"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> "usual suspect" wrote:
>
> I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
> but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
> Funny that.

Yes, it is, especially when I read your reply to a
similar comment from Bart. In it, you ask, "Does
dominion include slaughtering and eating them?"
You then go on to ANSWER that question by
using Genesis 1:29-30 which gives a non-animal
diet.

[start]
From: usual suspect )
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
Date: 2002-06-11 15:16:06 PST

> Bart said:
> So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> over the animal kingdom.

Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them?

***The answer*** is found immediately following
one of the verses you quoted: **my edit**

Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
and it was so.

So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
[end]

Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
here so far advanced that you're willing to change
your views on God's word? Shame on you.

> > I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
> > but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
> > Funny that.
>

My favorite answer to this inane comment is that the Queen of England has
dominion over her people, but that doesn't mean she can eat them.

SD

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> > "usual suspect" wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
> > but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
> > Funny that.
>
> Yes, it is, especially when I read your reply to a
> similar comment from Bart. In it, you ask, "Does
> dominion include slaughtering and eating them?"
> You then go on to ANSWER that question by
> using Genesis 1:29-30 which gives a non-animal
> diet.
>
> [start]
> From: usual suspect )
> Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
> Date: 2002-06-11 15:16:06 PST
>
> > Bart said:
> > So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> > over the animal kingdom.
>
> Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them?
>
> ***The answer*** is found immediately following
> one of the verses you quoted: **my edit**
>
> Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> and it was so.
>
> So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> [end]
>
> Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
> here so far advanced that you're willing to change
> your views on God's word? Shame on you.

As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate, and I don't
consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.


Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
the green herb have I given you all things.


After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
plant-based diet that was originally prescribed. The only stipulation was
that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
(Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
religious/moral ones.

Lorraine

"Lorraine" > wrote in message ...
>
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
<..>
> > Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> > God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> > seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> > tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> > Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> > air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> > there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> > and it was so.
> >
> > So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> > veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> > [end]
> >
> > Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
> > here so far advanced that you're willing to change
> > your views on God's word? Shame on you.
>
> As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate, and I don't
> consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
> should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.
>
> Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
> the green herb have I given you all things.
>
> After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
> plant-based diet that was originally prescribed. The only stipulation was
> that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
> (Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
> some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
> dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
> of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
> plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
> achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
> However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
> religious/moral ones.
>
> Lorraine

Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, in which Peter states
that Jesus told the disciples how to discriminate between those scriptures
which are true, and which are false. He clearly states that all scriptures
which advocate taking the life of any creature, or causing it pain or injury,
are false scriptures, which he called false pericopes. He said that such
scriptures were corrupted by demons who attached themselves to people's
minds, makings suggestions the "scribes" thought were their own...

['..explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
After pointing out various passages in the Torah that are false
pericopes, Peter declares:

"For the scriptures have had added to them many falsehoods against
God. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the
true law... it was not long before the written law had added to it
certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.... If, therefore, some
of the scriptures are true and some false, for good reason our Master
revealed to us the mystery of his saying 'Be ye wise money changers',
inasmuch as in the scriptures there are some true sayings and some
spurious."

"Wherefore, Clement, my spiritual son, beware of those scriptures
which portray God as... fond of burnt animal fat, bloody animal
sacrifice and war.... For if God is portrayed as loving war, what
sort of 'God' is that?"
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm ]

Besides, the bible is a fake. It was adopted after the Nicean council threw
out the original Essene bible, and instituted a "state approved" bible, more
in line with the sensibilities of Constantine, and which would help to
consolidate his political power and expand his empire.

In Jesus' day, the old testament had already been corrupted by an earlier
council convened by the "wicked scribe" Ezra.

[Apocrypha Account of 4 Ezra 14,15
...
[20] For the world lies in darkness, and its inhabitants are without light.
[21] For thy law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which
have been done or will be done by thee.
[22] If then I have found favor before thee, send the Holy Spirit into me,
and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the
beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be
able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days
may live."
[23] He answered me and said, "Go and gather the people, and tell them
not to seek you for forty days.
[24] But prepare for yourself many writing tablets, and take with you Sarea,
Dabria, Selemia, Ethanus, and Asiel -- these five, because they are
trained to write rapidly;
[25] and you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of
understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to
write is finished.
[26] And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and
some you shall deliver in secret to the wise; tomorrow at this hour you
shall begin to write."
...
4Ezra.15
[1] The Lord says, "Behold, speak in the ears of my people the words
of the prophecy which I will put in your mouth,
[2] and cause them to be written on paper; for they are trustworthy and true.
[3] Do not fear the plots against you, and do not be troubled by the
unbelief of those who oppose you.
[4] For every unbeliever shall die in his unbelief."
[5] "Behold," says the Lord, "I bring evils upon the world, the sword
and famine and death and destruction.
...
http://essenes.crosswinds.net/ezlaw.htm ]

But the original Essene New Testament has survived as the Gospel of the Holy
Twelve.
...
The real Essene Jesus was a pacifistic, peaceful vegetarian. He never said
anything that advocated killing animals or eating meat.

Paul was known by the apostles as the "demon-driven enemy of the messiah."
He suppressed the original vegetarian Essene teaching of Jesus, and
supplanted it with his own teaching, and a meat-eating, animal sacrifice
cult. - Habib

Jesus said,

"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.... For God is just
and bountiful who ordaineth that man shall live by the fruits and seeds of
the earth alone."

"For of the fruits of the trees and the seeds of the earth alone do I partake,
and these are changed by the Spirit into my flesh and my blood. Of these
alone and their like shall ye eat who believe in me, and are my disciples, for
of these, in the Spirit, come life and health and healing unto man."

"But I do say unto you: Kill neither men, nor beasts, nor yet the food which
goes into your mouth. For if you eat living food, the same will quicken you,
but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For life comes only
from life, and from death comes always death. For everything which kills your
foods, kills your bodies also.... Therefore, eat not anything which fire, or frost,
.... has destroyed I tell you truly, live only by the fire of life, and prepare not
your foods with the fire of death."
http://www.essene.org/Jesus_Diet.htm

See also; http://www.essene.com/TheEsseneHumaneGospel/index.html

"Lorraine" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> > > "usual suspect" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
> > > but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
> > > Funny that.
> >
> > Yes, it is, especially when I read your reply to a
> > similar comment from Bart. In it, you ask, "Does
> > dominion include slaughtering and eating them?"
> > You then go on to ANSWER that question by
> > using Genesis 1:29-30 which gives a non-animal
> > diet.
> >
> > [start]
> > From: usual suspect )
> > Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
> > Date: 2002-06-11 15:16:06 PST
> >
> > > Bart said:
> > > So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> > > over the animal kingdom.
> >
> > Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them?
> >
> > ***The answer*** is found immediately following
> > one of the verses you quoted: **my edit**
> >
> > Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> > God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> > seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> > tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> > Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> > air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> > there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> > and it was so.
> >
> > So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> > veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> > [end]
> >
> > Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
> > here so far advanced that you're willing to change
> > your views on God's word? Shame on you.
>
> As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate, and I don't
> consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
> should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.
>
>
> Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
> the green herb have I given you all things.
>
>
> After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
> plant-based diet that was originally prescribed. The only stipulation was
> that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
> (Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
> some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
> dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
> of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
> plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
> achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
> However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
> religious/moral ones.
>
> Lorraine
>
You seem to be missing my point, but looking
back over my post tells me I'm probably mostly
responsible for that because I didn't make my
point clear enough, despite the subject of this
thread.

"Usual suspect" is a long-standing participant on
these animal related groups, and up until a few
months ago claimed he was vegan. He offered
good advice to vegans on nutrition and was an
all-round nice guy. However, since being beaten
into submission by the anti-vegan opposition,
Jonathan Ball at the helm, he not only changed
his stance on veganism but his interpretation of
God's word as well, apparently. Hence the
title, ""usual suspect" alters his Christian beliefs
to be an Anti."

As you can see from the evidence I provided in
my original post, he responded to Bart's comment
by asking the question;
"Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them?",
and then goes on to answer that question with;
"The answer is found immediately following one of
the verses you quoted"

The answer he gives by citing Genesis 1:29-30
implies he believes our dominion over animals
doesn't include slaughtering and eating them, since
God tells us, "See, I have given you every herb that
yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and
every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be
for food."

Now though, since taking up the anti-vegan stance,
when arguing against the pro animal rights advocates
out to abolish the farming of animals for meat, he
argues, "I don't know if the Creator gave *animals*
rights, but the Creator gave *us* dominion over
animals. Funny that.", and this implies he now believes
our dominion over them DOES include slaughtering
and eating them. This is my point, that his inconsistency
over God's word on our dominion of animals seems to
be yet another inconsistency of many he's shown over
the last few months since coming under the tutelage
of Jonathan Ball.

"Someday when you're in SoCal, you can look me up and
buy me a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for having opened your
eyes to this reality. Then, I'll buy you one for having been
such an apt pupil."
Jonathan Ball 2004-02-02

Under this tutelage he offers meat to vegans asking
advice and attacks them and remaining vegans he
left behind with insults for no apparent reason other
than that they're vegan. My efforts here are to show
that his attacks and ill advice are both hypocritical
and based purely on his mesalliance to the most
notorious anti and troll on Usenet: Jonathan Ball.

Shashay Doofus wrote:
>>>I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
>>>but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
>>>Funny that.
>
> My favorite answer to this inane comment is that the Queen of England has
> dominion over her people, but that doesn't mean she can eat them.

My favorite response to this inane and specious remark is that the rest
of the Bible is filled with accounts of people slaughtering animals --
at God's command -- and eating them. Consider the Passover. Consider
Christ's involvement in "factory fishing" with his disciples.

Lorraine wrote:
<...>
> As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate,

It shouldn't pain you, and you can look at it as discussion rather than
debate.

> and I don't
> consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
> should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.
>
> Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
> the green herb have I given you all things.
>
> After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
> plant-based diet that was originally prescribed.

What about Cain and Abel?

Genesis 4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
was very angry, and his face was downcast.

> The only stipulation was
> that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
> (Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
> some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
> dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
> of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
> plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
> achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
> However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
> religious/moral ones.

I respect your views and your choices. The OP is only trying to stir
some sh*t, which is his modus operandi. Thanks for your input.

pearl wrote:
>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
>>>and it was so.
>>>
>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
>>>[end]
>>>
>>>Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
>>>here so far advanced that you're willing to change
>>>your views on God's word? Shame on you.
>>
>>As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate, and I don't
>>consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
>>should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.
>>
>>Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
>>the green herb have I given you all things.
>>
>>After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
>>plant-based diet that was originally prescribed. The only stipulation was
>>that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
>>(Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
>>some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
>>dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
>>of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
>>plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
>>achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
>>However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
>>religious/moral ones.
>>
>>Lorraine
>
>
> Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,

Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
regard over what is *accepted canon*?

The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
results seem to be established:-
...
(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
the origin of the Gospels....

The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
century.

How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015

It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings. After all, you believe
in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.

<snip>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> >>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> >>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> >>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> >>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> >>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> >>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> >>>and it was so.
> >>>
> >>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> >>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> >>>[end]
> >>>
> >>>Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
> >>>here so far advanced that you're willing to change
> >>>your views on God's word? Shame on you.
> >>
> >>As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate, and I don't
> >>consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
> >>should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.
> >>
> >>Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
> >>the green herb have I given you all things.
> >>
> >>After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
> >>plant-based diet that was originally prescribed. The only stipulation was
> >>that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
> >>(Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
> >>some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
> >>dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
> >>of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
> >>plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
> >>achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
> >>However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
> >>religious/moral ones.
> >>
> >>Lorraine
> >
> >
> > Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
>
> Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> regard over what is *accepted canon*?
>
> The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
> not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
> about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
> results seem to be established:-
> ...
> (2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
> writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
> a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
> day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
> given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
> class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
> influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
> naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
> the origin of the Gospels....
>
> The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
> authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
> cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
> works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
> the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
> century.
>
> How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
> dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
> Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
> the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
> literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
> http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
>
> It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.

'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."

> After all, you believe
> in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
> earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.

You don't know that.

> <snip>
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Shashay Doofus wrote:
> >>>I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
> >>>but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
> >>>Funny that.
> >
> > My favorite answer to this inane comment is that the Queen of England has
> > dominion over her people, but that doesn't mean she can eat them.
>
> My favorite response to this inane and specious remark is that the rest
> of the Bible is filled with accounts of people slaughtering animals --
> at God's command -- and eating them.

'..explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
After pointing out various passages in the Torah that are false
pericopes, Peter declares:

"For the scriptures have had added to them many falsehoods against
God. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the
true law... it was not long before the written law had added to it
certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.... If, therefore, some
of the scriptures are true and some false, for good reason our Master
revealed to us the mystery of his saying 'Be ye wise money changers',
inasmuch as in the scriptures there are some true sayings and some
spurious."

"Wherefore, Clement, my spiritual son, beware of those scriptures
which portray God as... fond of burnt animal fat, bloody animal
sacrifice and war.... For if God is portrayed as loving war, what
sort of 'God' is that?"
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm

> Consider the Passover.

(75) The Last Paschal Supper
...
4. And Yeshua said, With desire have I desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer. and to institute the Memorial of my Oblation
for the service and salvation of all. For behold the hour cometh when
the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
5. And one of the twelve said unto him, Lord, is it I ? And he answered,
He to whom I give the sop the same is he.
6. And Iscariot said unto him, Master, behold the unleaven bread, the
mingled wine and the oil and the herbs, but where is the lamb that Moses
commanded? (for Judas had bought the lamb, but Yeshua had forbidden
that it should be killed).
7. And John spake in the Spirit, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, the
good Shepherd which giveth his life for the sheep. And Judas was
troubled at these words, for he knew that he should betray him. But
again Judas said, Master, is it not written in the law that a lamb must
be slain for the passover within the gates?
8. And Yeshua answered, If I am lifted up on the cross then indeed
shall the lamb be slain; but woe unto him by whom it is delivered into
the hands of the slayers; it were better of him had he not been born.
9. Verily I say unto you, for this end have I come into the world, that
I may put away all blood offerings and the eating of the flesh of the
beasts and the birds that are slain by men.
10. In the beginning, God gave to all, the fruits of the trees, and the
seeds, and the herbs, for food; but those who loved themselves more
than God, or their fellows, corrupted their ways, and brought diseases
into their bodies, and filled the earth with lust and violence.
11. Not by shedding innocent blood, therefore, but by living a righteous
life, shall ye find the peace of God. Ye call me the Christ of God and ye
say well, for I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.
12. Walk ye in the Way, and ye shall find God. Seek ye the Truth, and
the Truth shall make you free. Live in the Life, and ye shall see no death.
All things are alive in God, and the Spirit of God filleth all things.
13. Keep ye the commandments. Love thy God with all thy heart, and
love thy neighbour as thyself. On these hang all the law and the prophets.
And the sum of the law is this-Do not ye unto others as ye would not
that others should do unto you. Do ye unto others, as ye would that
others should do unto you.
14. Blessed are they who keep this law, for God is manifested in all
creatures. All creatures live in God, and God is hid in them.
...
http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel...12_8.html#gn75

> Consider Christ's involvement in "factory fishing" with his disciples.

The Eating Of Animals Birds And Fish Unlawful
Fishermen Condemned
And on another day, the question of eating dead things was again
presented, and some of Yeshua' newer disciples gathered around him
and asked: "Master, ye do indeed know all things, and thy wisdom
of the Holy Law excels all others; tell us, therefore, is the eating of
sea creatures lawful as some say?"
And Yeshua looked upon them with sad eyes, for he knew they
were yet unlearned men and their hearts were yet hardened by false
doctrines of devils; and he said unto them:
"See ye the fishes of the sea, as we stand beside the seashore
and look upon the waters of many lives. Yea, the water is their world,
even as the dry land belongeth to man; I ask ye, do the fishes come
unto thee and ask of thee for thy dry land or of its foods? Nay, nor is
it lawful for thee to go into the sea and ask for things which belong
not unto thee; for the earth is divided into three kingdoms of souls-one
of the land, one of the air, and one of the sea, each according to its
kind. And deposition for the Eternal Being hath given unto them
each the Spirit of life and the Holy Breath, and what He giveth freely
unto His creatures, neither men nor angels have authority to take
back or claim as their own.
"For behold the fisherman, how he takes not what is his own, a
thief he is, he stealeth the treasures of the deep and disrupts the holy
life of the blessed, for hath not God blessed the sea creatures in the
age they were created, and said unto them all: 'Yea, it is Good and
Holy, let them have life and bring forth after their kind and let them
rejoice in their watery home and sing unto me songs of praise and
of much joy and peace.' But the fisherman casts many kinds of food
into the waters, because each one of the fish has his own food, and
the fish then sees and pursues the food and `is snatched up; and the
fisherman rejoiceth, because he has caught the unwise fish.
"And most truly I tell ye, Satan, like the fisherman, casts his
hooks into ye, for the evil one lies in wait, wishing to seize thee,
that he might swallow thee up and rejoice at the catch. For Satan,
likened to a fisherman, places many foods before thy eyes, wishing
to make thee desirous of them, even if only to taste a little, so that
he may seize thee, and bring thee out of light into darkness.
Wherefore, I say unto thee, do not be touching the food of Satan,
for the wicked one lies in wait for the unwise and the unlearned
with many hooks and traps and every kind of net, for if ye be
tempted with a single unlawful food, it is necessary for ye to desire
all others, and finally, then, such unlawful things become the food
of death; and Satan is victorious. Wherefore, Be ye not deceivers
as fishermen, men of trickery, nor be eating the catch thereof, for
many are they who Satan ensnares with the taste of unlawful things
and maketh them partners in death."
And Yeshua' disciples were well pleased with Yeshua' answer
and they remarked of his great understanding of the Holy Laws of
God and the workings of Satan the evil one. '

http://www.essene.com/TheEsseneHuman...st_Part_3.html

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> What about Cain and Abel?
>
> Genesis 4
> 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
> as an offering to the LORD.
> 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
> flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
> 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
> was very angry, and his face was downcast.

The 'LORD' Jehovah, or YHWH, is -NOT- GOD.

'ELOHIM was, at one time, prior to the formation of Yis_ra'EL,
the MOST HIGH GOD of Canaan / Kh_na'an . The supremacy
of 'ELOHIM was cherished and maintained by the people of the
Levant and later with Abraham , the ancient "patriarch" of the
'Ivriy / Hebrews, cherished and maintained by the standard
employed within the term or embodiment surrounding the now
mythical Melchizedek , which, seemingly appearing to take on
a seperate life of its own ascending to these mythical purportions,
was even legendary in the time of Abraham.

Before Abraham's time, it was impressed upon the young from
this voice of Mal_khiy-tzehthehq , whose fleeting importance is
apparent in Genesis, in the ancient account of Torah [The account
is actually a last minute insertion into the Torah by a small but
persistent survivorship of later northern tradition 'Eloists who
survived the Assyrian crushing of the Northern Kingdom in 722
BCE], that 'ELOHIM was the GOD of blessing, and the earth a
blessing of 'ELOHIM , the TRUE GOD of all. The tithes and
offerings brought to 'EL were nothing more than thanksgiving
offerings given out of gratitude.

Still, these accounts from Torah are only faded remnants attempting
to capture the relational values established between the peoples of
Kh_na'an and 'ELOHIM . Most accounts concerning 'ELOHIM,
accounts compiled 1,000 years after, are badly distorted by Yahwistic
redaction, notably the Abraham / Isaac account of blood sacrifice
wrongly attributed to as if directed by 'ELOHIM.

'ELOHIM does not and will not accept blood sacrifice. Such
appeasement, petition, and sacrifice is blasphemy.

Far into the past, deep into antiquity, all that was ever brought
before this ancient GOD of Kh_na'an / Canaan, when agriculture
was still young, and a miracle before the people, long before blood
sacrifice began, long before the pain of seasons set in, grain and fruit
offerings were brought to this GREAT ONE in gratitude for the fruits
of the harvest and the earth, never in blood, never in the shedding
of blood to appease imagined "sins" or wrongs. That was a desert
fear, easily overcome by the truth.

'ELOHIM , in the beginning, was, to the most ancient of Canaanites,
a GOD of Thanksgiving, a GOD to WHOM gratitude was given in
celebration of LIFE as a sacred and wonderful gift. Pesach, the
original spring festival was given in honor of the fruitfulness and
rebirth of the earth, its fertility and promise. ..

Only later did that change when a fusion with his "sons" or "children"
began.

Despite the tendency of three thousand years to believe otherwise,
YHWH and 'ELOHIM are not and were not the same.

'ELOHIM was and continues to be the supreme MOST HIGH GOD
of Yis_ra'EL and Canaan / Kh_na'an , and of humankind.

YHWH is nothing more than an inferior or lesser ba'al of the southern
Kenite-Midianite Shahssu_YHWH bedhouins of the 'Ariv / Arabia:
YHW , 'ahiyi_hwah, very distinct from the region and thinking of the
people residing in Kh_na'an / Canaan.

Here, too, know the distinction between Kenite / Cain and
Kh_na'an / Canaan. Cain, not the agriculturalist the Genesis account
depicts him as, carries the blood mark of YHWH , and is of the tribal
alignment and grouping of the bedhouins of southern Arabia and Moab.
Canaan is the guardian of integrity, and the keeper of the gate of
'ELOHIM, 'AHLEHP , the archetypal civilized, living in cities.

Biblical redaction and tampering have twisted, mixed up, and confused
the actual representations in the early accounts of Genesis. '

http://www.messiah.org/elohim.htm

pearl wrote:
>>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
>>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
>>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
>>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
>>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
>>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
>>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
>>>>>and it was so.
>>>>>
>>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
>>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
>>>>>[end]
>>>>>
>>>>>Is your desperation to attack the remaining vegans
>>>>>here so far advanced that you're willing to change
>>>>>your views on God's word? Shame on you.
>>>>
>>>>As much as it pains me to get involved in this type of debate, and I don't
>>>>consider myself to be debating so much as clarifying, I thought that I
>>>>should just add another scripture to go along with the one already quoted.
>>>>
>>>>Genesis 9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as
>>>>the green herb have I given you all things.
>>>>
>>>>After the flood (Noah's Ark) meat was given to man to eat as well as the
>>>>plant-based diet that was originally prescribed. The only stipulation was
>>>>that the blood of the animal should not be consumed along with the flesh
>>>>(Genesis 9:4). As both a Christian and a vegan (or a strict vegetarian by
>>>>some definitions) myself, I don't refrain from eating meat due to moral
>>>>dilemma. I don't eat it because I believe that it is a more healthful way
>>>>of eating. There are other Christians who also believe that the original
>>>>plant-based diet handed down in Biblical scripture is the best way to
>>>>achieve optimum health. (see Hallelujah Acres http://www.hacres.com/).
>>>>However, again, this is based primarily on health issues, not
>>>>religious/moral ones.
>>>>
>>>>Lorraine
>>>
>>>
>>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
>>
>>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
>>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
>>
>>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
>>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
>>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
>>results seem to be established:-
>>...
>>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
>>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
>>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
>>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
>>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
>>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
>>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
>>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
>>the origin of the Gospels....
>>
>>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
>>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
>>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
>>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
>>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
>>century.
>>
>>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
>>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
>>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
>>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
>>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
>>
>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
>
> 'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."

Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
"with a purpose."'

>>After all, you believe
>>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
>>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
>
> You don't know that.

Yes, I do. There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
naive people (e.g., you) on earth.

pearl wrote:
>>>>>I don't know if the Creator gave *animals* rights,
>>>>>but the Creator gave *us* dominion over animals.
>>>>>Funny that.
>>>
>>>My favorite answer to this inane comment is that the Queen of England has
>>>dominion over her people, but that doesn't mean she can eat them.
>>
>>My favorite response to this inane and specious remark is that the rest
>>of the Bible is filled with accounts of people slaughtering animals --
>>at God's command -- and eating them.
>
> '..explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
> After pointing out various passages in the Torah that are false
> pericopes, Peter declares:

The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
results seem to be established:-
...
(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of *FICTITIOUS
WRITING* "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
the origin of the Gospels....
[my emphasis]
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015

pearl wrote:
>>What about Cain and Abel?
>>
>>Genesis 4
>>3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
>> as an offering to the LORD.
>>4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
>> flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
>>5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
>> was very angry, and his face was downcast.
>
>
> The 'LORD' Jehovah, or YHWH, is -NOT- GOD.

Ipse dixit. Your source is at odds with over 5000 years of recorded
Hebraic history -- something YOU should care about since you claim to be
Jewish.

Nevertheless, the YHWH/Elohim "dilemma" is easily understood in context
of the doctrine of the Trinity.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t05.html

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> >>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> >>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> >>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> >>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> >>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> >>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> >>>>>and it was so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> >>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> >>>>>[end]
<..>
> >>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
> >>
> >>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> >>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
> >>
> >>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
> >>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
> >>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
> >>results seem to be established:-
> >>...
> >>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
> >>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
> >>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
> >>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
> >>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
> >>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
> >>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
> >>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
> >>the origin of the Gospels....
> >>
> >>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
> >>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
> >>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
> >>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
> >>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
> >>century.
> >>
> >>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
> >>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
> >>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
> >>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
> >>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
> >>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> >>
> >>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> >
> > 'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> > following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> > both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> > Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> > Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> > faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> > the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> "with a purpose."'

'1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
respected persons or groups
- Sources cited in Jewish scriptures (e.g. Annals of the Kings)
- 11QPs\a on David's writings (col. 27); also the letter of Timotheos
(200 Psalms of David)
- Damascus Document 10.6 = 13.2 "book of HAGY/HAGU"
- Philo on Therapeutae and their special writings
- 4 Ezra 14.26 & 45f on Ezra's restoration of the 24 public and 70 secret
books
- Luke 1.1-4 on use of available sources, including from eyewitnesses
- Muratorian canon/fragment on Paul's writings, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
- Papias on oral truth and on the "dominical oracles" (see also Polycarp
apud Irenaeus)
- * ps-Clementines (Kerygmata Petrou) on "false pericopes"
(e.g. Homily 2.38ff, 3.3ff, 18.19ff) *
- Manichean scriptures (e.g. "Book of the Giants"; see now DSS fragments? )
- Ebed Jesu ("Traditions of the Elders," "History of Asenath," "Proverbs
of Josephus" [=Aesop])
- Priscillian defense of "apocrypha" (see CSEL 18, De fide et de apocryphis)
...'
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm
* emphasis added

'In the Essene Odyssey, Hugh Schonfield points to one of the
several historical moments when large scale alterations were
made in the Hebrew scriptures:

"During the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanies there was
wholesale destruction of the sacred books.... Much work of
restoration must have been necessitated, giving opportunity for
the insertion of certain sections...."

But the largest scale remaking of the Hebrew scriptures -- the
Jewish version of the Christian Nicene Council -- was carried
out in the year 450 B.C. by Ezra; we read of that incident in
Martin Larson's The Story of Christian Origins:

"It was not until well after the return from the captivity and the
rebuilding of the Temple that the Hebrew scriptures assumed
their definitive form around 450 B.C. We are told that Ezra
was sent from Babylon to be governor of Jerusalem; much of
the work of writing, assembling, and editing the sacred writings
must be attributed to him.... And something else also happened....
The new priesthood, with their... scrolls, their special costumes,
their goodly incomes, their authority and power, their altars and
their Temple, made short shrift of independent prophets claiming
divine inspiration.... Prophecy was no longer to be tolerated:
'When any shall yet prophesy, then his father and mother shall
say unto him: Thou shall not live... and his father and mother
shall thrust him through when he prophesy.'"
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm

> >>After all, you believe
> >>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
> >>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
> >
> > You don't know that.
>
> Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

> There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
> Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
> naive people (e.g., you) on earth.

Ipse dixit, yet in form. Would you have them 'thrust through'?

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
>>>>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
>>>>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
>>>>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
>>>>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
>>>>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
>>>>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
>>>>>>>and it was so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
>>>>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
>>>>>>>[end]
>
> <..>
>
>>>>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
>>>>
>>>>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
>>>>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
>>>>
>>>>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
>>>>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
>>>>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
>>>>results seem to be established:-
>>>>...
>>>>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
>>>>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
>>>>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
>>>>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
>>>>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
>>>>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
>>>>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
>>>>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
>>>>the origin of the Gospels....
>>>>
>>>>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
>>>>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
>>>>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
>>>>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
>>>>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
>>>>century.
>>>>
>>>>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
>>>>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
>>>>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
>>>>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
>>>>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
>>>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
>>>>
>>>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
>>>
>>>'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
>>>following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
>>>both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
>>>Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
>>>Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
>>>faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
>>>the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
>>
>>Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
>>rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
>>"with a purpose."'
>
> '1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> respected persons or groups

It's not a "lost" writing. It's fiction. It's a lot like the novel _The
Da Vinci Code_ and what's been made of it by people who use fiction to
reinterpret canonical writings.

<snip>
>>>>After all, you believe
>>>>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
>>>>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
>>>
>>>You don't know that.
>>
>>Yes, I do.
>
> No, you don't.

Yes, I do. I've been to Mount Shasta. It's a lovely area, but I'm pretty
sure there's no colony beneath it. I'm also quite sure the beings
alleged to live beneath the mountain do not exist after my reading of
the "channeled" messages from your "little friends." That aspect of
Mount Shasta is a bit of a cottage industry -- a very small, flaky one.
As Bartles and James would say, Thanks for your support.

>>There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
>>Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
>>naive people (e.g., you) on earth.
>
> Ipse dixit, yet in form.

Have you been to Mount Shasta or have you only heard the tall tales of
the channelers and seen the pictures which have some bizarre anomalies
which you think are ONLY explained by the channeling industry?

> Would you have them 'thrust through'?

I'm not a violent person, but I do believe in the right of self-defense.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> >>>>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> >>>>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> >>>>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> >>>>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> >>>>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> >>>>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> >>>>>>>and it was so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> >>>>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> >>>>>>>[end]
> >
> > <..>
> >
> >>>>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
> >>>>
> >>>>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> >>>>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
> >>>>
> >>>>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
> >>>>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
> >>>>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
> >>>>results seem to be established:-
> >>>>...
> >>>>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
> >>>>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
> >>>>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
> >>>>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
> >>>>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
> >>>>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
> >>>>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
> >>>>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
> >>>>the origin of the Gospels....
> >>>>
> >>>>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
> >>>>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
> >>>>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
> >>>>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
> >>>>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
> >>>>century.
> >>>>
> >>>>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
> >>>>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
> >>>>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
> >>>>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
> >>>>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
> >>>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> >>>>
> >>>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> >>>
> >>>'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> >>>following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> >>>both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> >>>Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> >>>Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> >>>faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> >>>the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
> >>
> >>Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> >>rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> >>"with a purpose."'
> >
> > '1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> > respected persons or groups
>
> It's not a "lost" writing. It's fiction. It's a lot like the novel _

Based on an earlier work.

> The
> Da Vinci Code_ and what's been made of it by people who use fiction to
> reinterpret canonical writings.

The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source
...
It should, of course, be asked whether the anti-Paulinism of the
KP document contains a polemic against the "great church."[62]
One could get that impression fiom the Epistula Petri. Here Peter
says that already in his lifetime some of the gentiles have rejected
his "lawful preaching" since they "have preferred the lawless and
senseless teaching of the hostile man" (EP 2.3 f.). This material
seems to reflect a later development, subsequent to Peter's death.
This becomes even clearer in Peter's prediction: "But if they falsely
assert such a thing while I am still alive, how much more will those
who come later venture to do so after my death" (EP 2.7).
...
From this perspective the picture of the Jewish Christianity of the
Kerygmata comes into focus. If the references to the Pauline letters
and to Acts are set aside as a literary matter, then the relationship
to the "great church" can be defined with more precision. There
appears to exist no direct interconnection nor any genetic
dependence, but the structural elements of the theology of the
Kerygmata must be attributed to an earlier independent Jewish
Christian tradition. This follows from the fact that the citation of
gospel texts is made in a rather unpretentious manner with such
introductory formulas as: "For thus the prophet has sworn to us
saying" (Hom. 11.26.2), "for he said thus" (EP 2.5), "and when
he said" (Hom. 3.50.2), etc. Apparently the readers made
regular use of the gospel writings being cited. [267] Insofar as
the author is explaining the theology of the Kerygmata by means
of the citations,[66] he is not resorting directly to the tradition
of the "great church"; rather, the Jewish Christianity of the
Kerygmata presupposes a tradition which may have developed
in the region bordering Osr6enian Syria, and which paralleled in
part that stream of tradition represented on the other side by the
"great church."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Reso...er_a1.htm#FN58

Gospel writings cited.

> <snip>
> >>>>After all, you believe
> >>>>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
> >>>>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
> >>>
> >>>You don't know that.
> >>
> >>Yes, I do.
> >
> > No, you don't.
>
> Yes, I do. I've been to Mount Shasta. It's a lovely area, but I'm pretty
> sure there's no colony beneath it. I'm also quite sure the beings
> alleged to live beneath the mountain do not exist after my reading of
> the "channeled" messages from your "little friends." That aspect of
> Mount Shasta is a bit of a cottage industry -- a very small, flaky one.
> As Bartles and James would say, Thanks for your support.

You've been there? Wow. So what? Ipse dixit, suspect.

> >>There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
> >>Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
> >>naive people (e.g., you) on earth.
> >
> > Ipse dixit, yet in form.
>
> Have you been to Mount Shasta or have you only heard the tall tales of
> the channelers and seen the pictures which have some bizarre anomalies
> which you think are ONLY explained by the channeling industry?

You don't know what I know? Well imagine that.

> > Would you have them 'thrust through'?
>
> I'm not a violent person, but I do believe in the right of self-defense.

You kill animals for sport, and you cruelly attack people. You're a liar.

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
>>>>>>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
>>>>>>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
>>>>>>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
>>>>>>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
>>>>>>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
>>>>>>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
>>>>>>>>>and it was so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
>>>>>>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
>>>>>>>>>[end]
>>>
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
>>>>>>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
>>>>>>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
>>>>>>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
>>>>>>results seem to be established:-
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
>>>>>>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
>>>>>>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
>>>>>>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
>>>>>>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
>>>>>>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
>>>>>>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
>>>>>>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
>>>>>>the origin of the Gospels....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
>>>>>>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
>>>>>>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
>>>>>>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
>>>>>>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
>>>>>>century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
>>>>>>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
>>>>>>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
>>>>>>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
>>>>>>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
>>>>>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
>>>>>
>>>>>'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
>>>>>following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
>>>>>both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
>>>>>Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
>>>>>Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
>>>>>faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
>>>>>the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
>>>>
>>>>Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
>>>>rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
>>>>"with a purpose."'
>>>
>>>'1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
>>> respected persons or groups
>>
>>It's not a "lost" writing. It's fiction. It's a lot like the novel _
>
> Based on an earlier work.

Yes, and fiction nevertheless.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/septem...3/feature1.htm

>>The
>>Da Vinci Code_ and what's been made of it by people who use fiction to
>>reinterpret canonical writings.
>
> The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source

Which has nothing to do with any of the above.

The fact that the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata carried
on its discussion with both Jewish and gentile parties, coupled
with the realization that the KP document reflects tendencies at
work in the development of the canon of the ecclesiastical
mainstream, should **not** encourage us to draw far-reaching
inferences concerning an actual or even simply a geographical
classification of KP within the sphere of the ecclesiastical
mainstream.
[Your source, my emphasis.]

<snip>
> Gospel writings cited.

Irrelevant. KP remains apocryphal and its authorship in question. Like
the Didascalia,
The author supports the "catholic doctrine" which he represents
through the apostolic claim made by his work in its title and in
the **fiction** of apostolic authorship that it maintains
throughout.

Again, your source and my emphasis.

>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>After all, you believe
>>>>>>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
>>>>>>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't know that.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I do.
>>>
>>>No, you don't.
>>
>>Yes, I do. I've been to Mount Shasta. It's a lovely area, but I'm pretty
>>sure there's no colony beneath it. I'm also quite sure the beings
>>alleged to live beneath the mountain do not exist after my reading of
>>the "channeled" messages from your "little friends." That aspect of
>>Mount Shasta is a bit of a cottage industry -- a very small, flaky one.
>>As Bartles and James would say, Thanks for your support.
>
> You've been there? Wow. So what? Ipse dixit, suspect.

Ipse dixit is far more suitable for one who accepts the word of a
channeler over, say, someone who's been there.

>>>>There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
>>>>Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
>>>>naive people (e.g., you) on earth.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit, yet in form.
>>
>>Have you been to Mount Shasta or have you only heard the tall tales of
>>the channelers and seen the pictures which have some bizarre anomalies
>>which you think are ONLY explained by the channeling industry?
>
> You don't know what I know? Well imagine that.

I have a compendium of things you either don't know or don't understand,
but I won't post that list again today.

>>> Would you have them 'thrust through'?
>>
>>I'm not a violent person, but I do believe in the right of self-defense.
>
> You kill animals for sport,

More for wildlife management.

> and you cruelly attack people.

No, I don't. You really should consider your own lack of civility,
Lesley. I don't have webpages slandering other people like you do.

> You're a liar.

Be careful or Sophist Bob will make you prove such unfounded
allegations. ;-)

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> >>>>>>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> >>>>>>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> >>>>>>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> >>>>>>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> >>>>>>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> >>>>>>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> >>>>>>>>>and it was so.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> >>>>>>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> >>>>>>>>>[end]
> >>>
> >>><..>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> >>>>>>regard over what is *accepted canon*?

"Parabiblical Literature" in Early Judaism and Early Christianity
The problem in a (large) nutshell: our terminology assumes certain
historical developments and related perceptions regarding "biblical"
literature, while the materials that have given rise to the need for
clear labels sometimes appear to be in some senses accepted by
some author or group as "authoritative," but unrelated to, or in
other ways not dependant on what came to be accepted as the
"biblical" categories or even on a concept of a special closed
collection of authoritative writings. How can we avoid or
overcome "the tyrrany of canonical assumptions" in attempting
to identify and study these materials, as well as the other
materials that seem more clearly to depend on (often being
derivitive of) "biblical" works or genres?
...
In search of definitions and/or alternate terminology

What makes something "authoritative" (respected, special),
and with what purpose/result in view?
- Often (normally?) associated with a person and/or office
to be trusted and/or *obeyed* (Enoch, Moses, Solomon,
Jesus, Paul, *rulers*, prophets, apostles, etc.)
-Often associated with a desirable past (respect for
antiquity, rootedness) {*or supporting one's own agenda}
-Often connected with special knowledge or information
or inspiration (revelational) {*or promoting one's agenda)
-Always in the context of community/society (approved
practices [ritual, customary, ethical], views [assumptions
about reality, acceptable ideas], expressions of reverence
[hymns, prayers], efficacious activities [cures, magic,
desirable results]) -- but how it functions may vary
considerably
-When associated with material fixed in writing, various
connections can be imagined:
1. Whatever is written under authoritative auspices
(*kings, priests*) is authoritative;
2. Some writings come to be considered more
authoritative ("scriptural") than others (open ended);
3. Only certain "canonical" ("Scriptural") writings are
ascribed the highest level of authority (possibly with
gradations even there; canons within a canon).

Some examples of current labels
A new proposal: "scripture/scriptural vestiges" (vestiges of scripture)

Related aspects of the problem:
- textual developments (identifying authoritative [individual] texts/passages)
see, e.g. James A. Sanders, "Text and Canon: Concepts and Method,"
JBL 98 (1979) 5-29 [deals especially with developments of the
Hebrew biblical texts and how they were perceived]
- recensional developments (which version? patterns of textual variation)
e.g. Jeremiah (shorter/longer), Daniel ("additions"), Esther ("additions"),
Psalter (scope)
- concepts of authority (oral, written, controlled, precise) [see above]
*how can we determine what was considered to be "authoritative" for
some purpose? what were the parameters of, and justifications for, such
"authority"?*
- concepts of "scripture" as having special authority (process and product)
to what extent was such "authority" identified with a specific written
expressions
- *concepts of "canon" (see also here) as inclusive/exclusive, then closed
whence the idea of collective written authority? of an exclusive collection?*
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm
{insertions} and emphasis * mine.

> >>>>>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> >>>>>following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> >>>>>both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> >>>>>Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> >>>>>Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> >>>>>faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> >>>>>the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
> >>>>
> >>>>Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> >>>>rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> >>>>"with a purpose."'
> >>>
> >>>'1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> >>> respected persons or groups
> >>
> >>It's not a "lost" writing. It's fiction. It's a lot like the novel _
> >
> > Based on an earlier work.
>
> Yes, and fiction nevertheless.
> http://www.crisismagazine.com/septem...3/feature1.htm

I meant the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.

> >>The
> >>Da Vinci Code_ and what's been made of it by people who use fiction to
> >>reinterpret canonical writings.
> >
> > The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source
>
> Which has nothing to do with any of the above.

Of course it does.

> The fact that the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata carried
> on its discussion with both Jewish and gentile parties, coupled
> with the realization that the KP document reflects tendencies at
> work in the development of the canon of the ecclesiastical
> mainstream, should **not** encourage us to draw far-reaching
> inferences concerning an actual or even simply a geographical
> classification of KP within the sphere of the ecclesiastical
> mainstream.
> [Your source, my emphasis.]

A demonstration of 'tyranny of canon' mentioned above.

How Convenient.

> <snip>
> > Gospel writings cited.
>
> Irrelevant.

Hardly.

> KP remains apocryphal and its authorship in question. Like
> the Didascalia,
> The author supports the "catholic doctrine" which he represents
> through the apostolic claim made by his work in its title and in
> the **fiction** of apostolic authorship that it maintains
> throughout.
>
> Again, your source and my emphasis.

Nonetheless, gospel texts are cited.

> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>>>After all, you believe
> >>>>>>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
> >>>>>>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You don't know that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, I do.
> >>>
> >>>No, you don't.
> >>
> >>Yes, I do. I've been to Mount Shasta. It's a lovely area, but I'm pretty
> >>sure there's no colony beneath it. I'm also quite sure the beings
> >>alleged to live beneath the mountain do not exist after my reading of
> >>the "channeled" messages from your "little friends." That aspect of
> >>Mount Shasta is a bit of a cottage industry -- a very small, flaky one.
> >>As Bartles and James would say, Thanks for your support.
> >
> > You've been there? Wow. So what? Ipse dixit, suspect.
>
> Ipse dixit is far more suitable for one who accepts the word of a
> channeler over, say, someone who's been there.

How can you accept any prophecies which make up the basis
of your bible then? What do you think the scribe Ezra was
claiming to do, if not 'channeling' some entity (allegedly God)?

> >>>>There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
> >>>>Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
> >>>>naive people (e.g., you) on earth.
> >>>
> >>>Ipse dixit, yet in form.
> >>
> >>Have you been to Mount Shasta or have you only heard the tall tales of
> >>the channelers and seen the pictures which have some bizarre anomalies
> >>which you think are ONLY explained by the channeling industry?
> >
> > You don't know what I know? Well imagine that.
>
> I have a compendium of things you either don't know or don't understand,
> but I won't post that list again today.

I'm not interested in anything you have to say, TBPH.

> >>> Would you have them 'thrust through'?
> >>
> >>I'm not a violent person, but I do believe in the right of self-defense.
> >
> > You kill animals for sport,
>
> More for wildlife management.

More/less, you kill animals for sport.

Get your cattle off the land and wildlife will find it's own balance.

> > and you cruelly attack people.
>
> No, I don't.

YES, YOU DO, LIAR. You're the biggest asshole on
these forums next to your putrid butt-buddy, psycho-ball.

> You really should consider your own lack of civility,

Reap what you sow.

> I don't have webpages slandering other people like you do.

There's volumes of your filthy slander in the archives, shithead.

> > You're a liar.
>
> Be careful or Sophist Bob will make you prove such unfounded
> allegations. ;-)

Twit.

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
>>>>>>>>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
>>>>>>>>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
>>>>>>>>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
>>>>>>>>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
>>>>>>>>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
>>>>>>>>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
>>>>>>>>>>>and it was so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
>>>>>>>>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>[end]
>>>>>
>>>>><..>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
>>>>>>>>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
>
> "Parabiblical Literature" in Early Judaism and Early Christianity
> The problem in a (large) nutshell: our terminology assumes certain
> historical developments and related perceptions regarding "biblical"
> literature, while the materials that have given rise to the need for
> clear labels sometimes appear to be in some senses accepted by
> some author or group as "authoritative," but unrelated to, or in
> other ways not dependant on what came to be accepted as the
> "biblical" categories or even on a concept of a special closed
> collection of authoritative writings. How can we avoid or
> overcome "the tyrrany of canonical assumptions" in attempting
> to identify and study these materials, as well as the other
> materials that seem more clearly to depend on (often being
> derivitive of) "biblical" works or genres?

Note: DERIVATIVE OF. That's at least two steps away from being an
original text, since copies of originals were at least faithful to the
original.

> In search of definitions and/or alternate terminology
>
> What makes something "authoritative" (respected, special),
> and with what purpose/result in view?

Authority is still dependent on authenticity. In the gnostic works and
other apocryphal writings, authenticity is at issue.

> - Often (normally?) associated with a person and/or office
> to be trusted and/or *obeyed* (Enoch, Moses, Solomon,
> Jesus, Paul, *rulers*, prophets, apostles, etc.)
> -Often associated with a desirable past (respect for
> antiquity, rootedness) {*or supporting one's own agenda}
> -Often connected with special knowledge or information
> or inspiration (revelational) {*or promoting one's agenda)
> -Always in the context of community/society (approved
> practices [ritual, customary, ethical], views [assumptions
> about reality, acceptable ideas], expressions of reverence
> [hymns, prayers], efficacious activities [cures, magic,
> desirable results]) -- but how it functions may vary
> considerably
> -When associated with material fixed in writing, various
> connections can be imagined:
> 1. Whatever is written under authoritative auspices
> (*kings, priests*) is authoritative;
> 2. Some writings come to be considered more
> authoritative ("scriptural") than others (open ended);
> 3. Only certain "canonical" ("Scriptural") writings are
> ascribed the highest level of authority (possibly with
> gradations even there; canons within a canon).
>
> Some examples of current labels
> A new proposal: "scripture/scriptural vestiges" (vestiges of scripture)
>
> Related aspects of the problem:
> - textual developments (identifying authoritative [individual] texts/passages)
> see, e.g. James A. Sanders, "Text and Canon: Concepts and Method,"
> JBL 98 (1979) 5-29 [deals especially with developments of the
> Hebrew biblical texts and how they were perceived]
> - recensional developments (which version? patterns of textual variation)
> e.g. Jeremiah (shorter/longer), Daniel ("additions"), Esther ("additions"),
> Psalter (scope)
> - concepts of authority (oral, written, controlled, precise) [see above]
> *how can we determine what was considered to be "authoritative" for
> some purpose? what were the parameters of, and justifications for, such
> "authority"?*
> - concepts of "scripture" as having special authority (process and product)
> to what extent was such "authority" identified with a specific written
> expressions
> - *concepts of "canon" (see also here) as inclusive/exclusive, then closed
> whence the idea of collective written authority? of an exclusive collection?*
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm
> {insertions} and emphasis * mine.

None of that supports using apocryphal writings over canonical.

>>>>>>>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
>>>>>>>following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
>>>>>>>both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
>>>>>>>Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
>>>>>>>Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
>>>>>>>faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
>>>>>>>the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
>>>>>>rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
>>>>>>"with a purpose."'
>>>>>
>>>>>'1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
>>>>> respected persons or groups
>>>>
>>>>It's not a "lost" writing. It's fiction. It's a lot like the novel _
>>>
>>>Based on an earlier work.
>>
>>Yes, and fiction nevertheless.
>>http://www.crisismagazine.com/septem...3/feature1.htm
>
> I meant the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.

Which are both fictitious works.

>>>>The
>>>>Da Vinci Code_ and what's been made of it by people who use fiction to
>>>>reinterpret canonical writings.
>>>
>>>The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source
>>
>>Which has nothing to do with any of the above.
>
> Of course it does.

No, it doesn't.

>>The fact that the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata carried
>>on its discussion with both Jewish and gentile parties, coupled
>>with the realization that the KP document reflects tendencies at
>>work in the development of the canon of the ecclesiastical
>>mainstream, should **not** encourage us to draw far-reaching
>>inferences concerning an actual or even simply a geographical
>>classification of KP within the sphere of the ecclesiastical
>>mainstream.
>>[Your source, my emphasis.]
>
> A demonstration of 'tyranny of canon' mentioned above.
>
> How Convenient.

No, it's a matter of historical meaning and authenticity, not tyranny of
canon. Your claim of tyranny of canon is like comparing The Da Vinci
Code to the Bible as a norm and source of religious faith. You are free
to do that, but The Da Vinci Code is a novel (regardless of what you
think of the Bible).

>><snip>
>>
>>>Gospel writings cited.
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>
> Hardly.

No, it is. I've quoted gospel writings in usenet posts, so does that
make my usenet posts the norm and source of faith?

>>KP remains apocryphal and its authorship in question. Like
>>the Didascalia,
>>The author supports the "catholic doctrine" which he represents
>>through the apostolic claim made by his work in its title and in
>>the **fiction** of apostolic authorship that it maintains
>>throughout.
>>
>>Again, your source and my emphasis.
>
> Nonetheless, gospel texts are cited.

So?

>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>After all, you believe
>>>>>>>>in Adama of Telos and other "channeled beings" -- inner (hollow! haha)
>>>>>>>>earth or other -- which are equally FICTITIOUS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you don't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I do. I've been to Mount Shasta. It's a lovely area, but I'm pretty
>>>>sure there's no colony beneath it. I'm also quite sure the beings
>>>>alleged to live beneath the mountain do not exist after my reading of
>>>>the "channeled" messages from your "little friends." That aspect of
>>>>Mount Shasta is a bit of a cottage industry -- a very small, flaky one.
>>>>As Bartles and James would say, Thanks for your support.
>>>
>>>You've been there? Wow. So what? Ipse dixit, suspect.
>>
>>Ipse dixit is far more suitable for one who accepts the word of a
>>channeler over, say, someone who's been there.
>
> How can you accept any prophecies which make up the basis
> of your bible then? What do you think the scribe Ezra was
> claiming to do, if not 'channeling' some entity (allegedly God)?

The prophets were only to be deemed of God if their prophecies came
true. In sofar as Old Testament prophecies have come true, I think your
argument is specious. Where's the specificity in channeled messages, be
they from Ramtha or Adama of Telos?

>>>>>>There is no colony of "enlightened beings" beneath Mount
>>>>>>Shasta, and those who "channel" them are hucksters preying on the most
>>>>>>naive people (e.g., you) on earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit, yet in form.
>>>>
>>>>Have you been to Mount Shasta or have you only heard the tall tales of
>>>>the channelers and seen the pictures which have some bizarre anomalies
>>>>which you think are ONLY explained by the channeling industry?
>>>
>>>You don't know what I know? Well imagine that.
>>
>>I have a compendium of things you either don't know or don't understand,
>>but I won't post that list again today.
>
> I'm not interested in anything you have to say, TBPH.

The feeling is mutual, with the exception of my six questions.

>>>>>Would you have them 'thrust through'?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a violent person, but I do believe in the right of self-defense.
>>>
>>>You kill animals for sport,
>>
>>More for wildlife management.
>
> More/less, you kill animals for sport.

No, for control of overpopulation. All the meat was donated to programs
that feed homeless or needy people. When's the last time you donated
food to a program that feeds people less well off than yourself?

> Get your cattle off the land and wildlife will find it's own balance.

Yes, through starvation, disease, and impacts with automobiles. You're
very compassionate towards animals and people.

>>>and you cruelly attack people.
>>
>>No, I don't.
>
> YES, YOU DO, LIAR.

No, I don't. You were the first to go uncivil in our discussions.

> You're the biggest asshole on
> these forums next to your putrid butt-buddy, psycho-ball.

Feel the vegan compassion and love.

>>You really should consider your own lack of civility,
>
> Reap what you sow.

So do you.

>>I don't have webpages slandering other people like you do.
>
> There's volumes of your filthy slander in the archives, shithead.

You have at least one webpage devoted to slandering another person,
hypocrite.

>>>You're a liar.
>>
>>Be careful or Sophist Bob will make you prove such unfounded
>>allegations. ;-)
>
> Twit.

You should prove your allegations rather than call me names.

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> > >>>>>>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> > >>>>>following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> > >>>>>both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> > >>>>>Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> > >>>>>Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> > >>>>>faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> > >>>>>the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> > >>>>rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> > >>>>"with a purpose."'
> > >>>
> > >>>'1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> > >>> respected persons or groups
> > >>
> > >>It's not a "lost" writing. It's fiction. It's a lot like the novel _
> > >
> > > Based on an earlier work.
> >
> > Yes, and fiction nevertheless.
> > http://www.crisismagazine.com/septem...3/feature1.htm
>
> I meant the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
>
> > >>The
> > >>Da Vinci Code_ and what's been made of it by people who use fiction to
> > >>reinterpret canonical writings.
> > >
> > > The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with any of the above.
>
> Of course it does.

Kerygmata Petrou = Kerygmen des Petrus. (as above)

> > The fact that the Jewish Christianity of the Kerygmata carried
> > on its discussion with both Jewish and gentile parties, coupled
> > with the realization that the KP document reflects tendencies at
> > work in the development of the canon of the ecclesiastical
> > mainstream, should **not** encourage us to draw far-reaching
> > inferences concerning an actual or even simply a geographical
> > classification of KP within the sphere of the ecclesiastical
> > mainstream.
> > [Your source, my emphasis.]
>
> A demonstration of 'tyranny of canon' mentioned above.
>
> How Convenient.
>
> > <snip>
> > > Gospel writings cited.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Hardly.
>
> > KP remains apocryphal and its authorship in question. Like
> > the Didascalia,
> > The author supports the "catholic doctrine" which he represents
> > through the apostolic claim made by his work in its title and in
> > the **fiction** of apostolic authorship that it maintains
> > throughout.
> >
> > Again, your source and my emphasis.
>
> Nonetheless, gospel texts are cited.

Notably;

'1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
respected persons or groups
...
- ps-Clementines (Kerygmata Petrou) on "false pericopes"
(e.g. Homily 2.38ff, 3.3ff, 18.19ff)
...
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm

Think about that awhile.

<...>

"pearl" > wrote in message >...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> > pearl wrote:
> > >>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> > >>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> > >>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> > >>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> > >>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> > >>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> > >>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> > >>>>>and it was so.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> > >>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> > >>>>>[end]
> <..>
> > >>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
> > >>
> > >>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> > >>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
> > >>
> > >>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
> > >>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
> > >>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
> > >>results seem to be established:-
> > >>...
> > >>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
> > >>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
> > >>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
> > >>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
> > >>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
> > >>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
> > >>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
> > >>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
> > >>the origin of the Gospels....
> > >>
> > >>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
> > >>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
> > >>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
> > >>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
> > >>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
> > >>century.
> > >>
> > >>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
> > >>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
> > >>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
> > >>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
> > >>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
> > >>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> > >>
> > >>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> > >
> > > 'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> > > following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> > > both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> > > Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> > > Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> > > faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> > > the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
> >
> > Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> > rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> > "with a purpose."'
>
> '1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> respected persons or groups
> - Sources cited in Jewish scriptures (e.g. Annals of the Kings)
> - 11QPs\a on David's writings (col. 27); also the letter of Timotheos
> (200 Psalms of David)
> - Damascus Document 10.6 = 13.2 "book of HAGY/HAGU"
> - Philo on Therapeutae and their special writings
> - 4 Ezra 14.26 & 45f on Ezra's restoration of the 24 public and 70 secret
> books
> - Luke 1.1-4 on use of available sources, including from eyewitnesses
> - Muratorian canon/fragment on Paul's writings, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
> - Papias on oral truth and on the "dominical oracles" (see also Polycarp
> apud Irenaeus)
> - * ps-Clementines (Kerygmata Petrou) on "false pericopes"
> (e.g. Homily 2.38ff, 3.3ff, 18.19ff) *
> - Manichean scriptures (e.g. "Book of the Giants"; see now DSS fragments? )
> - Ebed Jesu ("Traditions of the Elders," "History of Asenath," "Proverbs
> of Josephus" [=Aesop])
> - Priscillian defense of "apocrypha" (see CSEL 18, De fide et de apocryphis)
> ..'
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm
> * emphasis added

Yes, there are genuine works now lost. This does not, however, seem
to relate to the point that all these apocrypha are spurious.

The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
was a heretic.

The other points seem of dubious relevance.

> 'In the Essene Odyssey, Hugh Schonfield points to one of the
> several historical moments when large scale alterations were
> made in the Hebrew scriptures:
>
> "During the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanies there was
> wholesale destruction of the sacred books.... Much work of
> restoration must have been necessitated, giving opportunity for
> the insertion of certain sections...."

'Must'? How about some evidence, rather than assertion?

> But the largest scale remaking of the Hebrew scriptures -- the
> Jewish version of the Christian Nicene Council -- was carried
> out in the year 450 B.C. by Ezra; we read of that incident in
> Martin Larson's The Story of Christian Origins:

I'm afraid I prefer ancient evidence to modern assertion.

> "It was not until well after the return from the captivity and the
> rebuilding of the Temple that the Hebrew scriptures assumed
> their definitive form around 450 B.C. We are told that Ezra
> was sent from Babylon to be governor of Jerusalem; much of
> the work of writing, assembling, and editing the sacred writings
> must be attributed to him.... [etc]

There's that 'must' word, again.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"Roger Pearse" > wrote in message
om...
> "pearl" > wrote in message >...
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > >>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> > > >>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> > > >>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> > > >>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> > > >>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> > > >>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> > > >>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> > > >>>>>and it was so.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> > > >>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> > > >>>>>[end]
> > <..>
> > > >>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
> > > >>
> > > >>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> > > >>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
> > > >>
> > > >>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
> > > >>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
> > > >>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
> > > >>results seem to be established:-
> > > >>...
> > > >>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
> > > >>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
> > > >>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
> > > >>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
> > > >>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
> > > >>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
> > > >>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
> > > >>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
> > > >>the origin of the Gospels....
> > > >>
> > > >>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
> > > >>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
> > > >>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
> > > >>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
> > > >>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
> > > >>century.
> > > >>
> > > >>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
> > > >>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
> > > >>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
> > > >>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
> > > >>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
> > > >>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> > > >>
> > > >>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> > > >
> > > > 'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> > > > following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> > > > both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> > > > Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> > > > Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> > > > faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> > > > the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
> > >
> > > Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> > > rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> > > "with a purpose."'
> >
> > '1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> > respected persons or groups
> > - Sources cited in Jewish scriptures (e.g. Annals of the Kings)
> > - 11QPs\a on David's writings (col. 27); also the letter of Timotheos
> > (200 Psalms of David)
> > - Damascus Document 10.6 = 13.2 "book of HAGY/HAGU"
> > - Philo on Therapeutae and their special writings
> > - 4 Ezra 14.26 & 45f on Ezra's restoration of the 24 public and 70 secret
> > books
> > - Luke 1.1-4 on use of available sources, including from eyewitnesses
> > - Muratorian canon/fragment on Paul's writings, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
> > - Papias on oral truth and on the "dominical oracles" (see also Polycarp
> > apud Irenaeus)
> > - * ps-Clementines (Kerygmata Petrou) on "false pericopes"
> > (e.g. Homily 2.38ff, 3.3ff, 18.19ff) *
> > - Manichean scriptures (e.g. "Book of the Giants"; see now DSS fragments? )
> > - Ebed Jesu ("Traditions of the Elders," "History of Asenath," "Proverbs
> > of Josephus" [=Aesop])
> > - Priscillian defense of "apocrypha" (see CSEL 18, De fide et de apocryphis)
> > ..'
> > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm
> > * emphasis added
>
> Yes, there are genuine works now lost. This does not, however, seem
> to relate to the point that all these apocrypha are spurious.

It relates to the point that gospel text was cited in these works.

> The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
> likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
> was a heretic.

Whether most of that is true or not, gospel text is cited in the
Kerygmata Petrou, upon which the ps-Clementines are based.

> The other points seem of dubious relevance.

You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

> > 'In the Essene Odyssey, Hugh Schonfield points to one of the
> > several historical moments when large scale alterations were
> > made in the Hebrew scriptures:
> >
> > "During the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanies there was
> > wholesale destruction of the sacred books.... Much work of
> > restoration must have been necessitated, giving opportunity for
> > the insertion of certain sections...."
>
> 'Must'? How about some evidence, rather than assertion?
>
> > But the largest scale remaking of the Hebrew scriptures -- the
> > Jewish version of the Christian Nicene Council -- was carried
> > out in the year 450 B.C. by Ezra; we read of that incident in
> > Martin Larson's The Story of Christian Origins:
>
> I'm afraid I prefer ancient evidence to modern assertion.

[20] Behold, Lord, I will go, as thou hast commanded me, and
reprove the people which are present: but they that shall be born
afterward, who shall admonish them? thus the world is set in
darkness, and they that dwell therein are without light.
[21] For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things
that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.
[22] But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost
into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since
the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find
thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex.../4Ezra_KJV.txt

> > "It was not until well after the return from the captivity and the
> > rebuilding of the Temple that the Hebrew scriptures assumed
> > their definitive form around 450 B.C. We are told that Ezra
> > was sent from Babylon to be governor of Jerusalem; much of
> > the work of writing, assembling, and editing the sacred writings
> > must be attributed to him.... [etc]
>
> There's that 'must' word, again.

See above.

> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse

"pearl" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Pearse" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message >...
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > >>>>>Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And
> > > > >>>>>God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
> > > > >>>>>seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
> > > > >>>>>tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
> > > > >>>>>Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the
> > > > >>>>>air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which
> > > > >>>>>there is life, I have given every green herb for food";
> > > > >>>>>and it was so.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>So Jews and Christians have as legitimate a stake to
> > > > >>>>>veganism and vegetarianism as any other religion.
> > > > >>>>>[end]
> <..>
> > > > >>>Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Why should Lorraine read *apocryphal* writings and accept them with any
> > > > >>regard over what is *accepted canon*?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has
> > > > >>not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions,
> > > > >>about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few
> > > > >>results seem to be established:-
> > > > >>...
> > > > >>(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious
> > > > >>writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies
> > > > >>a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our
> > > > >>day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that
> > > > >>given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the
> > > > >>class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the
> > > > >>influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature,
> > > > >>naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of
> > > > >>the origin of the Gospels....
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the
> > > > >>authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing,
> > > > >>cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several
> > > > >>works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and
> > > > >>the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second
> > > > >>century.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>How far the anti-Pauline tendency is carried, is a matter of
> > > > >>dispute. Baur and many others think Simon is meant to represent
> > > > >>Paul; but this is difficult to believe, though we must admit
> > > > >>the disposition to ignore the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to the
> > > > >>literary merit of these productions the reader must judge.
> > > > >>http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/...m#P1233_299015
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It's so like you to promote FICTITIOUS writings.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Lechler,15 while not positive in his convictions, makes the
> > > > > following prudent statement: "An older work lies at the basis
> > > > > both of the Homilies and Recognitions, bearing the title,
> > > > > Kerygmen des Petrus.16 To this document sometimes the
> > > > > Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions, correspond more
> > > > > faithfully; its historical contents are more correctly seen from
> > > > > the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies."
> > > >
> > > > Which doesn't change the fact that it is not an historical account, but
> > > > rather 'The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing
> > > > "with a purpose."'
> > >
> > > '1. References to "lost" or suppressed writings associated with
> > > respected persons or groups
> > > - Sources cited in Jewish scriptures (e.g. Annals of the Kings)
> > > - 11QPs\a on David's writings (col. 27); also the letter of Timotheos
> > > (200 Psalms of David)
> > > - Damascus Document 10.6 = 13.2 "book of HAGY/HAGU"
> > > - Philo on Therapeutae and their special writings
> > > - 4 Ezra 14.26 & 45f on Ezra's restoration of the 24 public and 70 secret
> > > books
> > > - Luke 1.1-4 on use of available sources, including from eyewitnesses
> > > - Muratorian canon/fragment on Paul's writings, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
> > > - Papias on oral truth and on the "dominical oracles" (see also Polycarp
> > > apud Irenaeus)
> > > - * ps-Clementines (Kerygmata Petrou) on "false pericopes"
> > > (e.g. Homily 2.38ff, 3.3ff, 18.19ff) *
> > > - Manichean scriptures (e.g. "Book of the Giants"; see now DSS fragments? )
> > > - Ebed Jesu ("Traditions of the Elders," "History of Asenath," "Proverbs
> > > of Josephus" [=Aesop])
> > > - Priscillian defense of "apocrypha" (see CSEL 18, De fide et de apocryphis)
> > > ..'
> > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...ical/intro.htm
> > > * emphasis added
> >
> > Yes, there are genuine works now lost. This does not, however, seem
> > to relate to the point that all these apocrypha are spurious.
>
> It relates to the point that gospel text was cited in these works.

Um, I haven't seen any such point above. The suggestion is that the
pseudo-Clementines can be used as a source for doctrine. This is
untrue, of course.

> > The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
> > likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
> > was a heretic.
>
> Whether most of that is true or not, gospel text is cited in the
> Kerygmata Petrou, upon which the ps-Clementines are based.

I'm not sure I know what you mean, since you are making statements
about a text which is not extant, and I have no idea what the
significance of your comment about 'gospel text.' But since the
Preaching of Peter is not scripture, even if extant, again I don't see
the point.

> > The other points seem of dubious relevance.
>
> You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I remain to be convinced that there is a baby in what followed.

> > > 'In the Essene Odyssey, Hugh Schonfield points to one of the
> > > several historical moments when large scale alterations were
> > > made in the Hebrew scriptures:
> > >
> > > "During the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanies there was
> > > wholesale destruction of the sacred books.... Much work of
> > > restoration must have been necessitated, giving opportunity for
> > > the insertion of certain sections...."
> >
> > 'Must'? How about some evidence, rather than assertion?
> >
> > > But the largest scale remaking of the Hebrew scriptures -- the
> > > Jewish version of the Christian Nicene Council -- was carried
> > > out in the year 450 B.C. by Ezra; we read of that incident in
> > > Martin Larson's The Story of Christian Origins:
> >
> > I'm afraid I prefer ancient evidence to modern assertion.
>
> [20] Behold, Lord, I will go, as thou hast commanded me, and
> reprove the people which are present: but they that shall be born
> afterward, who shall admonish them? thus the world is set in
> darkness, and they that dwell therein are without light.
> [21] For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things
> that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.
> [22] But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost
> into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since
> the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find
> thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.
> >http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex.../4Ezra_KJV.txt

What is the relevance of this to my comment?

> > > "It was not until well after the return from the captivity and the
> > > rebuilding of the Temple that the Hebrew scriptures assumed
> > > their definitive form around 450 B.C. We are told that Ezra
> > > was sent from Babylon to be governor of Jerusalem; much of
> > > the work of writing, assembling, and editing the sacred writings
> > > must be attributed to him.... [etc]
> >
> > There's that 'must' word, again.
>
> See above.

Again, I see no relevance.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse wrote:
<...>
>>>Yes, there are genuine works now lost. This does not, however, seem
>>>to relate to the point that all these apocrypha are spurious.
>>
>>It relates to the point that gospel text was cited in these works.
>
> Um, I haven't seen any such point above. The suggestion is that the
> pseudo-Clementines can be used as a source for doctrine. This is
> untrue, of course.

You have to remember that Lesley, aka pearl, aka Lotus, aka lilweed, has
a bias against "organized" religion. As such, she sees "truth" in
esoterica. For her obscurity is better than clarity. Of course, it
really doesn't help that she hasn't a clue about any of this. She
doesn't know the pseudo-Clementines from a hole in the ground.

>>>The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
>>>likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
>>>was a heretic.
>>
>>Whether most of that is true or not, gospel text is cited in the
>>Kerygmata Petrou, upon which the ps-Clementines are based.
>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean, since you are making statements
> about a text which is not extant, and I have no idea what the
> significance of your comment about 'gospel text.' But since the
> Preaching of Peter is not scripture, even if extant, again I don't see
> the point.

If you'll recall your last round with her, she offered Wheless as a
source for discrediting historic Christianity. After being corrected
about your analysis, she said:
the 24% that is, according to Roger, accurate
representation could well be highly significant.
http://snipurl.com/4c6f

She never really seemed to consider that the 74% that Wheless fabricated
*might* be much more important in the whole scheme of things...

>>>The other points seem of dubious relevance.
>>
>>You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
>
> I remain to be convinced that there is a baby in what followed.

To be fair, there wasn't any bathwater, either. :-)

<...>
>>>I'm afraid I prefer ancient evidence to modern assertion.
>>
>>[20] Behold, Lord, I will go, as thou hast commanded me, and
>>reprove the people which are present: but they that shall be born
>>afterward, who shall admonish them? thus the world is set in
>>darkness, and they that dwell therein are without light.
>>[21] For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things
>>that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.
>>[22] But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost
>>into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since
>>the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find
>>thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.
>>
>>>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex.../4Ezra_KJV.txt
>
> What is the relevance of this to my comment?

It's not relevant. She just cuts and pastes recklessly. I don't even
think she knows what she wants to get across, other than she's (a) a
contrarian, and (b) interested in obscure, esoteric writings than those
of any significance. She'll respond by noting that I am some shill for
the system and that she's honorably fighting for withheld truths.
Typical conspiracy theorist stuff.

<snip>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> <...>
> >>>Yes, there are genuine works now lost. This does not, however, seem
> >>>to relate to the point that all these apocrypha are spurious.
> >>
> >>It relates to the point that gospel text was cited in these works.
> >
> > Um, I haven't seen any such point above. The suggestion is that the
> > pseudo-Clementines can be used as a source for doctrine. This is
> > untrue, of course.
>
> You have to remember that Lesley, aka pearl, aka Lotus, aka lilweed,
===============
Don't forget her most discriptive nom-de-plume, "Lys".

snippage...

usual suspect wrote:

> Roger Pearse wrote:
> <...>
>
>>>> Yes, there are genuine works now lost. This does not, however, seem
>>>> to relate to the point that all these apocrypha are spurious.
>>>
>>>
>>> It relates to the point that gospel text was cited in these works.
>>
>>
>> Um, I haven't seen any such point above. The suggestion is that the
>> pseudo-Clementines can be used as a source for doctrine. This is
>> untrue, of course.
>
>
> You have to remember that Lesley, aka pearl, aka Lotus, aka lilweed, has
> a bias against "organized" religion. As such, she sees "truth" in
> esoterica. For her obscurity is better than clarity. Of course, it
> really doesn't help that she hasn't a clue about any of this. She
> doesn't know the pseudo-Clementines from a hole in the ground.

Or the hole in her head.

>
>>>> The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
>>>> likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
>>>> was a heretic.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whether most of that is true or not, gospel text is cited in the
>>> Kerygmata Petrou, upon which the ps-Clementines are based.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I know what you mean, since you are making statements
>> about a text which is not extant, and I have no idea what the
>> significance of your comment about 'gospel text.' But since the
>> Preaching of Peter is not scripture, even if extant, again I don't see
>> the point.
>
>
> If you'll recall your last round with her, she offered Wheless as a
> source for discrediting historic Christianity. After being corrected
> about your analysis, she said:
> the 24% that is, according to Roger, accurate
> representation could well be highly significant.
> http://snipurl.com/4c6f
>
> She never really seemed to consider that the 74% that Wheless fabricated
> *might* be much more important in the whole scheme of things...
>
>>>> The other points seem of dubious relevance.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
>>
>>
>> I remain to be convinced that there is a baby in what followed.
>
>
> To be fair, there wasn't any bathwater, either. :-)
>
> <...>
>
>>>> I'm afraid I prefer ancient evidence to modern assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> [20] Behold, Lord, I will go, as thou hast commanded me, and
>>> reprove the people which are present: but they that shall be born
>>> afterward, who shall admonish them? thus the world is set in
>>> darkness, and they that dwell therein are without light.
>>> [21] For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things
>>> that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.
>>> [22] But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost
>>> into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since
>>> the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find
>>> thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.
>>>
>>>> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex.../4Ezra_KJV.txt
>>>>
>>
>>
>> What is the relevance of this to my comment?
>
>
> It's not relevant. She just cuts and pastes recklessly. I don't even
> think she knows what she wants to get across, other than she's (a) a
> contrarian, and (b) interested in obscure, esoteric writings than those
> of any significance. She'll respond by noting that I am some shill for
> the system and that she's honorably fighting for withheld truths.
> Typical conspiracy theorist stuff.
>
> <snip>
>

"Roger Pearse" > wrote in message
om...
> "pearl" > wrote in message >...
> > "Roger Pearse" > wrote in message
> > om...
<..>
> > > The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
> > > likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
> > > was a heretic.
> >
> > Whether most of that is true or not, gospel text is cited in the
> > Kerygmata Petrou, upon which the ps-Clementines are based.
>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean, since you are making statements
> about a text which is not extant, and I have no idea what the
> significance of your comment about 'gospel text.' But since the
> Preaching of Peter is not scripture, even if extant, again I don't see
> the point.

The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source
...
From this perspective the picture of the Jewish Christianity of the
Kerygmata comes into focus. If the references to the Pauline letters
and to Acts are set aside as a literary matter, then the relationship
to the "great church" can be defined with more precision. There
appears to exist no direct interconnection nor any genetic
dependence, but the structural elements of the theology of the
Kerygmata must be attributed to an earlier independent Jewish
Christian tradition. This follows from the fact that the citation of
gospel texts is made in a rather unpretentious manner with such
introductory formulas as: "For thus the prophet has sworn to us
saying" (Hom. 11.26.2), "for he said thus" (EP 2.5), "and when
he said" (Hom. 3.50.2), etc. Apparently the readers made
regular use of the gospel writings being cited. [267] Insofar as
the author is explaining the theology of the Kerygmata by means
of the citations,[66] he is not resorting directly to the tradition
of the "great church"; rather, the Jewish Christianity of the
Kerygmata presupposes a tradition which may have developed
in the region bordering Osrenian Syria, and which paralleled in
part that stream of tradition represented on the other side by the
"great church."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Reso...er_a1.htm#FN58

".. citation of gospel texts ..".

<..>

pearl wrote:
<snip>
> ".. citation of gospel texts ..".

Yes... and what does that have to do with anything? If it cites gospel
texts, then the gospel texts were extant when it was written.

"pearl" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Pearse" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Roger Pearse" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> <..>
> > > > The Clementine literature is of course spurious, the Manichean
> > > > likewise, and the Ebed Jesu. You do not seem aware that Priscillian
> > > > was a heretic.
> > >
> > > Whether most of that is true or not, gospel text is cited in the
> > > Kerygmata Petrou, upon which the ps-Clementines are based.
> >
> > I'm not sure I know what you mean, since you are making statements
> > about a text which is not extant, and I have no idea what the
> > significance of your comment about 'gospel text.' But since the
> > Preaching of Peter is not scripture, even if extant, again I don't see
> > the point.
>
> The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source
> ..
> From this perspective the picture of the Jewish Christianity of the
> Kerygmata comes into focus. If the references to the Pauline letters
> and to Acts are set aside as a literary matter, then the relationship
> to the "great church" can be defined with more precision. There
> appears to exist no direct interconnection nor any genetic
> dependence, but the structural elements of the theology of the
> Kerygmata must be attributed to an earlier independent Jewish
> Christian tradition. This follows from the fact that the citation of
> gospel texts is made in a rather unpretentious manner with such
> introductory formulas as: "For thus the prophet has sworn to us
> saying" (Hom. 11.26.2), "for he said thus" (EP 2.5), "and when
> he said" (Hom. 3.50.2), etc. Apparently the readers made
> regular use of the gospel writings being cited. [267] Insofar as
> the author is explaining the theology of the Kerygmata by means
> of the citations,[66] he is not resorting directly to the tradition
> of the "great church"; rather, the Jewish Christianity of the
> Kerygmata presupposes a tradition which may have developed
> in the region bordering Osrenian Syria, and which paralleled in
> part that stream of tradition represented on the other side by the
> "great church."
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Reso...er_a1.htm#FN58
>
> ".. citation of gospel texts ..".
>
> <..>

Bauer was a crank. Further, at all events, his opinions are worthless
without evidence, and this he does not supply. Finally, I am still
unsure how you think this relates to the statements made, but I think
I can guess. Does the argument that a hypothetical use of a lost
document by a set of 3rd century novels can be opposed to the clear
extant witness seem very valid to you?

All the best,

Roger Pearse