"Gospel" of the Holy 12 - the "other" new testament.

[DeeDee]

Greetings to all my brothers and sisters  :icon_flower:
Today I found something very interesting online. It is called the Gospel of the Holy 12 and I read quite a bit of it, finding it very interesting. Interestingly is seems to only talk of the so called unpardonable sin once (unless I read it wrong, pls let me know once you have read it) and it seems to simply be resisting the light of God for the false traditions of men. Like I said I don't know if I am reading this all right and I don't even know if these are real doctrines / gospel writings. Another interesting thing is that the so called "hidden gospel" (Gospel of the Holy 12) doesn't even seem to hint at hell. It could be another thing I am not reading correctly. It is translated from original Aramaic and the parts I read are beautiful.

Here is some background info on it
http://www.thenazareneway.com/legend_of_the_lost_gospel.htm

and here is the gospel itself (01 thru 96)
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm

Can't wait for you feedback

BLessings
DeeDee

[DeeDee]

Has anyone had a chance to read that website yet? Does it seem real or fake to you?
I like it alot because Jesus is extremely animal compassionate in those "scriptures".
It's really not a long document to be read, its basically points one to ninety six.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm

Blessings
DeeDee

[firstborn888]

I read some of it. It has Joseph fathering Jesus (actually fathering Jesu-Maria???) and Mary being blessed because the "Mother of God is with thee" (I thought in Catholicism Mary IS the "mother of God"???) so I do understand the phrase, but who the heck is the 'Mother of God' who was w/Mary? 

Then - Jesus gets married at age 18 but then his wife dies 7 years later ('taken' by God) so Jesus can do 'higher' things'.

I think it sounds a bit strange for sure.

But so do a lot of 'regular' scriptures  :laughing7:

I wish the animal part was real - I don't/won't kill or eat them.

[DeeDee]

I read some of it. It has Joseph fathering Jesus (actually fathering Jesu-Maria???) and Mary being blessed because the "Mother of God is with thee" (I thought in Catholicism Mary IS the "mother of God"???) so I do understand the phrase, but who the heck is the 'Mother of God' who was w/Mary?

Okay, that part gets me 2. No idea what they are talking about either.

Then - Jesus gets married at age 18 but then his wife dies 7 years later ('taken' by God) so Jesus can do 'higher' things'.

I think it sounds a bit strange for sure.

But so do a lot of 'regular' scriptures

I thought I read that part wrong, glad you saw it too.  :laughing7:

I wish the animal part was real - I don't/won't kill or eat them.

THATS one of the parts I love! To be honest the only people in this world that I would ever wish a very lengthy condemnation and purification time out toward are those who hurt animals.

All in all you must admit this is a very interesting piece of "literature"

Blessings
Dee

[firstborn888]

THATS one of the parts I love! To be honest the only people in this world that I would ever wish a very lengthy condemnation and purification time out toward are those who hurt animals.

And to this agree the 'regular' scriptures:

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel".

Proverbs 12:10

[DeeDee]

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel".

Proverbs 12:10

Ain't that the truth. Tell me, when you briefly read thru this "gospel" did you find any mention of "hell"?

[firstborn888]

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel".

Proverbs 12:10

Ain't that the truth. Tell me, when you briefly read thru this "gospel" did you find any mention of "hell"?

Didn't get that far. Maybe hell is just for those who don't believe Jesus was married for 7 years  :Sparkletooth:

[DeeDee]

Didn't get that far. Maybe hell is just for those who don't believe Jesus was married for 7 years

Ya, I have to admit that piece of literature does make some very bold claims, but all in all you have to admit it was so beautifully written and put forward (the whole thing). Pls let me know if u read further - curious in what else you see and find.

Blessings
DeeDee

[Nancy]

Hi there DeeDee,
I actually have this book in my collection.
It mentions vegetarianism if i'm not mistaken, i'm not one, so it unnerves me.
It also mentions reincarnation.
It is a very interesting version of the gospel to be sure.
Godbless
Nancy

[martincisneros]

Someone left me a voice mail about this thread, so I thought I'd briefly chime in, although this is the busiest day of my life.  I had an edition of it that claimed it was channeled by a few psychics.  But there's also a version of it that was allegedly found with the Dead Sea Scrolls and I'm thinking Milik is supposed to have translated it.  I was ready to totally blow off the psychic version of it, but the version of it known as "the Gospel of the Perfect Life" and by a couple of other names claims 1st or 2nd century authority.  It's a possible interpolation (in my humble opinion) with the miraculous/cultic life of Pythagoras, just like when the Apostle Thomas used the Krishna myth in writing the Gita in the 1st century.  This gets into really controversial things that aren't appropriate to get into on this board with much depth.  I feel better about it than about 1Enoch.  All I'll say further about it, because of all of the so-called questionable parts that I can prove by the established canon of Scripture through the Hosea 2:18 covenant and dozens of other Scriptures that I've been teaching for years is: :cloud9:

[DeeDee]

Someone left me a voice mail about this thread, so I thought I'd briefly chime in, although this is the busiest day of my life.  I had an edition of it that claimed it was channeled by a few psychics.  But there's also a version of it that was allegedly found with the Dead Sea Scrolls and I'm thinking Milik is supposed to have translated it.  I was ready to totally blow off the psychic version of it, but the version of it known as "the Gospel of the Perfect Life" and by a couple of other names claims 1st or 2nd century authority.  It's a possible interpolation (in my humble opinion) with the miraculous/cultic life of Pythagoras, just like when the Apostle Thomas used the Krishna myth in writing the Gita in the 1st century.  This gets into really controversial things that aren't appropriate to get into on this board with much depth.  I feel better about it than about 1Enoch.  All I'll say further about it, because of all of the so-called questionable parts that I can prove by the established canon of Scripture through the Hosea 2:18 covenant and dozens of other Scriptures that I've been teaching for years is: :cloud9:

So you think that part of it are true gospel parts? I just liked reading it because I love literature etc. that shows Jesus in a personal light. I loved the part about him saving the stray cat.

[Davo22]

Hello Deebee. There is an article you need to read entitled "Strange new gospels. Here is the link: http://compassionatespirit.com/strange_new_gospels.htm

[Davo22]

I see that Martin has covered what I was going to say about the authorship. But there is a place it speaks of eternal perishing, and I'll quote it for you.

"This is the new Law unto the Israel of God, and the Law is within, for it is the Law of Love, and it is not new but old. Take heed that ye add nothing to this law, neither take anything from it. Verily I say unto you, they who believe and obey this law shall be saved, and they who know and obey it not, shall be lost.
But as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive. And the disobedient shall be purged through many fires; and they who persist shall descend and shall perish eternally."

[martincisneros]

I'm willing to bet that if it is the long lost "Gospel of the Perfect Life" that's mentioned throughout early Christian writings that that "eternally" is either a textual corruption OR Gr: "aion," Heb: "olam," or Ar: "olim."  A lot of the earliest writings that aren't officially considered inspired tend to keep it truthful until there's a Latin version of it, and even then there's scholarly reason to question that eternus meant the modern idea of unending in the absolute strictest sense.

[DeeDee]

I'm willing to bet that if it is the long lost "Gospel of the Perfect Life" that's mentioned throughout early Christian writings that that "eternally" is either a textual corruption OR Gr: "aion," Heb: "olam," or Ar: "olim."  A lot of the earliest writings that aren't officially considered inspired tend to keep it truthful until there's a Latin version of it, and even then there's scholarly reason to question that eternus meant the modern idea of unending in the absolute strictest sense.

That is why I am looking into the early so called gospels, to see if they spoke of things like hell and eternal etc.

[DeeDee]

I see that Martin has covered what I was going to say about the authorship. But there is a place it speaks of eternal perishing, and I'll quote it for you.

"This is the new Law unto the Israel of God, and the Law is within, for it is the Law of Love, and it is not new but old. Take heed that ye add nothing to this law, neither take anything from it. Verily I say unto you, they who believe and obey this law shall be saved, and they who know and obey it not, shall be lost.
But as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive. And the disobedient shall be purged through many fires; and they who persist shall descend and shall perish eternally.

The last few lines would suggest something like even the "unsaved" will be given a chance to be saved but if they resist then they will perish for eternity. Interesting. Hmmm. But since it isn't a canon gospel one should not take it to heart. I said before that i read these "other" gospels to look for talk of Hell and words like eternity, lol and you found one of the dreaded "eternally" words (wonder if it was indeed another translation error). These other "gospels" give me an idea of where all the writers heads and hearts were those years i.e an idea of the popular writing styles and sayings. I am constantly looking for new ways to strengthen the plight of universalism and to weaken the plight of ET. I  am so tired of people being terrorized and tortured mentally and it makes me very sad too when I see people getting sick as a result of ET. These other gospels are just interesting at best and not something I take as being complete truths.

Blessings
DeeDee

[firstborn888]

I am constantly looking for new ways to strengthen the plight of universalism and to weaken the plight of ET. I  am so tired of people being terrorized and tortured mentally and it makes me very sad too when I see people getting sick as a result of ET.

One of the strongest thongs I see is no mention in Genesis 3 (penalty for sin spelled out) or in all the law about ET. Powerful case. Not to mention no original warning, only a "You will surely die". This life and death is tough to deal with - no doubt but that's still very very far from ET  :thumbsup:

[firstborn888]

No Other Gospel

"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" - Galatians 1:6-9

Here's another great example of people messing with translation to fit their doctrine (nothing to do with the intention of your post Brian, I'm just using it because it was handy). Here the word 'anathema' which means 'cursed' is translated 'eternally condemned'.

Wow.

[DeeDee]

No Other Gospel

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" - Galatians 1:6-9

? Brian ? Where am I turning to different gospels? Did you not read what I said in my post above? Honestly tho, there are so many "gospels" that the church fathers did not include in the bible. I just find it interesting to see what they were. I am not preaching it. I am discussing it. Was your post meant as an attack on me?  :dontknow:

[firstborn888]

? Brian ? Where am I turning to different gospels? Did you not read what I said in my post above? Honestly tho, there are so many "gospels" that the church fathers did not include in the bible. I just find it interesting to see what they were. I am not preaching it. I am discussing it. Was your post meant as an attack on me?  :dontknow:

Amazingly, Paul barely ever refers to the 4 gospels or hardly ever quotes Jesus.

Comments?

[martincisneros]

Paul was either quoting other Gospel material not in existance today, or was often quoting it the way that he remembered it, or was taking great liberty in paraphrasing to suit it to his gentile audiences.  I can find allusions in Paul's writings to what we'd consider the 4 Gospels, and I can decode where specifically there's something reminiscent of what Jesus said, but perhaps there was a bit of creative writing going on.  He always claimed he got his stuff STRAIGHT FROM Lord Jesus.  Yet his communion passage in 1Corinthians 11 is more recognizeable when trying to harmonize it with the Gospels.  Perhaps it was one of the most often quoted passages from Jesus since they received Bread daily and from house to house in Acts.

[DeeDee]

Amazingly, Paul barely ever refers to the 4 gospels or hardly ever quotes Jesus.

Comments?

It could be that Paul never referred to the gospels for many reasons. Here are my theories;

1. The gospels might have been unknown to Paul at the time or he might have realised that there were many gospels (maybe alot more then four, remember the church decided which gospels form part of the canon) and he was not sure as to which to refer to or there were too many to address.

As to why Paul hardly quotes Jesus, he might have thought that the gospels handled that part.... hmmmmm....... Firstborn these are actually very interesting questions.

[DeeDee]

If I were to attack anyone for posting unorthodox material here, I'd have to attack virtually everyone, and be a complete and total hypocrite in doing so
I may Scripturally "attack" or challenge certain literature, doctrines etc.. But I'd never attack the person who posted or commented on something someone else came up with – especially you, dear sister 

Ahhhh, I love you 2 dear brother!  :HeartThrob: