation appeared in
earlier English-language versions of the book, with Ouseley’s
name at the bottom). Here is part of what this Preface 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 the former century, giving his name as
Placidus, of the Franciscan Order, afterwards a
Carmelite. By them it was translated from the original,
and given to the Editors in the flesh, to be
supplemented in their proper places, where indicated,
from the "Four Gospels" (A. V.) revised where necessary
by the same.

To this explanation, the Editors cannot add, nor from it
take away. By the Divine Spirit was the Gospel
communicated to the four above mentioned, and by them
translated, and given to the writers; not in seance
rooms (where too often resort the idle, the frivolous
and the curious, attracting spirits similar to
themselves, rather than the good), but "in dreams and
visions of the night," and by direct guidance, has God
instructed them by chosen instruments; and now they give
it to the world, that some may be wiser unto Salvation,
while those who reject it, remain in their blindness,
till they will to see.

From this passage, it is clear that no manuscript in Aramaic has
ever been seen, or is claimed to have been seen, by Rev.
Ouseley. Rather, it is Swedenborg, Maitland, Kingsford, and
Placidus (all having died, some very recently, by the time
Ouseley received this work) who received the gospel, and who
simultaneously translated it into English, and then communicated
this to Ouseley and his associates in some miraculous manner. So
whenever and however Ouseley received it, it was already in
English. Presumably, although this information is not spelled
out, the fact that the manuscript is in Tibet in some monastery
was also communicated to them by Swedenborg, Maitland,
Kingsford, and Placidus. No one has every discovered any such
manuscript, in Aramaic or any other language, in any Tibetan
monastery.

However, to make things more interesting, there are several
versions of this gospel which are circulating without Ouseley’s
"Explanatory Preface." This has left some people are under the
impression that this is a text which really was originally found
in Tibet and translated from the Aramaic. In fact, in Europe
there are German and Swedish editions of this work which leave
the impression that Ouseley actually did discover the manuscript
during a trip to Tibet in 1881. Never mind that Ouseley himself
never claimed to have gone to Tibet, and in fact was fairly open
about the process by which he received it, making it clear that
this is in fact a "channeled" work. Annie Besant, one of the
leaders of the Theosophical movement, understood the situation
quite well and gave the book a rather negative review,
describing its spiritualist sources and calling it "a strange
book."
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/s...ew_gospels.htm

> Kieth Aker's argument rests entirely upon the following:

I gave you two other pages which dispute the claimed historicity of the
pseusdo-Twelve. One points out:

* Elizabeth is told that John the Baptist "shall neither eat
flesh meats, nor drink strong drink."
* Mary is told not to eat meat during her pregnancy.
* The magi are in such a hurry to find Jesus that they neglect
to attend to their thirsty camels. The star of Bethlehem
disappears from their sight until they give their camels rest
and water.
* Jesus rebukes a man who beats his horse, and later rebukes a
crowd of men who torment a cat. When one of the men gets defiant
about it, Jesus causes his arm to wither. The next day the man
returns admitting his sin, and is healed.
* In another instance Jesus rebukes a man for beating his camel,
asking, "Wherefore beatest thou thy brother?" At this, "the
camel knew Jesus, having felt the love of God in him."
* Jesus proclaims that he has come to end the temple sacrifices,
and after his resurrection, goes to the temple and puts an end
to the sacrifices with a replay of the temple cleansing episode.
* There is no Passover lamb at the Last Supper; Judas Iscariot
asks why there isn't any meat to eat.

Fairly clear, is it not? Jesus, the card-carrying member of
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals!
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ouseley01.html

That page also has an account from a contemporary of Ouseley's. It's
worth reading before taking Ouseley seriously. The gist of it, though,
is that your "scripture" was a channeled message much like that urgent
plea from "Lemuria" you foolishly posted was.

> Such a document would pose a
> huge threat to the Church, as ever.

No, and no more so than any of the other fakes that have surfaced from
the nutcase conspiracy theory crowd. The pseudo-Twelve you've quoted
from is more corrupt than the Scriptures you reject. Indeed, the very
fact that Ouseley, Kingsford, Maitland, et al, have to lie and produce
"hidden" scriptures from Tibet (not), channeling, or La-la Land lends
them zero credibility.

>>http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/twelve.html
>
> 'An Irish clergyman, Rev. G. J. Ouseley claims to have
> discovered the Original Gospel

From the Swedish link above:
[i]s it not possible that the four gospels and St Paul have
quoted from this older gospel? No, because each of them have
their characteristical language and writing style which allows
us to recognize who has quoted who. The NT writers are first in
the quote sequence, no doubt about it. Ouseley's text is rich in
anachronisms:

* "Trinity" is mentioned, a theological term from the late 2nd
century,
* The Spirit is said to be "Sevenfold", an idea from Isaiah
11:2, but the expression is much later.
* The Spirit is called "lifegiver" which reveals that the writer
is familiar with the Nicene creed (325 AD).
* The spirit is said to proceed "from the holy two", revealing
that the author is affected by the so-called "filioque", a
Western addition to the Nicene creed which can not be traced
further back than the 6th century AD.
* The fauna of Palestine in the book differs from reality. Jesus
saves a cat, some rabbits and an ape. None of these animals are
mentioned in the Bible. If they existed in Palestine it would be
very interesting to know what they were called in the Aramaic;
they are not mentioned in any Aramaic manuscript so we don't
even know what the words would have been.
* A man in the text breeds hunting dogs -- clearly a 19th
century Englishman, not a 1st century Jew or Roman.
* The later part of the text has examples of liturgical uses
that are much later. The wedding ceremony is Eastern Orthodox,
the sound of churchbells is heard (a medieval invention), and so
on.

By now it should be clear that this is not a rediscovered
original gospel, but rather a not too skillfully contrived
apocryph. I am uncertain of what credence it has received in
other countries, but in Sweden it has been widely spread and
believed in the 20th century. Ouseley was an Anglican clergyman,
born in Ireland but spent his adult life in England. He was also
an occultist who wrote several books about occult subjects. He
had contacts with the theosophical and anti-vivisectionist group
around Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland (who together wrote
The Perfect Way). Ouseley's own version of the find story, in
his foreword to the gospel, clearly states that he has received
the text through spiritistic contact with Swedenborg, Kingsford,
Maitland and a Franciscan priest by the name of Placidus.
Ouseley claims that the manuscript is in Tibet, but does not say
that he has ever been there or seen it with his own eyes.
Intead, "the spirits" told him about it and translated it for
him, letting him receive the text telepathically. It is probable
that Notovitch's book (1894) and Madame Blavatsky's The Secret
Doctrine (1888) inspired him to invent the story about the
manuscript.

Hint: a "channeler" whose "hidden" and "original" text contains
references to post-Nicene issues is a fraud. Worse, your
pseudo-scripture contains issues pertaining to controversies in the
fourth and sixth centuries. It mentions animals found in 19th century
England, NOT in first century Judea, and alludes to hunting dogs. Its
wedding ceremony is medieval, not early church; its liturgy is Eastern
Orthodox, which is far removed from the influence of the synagogue on
the early Christians.

It's a fraud, Lesley, and so are you.

> Four Gospels were derived, which, he says, was
> "preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet,
> where it was hidden by some of the Essene Community
> for safety from the hands of the corrupters, and is now
> for the first time translated from the Aramaic."

Channeled, not translated.

> With assistance from a sort of "underground" spiritual
> fellowship,

Meaning he CHANNELED, dummy. There were no manuscripts in Aramaic.

> He claimed that Christ and
> holy angels helped him -- in fact, led him -- through the
> entire process.

Just as Joseph Smith claimed Moroni helped him translate some tablets
from "reformed Egyptian" characters.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ck/mormon.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...k/toomany.html
Etc.

> However, mainline Christianity was not
> pleased:

Why should the Church be pleased when wolves in sheeps clothing come to
eat the lambs of Christ's flock? Ouseley was preaching another gospel;
he was already *outside* the church. The Church has no obligation to aid
or abet the work of heretics. That's YOUR job, Lesley.

2 John 9-11
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of
Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching,
he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your
house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him
a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Romans 16:17-18
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause
dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you
learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not
of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their
smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the
unsuspecting.

Titus 3:10
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing
that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being
self-condemned.

> He was forced to leave the Church of England
> -- in which he was an ordained Priest -- immediately
> after releasing his translation of "Holy Twelve."

Deservedly so.

> Several attempts were made to assassinate him.

Prove it.

> His house was twice set on fire.

Prove it.

> At that point he formed an underground
> church called the Essene Order of At-Onement.

Which was his right -- but not to spread his channeled AR heresies
WITHIN the church.

>>Council of Nicea
>
> 'Every church had its favored books,

And Ouseley's was NOT one of them.