by Kristen 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
And the lost books of Eden. Books that didn't make the cut into the official 66 we have now. Anyone ever read or research them? Do you think there is any truth in them?
(hey, for number smiths, what do you think of "66" being the number for the books of the Bible? I never even gave it a thought before seeing it while I typed it out)
Kristen
Kristen, http://www.nexusmagazine.com//holygrail.html
Scroll down until you reach a paragraph beginning with,"We're all familiar with the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but what about the other gospels?...Philip, Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdaline?" This article started me on my journey in search of these lost books.Seven
Seven,
That is an extremely interesting site! In view of recent posts about the so-called Christian suppression of women in the Church, I have pasted the following:
Indeed, the Church's own apostolic constitutions were compiled on this basis. They state, "We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman; for the head of the woman is the man, and is it not reasonable that the body should govern the head?".This was rubbish, but it was for this very reason that dozens of gospels were not selected-because they made it quite clear that there were very many active women in the ministry of Jesus. Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary Jacob Cleophas, Joanna. These were not only ministry disciples; they're recorded as priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.
In St Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Paul makes specific mention of his own female helpers: Phoebe, for example, whom he called a sister of the Church; Julia; Priscilla, who laid down her net for the cause. The New Testament is alive with women disciples, but the Church ignored them all. When the Church's precepts of ecclesiastical discipline were drawn up, they stated, "It is not permitted for a woman to speak in Church, nor to claim for herself any share in any masculine function". But the Church itself had decided that this was a masculine function.
The Church was so frightened of women that it instituted a rule of celibacy: a rule for its priests, a rule that became a law in 1138; a law that persists today. Well, this rule has never been quite what it appears on the surface, because, when one reads the rule, when one studies history, one can see that it was never, ever sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The specific definition that made this rule possible was priestly intimacy with women. Why? Because women become wives and lovers. The very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that bothered the Church: a taboo subject-motherhood, bloodlines. This image had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus.
But it wasn't as if the Bible had said any such thing. St Paul had said in his Epistle to Timothy that a bishop should be married to one wife and that he should have children; that a man with experience in his own family household is actually far better qualified to take care of the Church. Even though the Roman Church authorities claimed to uphold the teaching of St Paul in particular, they chose completely to disregard this explicit directive to suit their own ends, so that Jesus' own marital status could be strategically ignored.
But the Church's celibate, unmarried image of Jesus was fully contradicted in other writings of the era. It was openly contradicted in the public domain until the perpetuation of the truth was proclaimed a punishable heresy only 450 years ago in 1547, the year that Henry VIII died in England.
It's not just the Christian New Testament that suffers from these sexist restrictions. A similar editing process was applied to the Jewish-based Old Testament, and this made it conveniently suitable to be added to the Christian Bible. This is made particularly apparent by a couple of entries that bypassed the editors' scrutiny.
Also, very intersting is the assertion that Jesus married and established a bloodline that exists to this day.
**********************************************************************
I just finished reading most of parts 2 and 3. This research is really radical. I will defintely look into this and try to find some additional evidence for or against these arguments. This could really explain much of the seeming discrepancies of the Bible. Why haven't I heard about this before? Does anyone else here know any more about this?
Edited by - AhHah on 26 October 2000 2:42:0
What about this site:
http://www.bible2000.org/lostbooks/forgottenindex.htm
Edited by - Zep on 26 October 2000 3:48:37
AhHah, This research is indeed radical. I first stumbled upon it while writing a paper on the history of the Celtic church. I haven't look at things quite the same since. Happy hunting.
Seven
Zep,
Excellent find! Thanks.
Does anyone here have any impressions about either of the sites referenced on this thread?
How about you, Seven? What do you make of it?
AhHah, After visiting sites such as the ones listed by Zep and myself I can only conclude that there is so much we have been deprived of. I think by omitting the above mentioned books we've only been exposed to teachings others have censored, and I'm not sure if the translators
understood the events they were translating. I would like to read the Book of Jasher(Moses' staff-bearer) and the Templar documents. Please post anything you may find on these subjects. Seven
I checked out a book from the library that contains the Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. Also, I checked out a New English Bible that includes the Apocrypha. Will be doing some reading for the next few weeks.
Thanks for the links to the additional information, everyone. Will check back to see any additional thoughts in this thread.
Kristen
I have been attempting to find some validation of Laurence Gardner's work and his book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", referenced on a link that Seven provided on this thread.
I have not found any serious review of his work yet (nothing that is not attempting to sell his books).
Unfortunately, the context of the sites that sell his books make it seem dubious at best. Check out this link:
url http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2301/starfire.html
**********************************************************************
I just found the first link that casts some doubt on the reliability of this book. It contains a foreword by a supposed HRH Prince Michael of Albany, Head of the Royal House of Stewart. This man's claim to royalty is discredited at the link below. The link also mentions Laurence Gardner's book as the source of the fraudulent claim:
This wholly fictional claim may is taken from The Bloodline of the Holy Grail - The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed by Laurence Gardner, The Chevalier Labhran de St Germain, ISBN 1-85230-870-2, and published by Element Books.[1] It is a complete invention, and cannot be supported by any documents or historical sources. The alleged genealogy is filled with falsehoods, the most obvious being that Prince Charles Edward, Charles III, never married "Marguerite O’Dea d’Audibert de Lussan, Comtesse de Massillan" (1749-1820), had he done so he would have been guilty of bigamy since he was already married to Princess Louise of Stolberg, who survived him. Perhaps this name is called into the equation because the Drummond Dukes of Melfort married into this same family and inherited the Lussan title.
url http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/stuart.htm
**********************************************************************
Here is a critical review of the book from this link:
url http://www.tektonics.org/LG.BHG_1852308702.html#Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of Laurence Gardner's Bloodline of the Holy Grail--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
byJ. P. Holding
|
A correspondent asked me to look into this book, and I have to admit that I didn't have to read very far to get what I needed, for it is obvious what this book is up to on its face. That makes it easier to dismiss, though.
All that Gardner (a professed "internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist" and royal historiographer) does, quite simply, is rely on the works of previous writers who are quite nearly as uncritically insane as he is. Ahmed Osman, who asserts that Moses was actually Akhenaten. Baigent and Leigh, the Dead Sea Scroll conspiracy cretins. Barbara Thiering. Lots and lots of Barbara Thiering. Bloodline of the Holy Grail is nothing but conspiracy-theory, second hand, mixed in with an overwhelming host of extremely bad arguments that we've already had our day with on these pages and others.
With this consideration, it is no surprise that this book -- the premise of which is that the "Holy Grail" is actually a royal bloodline, descended from David through Jesus to certain people of the present day -- is endorsed by only one person, a certain "Prince Michael of Albany". I'll give you three guesses as to who the bloodline ends up with in modern times, and you won't need two of them....and you don't need to guess that this Michael guy might be in La La Land himself. Don't let the thick bibliography fool you into thinking that this guy has done any homework: Bloodline of the Holy Grail is sensationalist trash for the National Enquirer crowd. And second-hand trash, at that!
Edited by - AhHah on 28 October 2000 3:37:43
Edited by - AhHah on 28 October 2000 3:59:52
Seven,
You asked about info on the Book of Jasher. I found the link below:
