anadi

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The Bishop of Lyons," says CE. "Irenaeus (died about 202), who had known Polycarp in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Asia Minor</st1:place>, not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, [he is the very first to mention them!] -- but argues that there must be just four, no more and no less. He says: <o:p></o:p> 'It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world. ... and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel. ... it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side<o:p></o:p> and vivifying our flesh. ... The living creatures are quadriform,<o:p></o:p> and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by our<o:p></o:p> Lord (?)"! (CE. vi, 659.) <o:p></o:p> Thus far CE. quoting Irenaeus; but one may follow the Bishop a few lines further in his ratiocinations from ancient Hebrew mythology, in proof of the divine Four:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> "For this reason were four principal covenants given to<o:p></o:p> the human race: One prior to the deluge, under Adam; the<o:p></o:p> second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the<o:p></o:p> giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which<o:p></o:p> renovates man, and sums up all things by means of the Gospel,<o:p></o:p> raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly <o:p></o:p> Kingdom. ... But that these Gospels alone are true and<o:p></o:p> reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the<o:p></o:p> aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such arguments.<o:p></o:p> For, since God made all things in due proportion and<o:p></o:p> adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the<o:p></o:p> Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. The opinion of<o:p></o:p> those men, therefore, who handed the Gospel down to us, having<o:p></o:p> been investigated, from their very fountainheads, let us<o:p></o:p> proceed also [to the remaining apostles), and inquire into<o:p></o:p> their doctrine with regard to God." (Iren. Adv. Haer. III, xi,<o:p></o:p> 8, 9; ANF. i, 428-29.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The real reason, however, for four finally "chosen" and<o:p></o:p> accepted Gospels, seem to be rather political, as stated by Reinach, after quoting Irenaeus and other authorities:<o:p></o:p> "The real reason was to satisfy each of the four principal Churches each of which possessed its Gospel: Matthew at <st1:City w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:City>, Mark at <st1:City w:st="on">Rome</st1:City>, or <st1:City w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:City>, Luke at <st1:City w:st="on">Antioch</st1:City>, and John at <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ephesus</st1:place></st1:City>." (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 217.)<o:p></o:p> This reason for the use of a different Gospel by each of the principal and independent Churches, -- for the special uses of each of which the respective Gospels were no doubt worked up by forging Fathers in each Fold, -- is confirmed by Bishop Irenaeus himself in this same argument. Each<o:p></o:p> of the four principal sects of heretics, he says, makes use in<o:p></o:p> their Churches of one or the other of these Four for its own uses,<o:p></o:p> for instance: Matthew by the Ebionites; Mark by "those who separate<o:p></o:p> Jesus from Christ"; Luke by the Marcionites; and John by the<o:p></o:p> Valentinians; and this heretical use of the Four, argues the<o:p></o:p> Bishop, confirms their like acceptance and use by the True<o:p></o:p> Churches: "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest,<o:p></o:p> that the very heretics bear witness to them, and starting from<o:p></o:p> these documents, each of them endeavors to establish his own<o:p></o:p> peculiar doctrine [citing the use by each sect of a different<o:p></o:p> Gospel as above named]. Since, then, our opponents do bear<o:p></o:p> testimony to us, and make use of these documents, our proof derived<o:p></o:p> from them is firm and true." (Iren., op. cit. sec. 7.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The "canonical Four," verily, as CE. confesses, were manufactured<o:p></o:p> precisely for the purpose of meeting and confuting the heretics, as<o:p></o:p> were the gradually developed and defined sacred dogmas of the<o:p></o:p> Orthodox Church, like that of the Trinity. </o:p></PRE>

Guest said: Christianity as a religion is not my cup of tea, but this stuff you write, I hate to say, is shoddy scholarship. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Dear Guest, You say, you don’t understand much about Christianity. But still you pretend, that what anAdi wrote, is “shoddy scholarship”. Please bring evidence for your statement.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited as CE.( fifteen volumes and published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; NewYork, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-9.) says<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> "It is indeed impossible, at the present day, to describe<o:p></o:p> the precise manner in which out of the numerous works ascribed<o:p></o:p> to some Apostle, or simply bearing the name of gospel, only<o:p></o:p> four, two of which are not ascribed to Apostles, came to be<o:p></o:p> considered as sacred and canonical. It remains true, however,<o:p></o:p> that all the early testimony which has a distinct bearing on<o:p></o:p> the number of the canonical Gospels recognizes four such<o:p></o:p> Gospels and none besides. Thus, Eusebius (d. 340) ... Clement<o:p></o:p> of Alexandria (d. about 220), ... and Tertullian (d. 220),<o:p></o:p> were familiar with our four Gospels, frequently quoting and<o:p></o:p> commenting on them." (CE. vi, 657.) <o:p></o:p> "All the early testimony" come first at the end of second and the beginning of the third century and belong to the the pavelinic sects.<o:p></o:p> Four only, is not only untrue, but it is contradicted by a true statement on the same page as the last above; it is, too, a further humiliating confession of blind and groping uncertainty with respect to the very foundation stones on which the” Infallible” Church is built. Here is the destructive admission: <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> "In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers one does not,<o:p></o:p> indeed, meet with unquestionable evidence in favor of only<o:p></o:p> four canonical gospels. ... The canonical Gospels were<o:p></o:p> regarded as of Apostolic authority, two of them being ascribed<o:p></o:p> to the Apostles St. Matthew and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>St.</st1:place> John, respectively, and<o:p></o:p> two to St. Mark and St. Luke, the respective companions of St.<o:p></o:p> Peter and <st1:City><st1:place>St. Paul</st1:place></st1:City>. Many other gospels indeed claimed<o:p></o:p> Apostolic authority, but to none of them was this claim<o:p></o:p> universally allowed in the early Church. The only apocryphal<o:p></o:p> work which was at all generally received, and relied upon, in<o:p></o:p> addition to our four canonical Gospels, is the 'Gospel<o:p></o:p> according to the Hebrews.' It is a well-known fact that St.<o:p></o:p> Jerome regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek<o:p></o:p> Canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew." (CE. vi, 657.) <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Thus, admittedly, "numerous works" of pretended and false<o:p></o:p> "gospels," some fifty, were forged and falsely "ascribed to some<o:p></o:p> apostle" by devout Christians; after a century and a half only four<o:p></o:p> "came to be considered" and were finally "chosen" -- selected -- as<o:p></o:p> of divine utterance and sanction.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> This formally happened at the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its questionable use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. <o:p></o:p> It was more an act of force, imposed by the pavelinic sects, backed up by the emperor Constantine, who was told by them, that no pagan religion offered absolution for such crimes as his. He then turned to the Christian Church (of pavelinic wing), who pretended that Christian baptism would expiate any crime, irrespective of its magnitude, and at the same time he was advised that baptism might he deferred to the day of his death without losing any of its efficacy (which is a big distorsion of the original meaning of spiritual initiation - diksha). Thus, Eusebius relates that, <o:p></o:p> When he thought that he was near his death, he confessed his sins, desiring pardon for them from God, and was baptized. So that Constantine was the first of all the Emperors to be regenerated by the new birth of baptism, and signed with the sign of the Cross. (Vita Constantin.)

Originally Posted by anadi<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> The authors of the Gospels and the other books of the so called New Testament were not Jews. Jesus and all the "Apostles" were Jews but the so called originals of all “Gospels” are written in Greek<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Reply by kalkin417<o:p></o:p> First off, to say that because they were Jews they wouldn't write in Greek show a lack of knowlede of this time period on your part. Koine, also know as biblical or common Greek, was the language of trade in the area's of the world that were once ruled by Alexander the Great.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Dear Kalkin417<o:p></o:p> As you have seen from the previous answer on this allegations, there is no evidence for the so called apostles would have preached, or as illiterate as they were, would have written in koine.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> More than that, the very way the so called gospels are made, shows that 1. their writers, were not Jews, and not addressing the Jews,<o:p></o:p> the four “gospels” were fabricated long time after the narrated stories<o:p></o:p> there were other “gospels” … in koine, in circulation before the “divine” four “gospels”, which were rejected by the church</ST1:P of <ST1:PJesus</ST1:P as fake.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>There is no flowed logic regarding the authors of the so called canonical gospels, as dully evidenced. Up to now it has been shown that the so called "apostolic gospels" are not apostolic, being a later fabrication of ... the pavelinic sect of early christians as will be later shown. If anybody has another opinion regarding the origin of the "gospels" , one should present one's evidence, so that it can be taken under scrutiny.

Even if the Apostles would speak koine, which you cannot prove, they wouldn't quote the Septuagint 300 times from 350 quotes regarding the Tanach, The Hebrew scripture, because: 1. They were not scholars. 2. The Septuagint was a later translation of some books of the Tanach, made by the christians, although the christians try your version with Alexander the Great, which is not plausible because of his 12 years short reign, of almost uninterrupted military compains which give little credibility to the introducing of the culture of the conquerer in the occupied territories (not even for modern mass media). According christian version "The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:place w:st=<st1:City w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text. The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon the so-called Letter of Aristeas. The writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from <st1:City w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:City> to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:City>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region></st1:place>. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint. The writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:City> to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are also other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and was falsified: The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud. The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The other ancient writers rely and add to this story, which makes clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet the christians persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Please read carefully the previous post, you will find more evidence that the "gospels" were not written by jews "apostles" , for the jews; were written long time after the "apostles" demised, and far away from the land of the Jews. Feel free to take any evidence presented in the previous post and demonstrate is false.

The authors of the Gospels and the other books of the so called New Testament were not Jews. Jesus and all the "Apostles" were Jews but the so called originals of all “Gospels” are written in Greek. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> “Traditionally”, Jesus and all the "Apostles" are said to be Jews and all their associates and the people of their country with whom they came into contact, were Jews. But throughout the Gospels, scores of times, "the Jews" are spoken of, always as a distinct and alien people from the writers.<o:p></o:p> A few instances only need be given; they all betray that the writers were not Jews speaking of their fellow Jews. <o:p></o:p> 1. The Greek writer of "Matthew" says: <o:p></o:p> "this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" -- <o:p></o:p> showing, too,that it was written long afterwards; a Jew must have said "among our people," or some such. <o:p></o:p> 2. It is recorded by "Mark": <o:p></o:p> "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands of it, eat not, holding to the tradition of the elders" (Mk. vii, 3); <o:p></o:p> no Jew writing for his fellow-Jews would explain or need to explain this Jewish custom, known to and practiced by "all the Jews." <o:p></o:p> 3. “Luke” names a Jew and locates geographically his place of residence:<o:p></o:p> "Joseph, of Arimathea, a city of the Jews"; <o:p></o:p> an American , speaking to another American of Hoboken, would not say "a city of the Americans" nor did Jews need to be told by a Jew that Arimathea was a "city of the Jews." <o:p></o:p> 4. The Greek priest who wrote "John" is the most prolific in<o:p></o:p> telling his Pagan readers about Jewish customs and personalities; absurd in a Jew writing for Jews: <o:p></o:p> "After the manner of the purifying of the Jews" (ii, 6); <o:p></o:p> "And the Jews' passover was at hand" (ii, 13) <o:p></o:p> "Then answered the Jews, and said unto Jesus" (iii, 1); <o:p></o:p> "Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples<o:p></o:p> [all Jews] -- and the Jews about purifying" (iii, 25); <o:p></o:p> "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus" (v, 16); <o:p></o:p> "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him" (v, 18). <o:p></o:p> More: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh" vi, 4); <o:p></o:p> no American would say to another American "the Fourth of July, a holiday of the Americans,". <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> These and many like passages prove that <o:p></o:p> 1. No Jews wrote the Gospels; 2. They were written by foreigners for foreigners; <o:p></o:p> 3. These foreigners were Greek-speaking aliens unfamiliar with Jewish customs; <o:p></o:p> The Four Gospels are thus demonstrated as: <o:p></o:p> 1. Not written by Jews; not written by any of the "Twelve Apostles"; <o:p></o:p> 2. not written nor in existence for over a century after the supposed Apostles. <o:p></o:p> 3. When finally the Gospel "according to" Luke came to be written, already, as "Luke" affirms, there were "many" other like "Apostolic Gospel"-biographies of the Christ afloat (Luke, i, 1); he added just another.<o:p></o:p>

Sorry, AnAdi will first ask for evidence regarding doubtable statements, he is not in the position to make hazardous statements. The one who says something is a third person: anAdi, not I. For a rupanuga the nature of the I is to be active in dealings related to pure love to the All Atractive Couple of Vraja The nature of the I is not to make some statements in this forum. And for anAdi .. for example the essence is not preaching, but hari-nama. But the hari-nama of anAdi is not the hari-nama of the I.

anadi said: Can you bring evidence that he wrote in any of his commentaries to his translated books, or any other books, that his books are the essence? [Airicky] Sorry, got it backwards. Prabhupada told us that preaching is the essence and books are the basis. BTW, you don't have to yell to get your point across Anadi Dear Airicky, Sorry, Anadi didn't mean to yell. He wanted to make clear, your statement need a specific correction. He said the basis are the books (meaning bhakti and especially rupanuga bhakti books) not his books. It is also true that he said some of his lazy disciples not only to distribute his books but also to read them, as Srila Rupa Gosvami advised: siddhanta balya cite na kora alas iha hoite krishna lagi suddridha manas

Can you bring evidence that he wrote in any of his commentaries to his translated books, or any other books, that his books are the essence?

The sudden appearance at a certain late date, of a previously<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> unknown document, which is then attributed to an earlier age and<o:p></o:p> long since dead writers, is one of the surest earmarks of forgery.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> According to the names "supplied" to the Four Gospels, as to<o:p></o:p> the other New Testament books, the "Apostolic" authors were all of<o:p></o:p> them Jews; the same is supposedly true of most of the now confessed<o:p></o:p> apocrypha. But all of the Gospels, the other New Testament Books,<o:p></o:p> and the forged “apocrypha”, were written in Greek. Self-evidently, the unschooled peasant Apostles, speaking a vulgar<o:p></o:p> Aramaic-Jewish dialect, could neither speak nor write Greek, -- if<o:p></o:p> they could write at all.<o:p></o:p> The Old Testament books were written<o:p></o:p> mostly in Hebrew, which at the time of the “apostles” was a "dead language," which only the priests could read; thus in the synagogues of Palestine the rolls were read in Hebrew, and then "expounded" to the hearers in their Aramaic dialect. <o:p></o:p> These Hebrew "Scriptures" had been later translated into Greek, in the famous Septuagint version.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The problem is that although the authors of the four so called Gospels were Jews, "they" should have made more references to the later greek Septuagint than to so called “Old Testament”, which is another proof that the four so called Gospels were not written by the "apostoles. The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:City w:st=<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:place w:st="on"><ST1:PChurch of <ST1:PJesus says</ST1:P</st1:place>:<o:p></o:p> "The New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the<o:p></o:p> Septuagint; out of about 350 texts from the Old Testament [in the<o:p></o:p> New], 300 favor the Greek version rather than the Hebrew." (CE. iii, 271.) <o:p></o:p> It was also the Greek Septuagint and Greek forged Oracles, that were exclusively used by the “Greek Fathers” in all the Gospel-propaganda work of the first three centuries. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Obviously, the Gospels and other New Testament booklets, written in Greek and quoting 300 times the Greek Septuagint, were written, not by illiterate Jewish peasants, but by Greek-speaking ex-“Pagan” Fathers and priests far from the Land of the Jews.<o:p></o:p>

Originally Posted by anadi Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu attacked or denounced too the Maya-vada philosophy Kalkin714 REPLIED: And he was wrong. Dear Kalkin714 He cannot be wrong, see the thread "Defending Sri Caitanya".

Originally Posted by anadi:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu attacked or denounced too the Maya-vada philosophy Reply by Kalkin714, And he was wrong. Dear Kalkin714, The Supreme Lord can never be wrong. Some persons still think that Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu never said He is the same Krishna, the Supreme Lord. In “Sri Caitanya Bhagavata” , Srila VRndAvana dAsa ThAkura relates the lila of how Advaita Acarya wanted to be treated by Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu as one of His Servants not as a superior personality and decided to teach the glories of jJAna-yoga. When Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu inquired from Advaita Prabhu, “Between bhakti and jJAna, which is superior?” Advaita Prabhu replied that jJAna was superior. On hearing this Sri Caitanya repeatedly struck Advaita’s back with His fist, and after it started to reveal that He descended just because Advaita’s prayers. An excerpt from Sri Caitanya Bhagavata, Madhya, Chapter 19.140-152. The Lord said: <ST1:P“I was sleeping in the Ocean </ST1:Pof <ST1:PMilk</ST1:P, when You, nADA (sada-shiva), woke Me to fulfil Your mission. (Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu called Advaita acarya sometimes nADA.) You brought Me to reveal bhakti, but now You are covering bhakti with Your explanation on jJAna. If Your intention was to cover bhakti, then why did You have Me to descend (into this world). I never frustrate Your resolve, but You always deceive Me. After releasing Advaita, the Lord sat down at the doorway and began to loudly reveal His own glories. O nADA it was I (Sri kRSNa) who killed kaMsa. You know everything, don’t You? BrahmA, ziva, zeSa and laxmi, all engage in My service. The cunning impostor vAsudeva was killed by My (Sri kRSNa’s) chakra. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:place w:st=Krishna</st1:place>, the Supreme Lord. In “Sri Caitanya Bhagavata” , Srila VRndAvana dAsa ThAkura relates the lila of how Advaita Acarya wanted to be treated by Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu as one of His Servants not as a superior personality and decided to teach the glories of jJAna-yoga. When Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu inquired from Advaita Prabhu, “Between bhakti and jJAna, which is superior?” Advaita Prabhu replied that jJAna was superior. On hearing this Sri Caitanya repeatedly struck Advaita’s back with His fist, and after it started to reveal that He descended just because Advaita’s prayers. An excerpt from Sri Caitanya Bhagavata, Madhya, Chapter 19.140-152. The Lord said: “I was sleeping in the <st1:place w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">vArANasI</st1:place></st1:City> was completely burned by My chakra, and the mighty rAvaNa was killed by My arrow. My cakra cut off the arms of bANAsura, and My cakra destroyed narakAsura. It was I (Sri kRSNa) who held up Govardana Hill with My left hand, and it was I who brought the pArijAta flower from heaven. I deceived <st1:place w:st="on">Bali</st1:place> and then bestowed mercy on him. It was I who killed HiraNyakazipu to save PrahlAda. In this way the Lord revealed His opulences, and Advaita floated in an ocean of ecstatic love while listening. Advaita was filled with ecstasy after receiving His punishment. He clapped His hands and danced in humility.”

The first mention of the names or titles, as of the "Gospels", was not until about 185 A.D., when the "Gospels according to" appear in ecclesiastical literature, and thereupon began their career in the current use of the Churches, and therefore, evidently, then first came into existence. <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p< b> <O:p< p> The only pretext whereby generations of men should be persuaded or compelled to accept and believe the Gospels (as well as the other N.T. books), except the threat "he that believeth not shall be damned," is that these books should have been written by immediate companions and apostles of the Christ, faithful eye-witnesses to his work and word, commanded and inspired to write the biographies of the Christ.<O:p< O:p< p> This is explicitly the teaching and dogma of the Church, which states that "certain indubitable marks" must be known to ascertain true Apostolic authenticity, essential to validity and credence, "For the primitive Church, evangelical character was the test of Scriptural sacredness. But to guarantee this character it was necessary that a book should be known as composed by the official witnesses and organs of the Evangel; hence to certify the Apostolic authorship, or at least sanction, of a work purporting to contain the Gospel of Christ." (CE. iii, 274.)<O:p< O:p< p> <O:p< p>Three centuries later Bishop Eusebius in his Church History relates that Peter preached orally in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:City w:st=<st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:City>, Mark being his "disciple" and companion, but he brings no evidence for his allegations. <O:p< O:p< b> He just pretends, in two different and contradictory versions, that people wanted a written record of Peter's preachments, and (probably because Peter couldn't write), they importuned Mark to write down "that history which is called the Gospel known as the one according to Mark".<O:p< O:p< p> <O:p< p> Both versions related in his Church History, three centuries later, join in declaring that the "Gospel according to Mark" was publicly given to the Churches, , just before or after the death of Peter, 64-67 A.D., but without presenting any evidence for it.<O:p< O:p< p> This allegation of Eusebius is false because:<O:p< O:p< p> </O:p<> <O:p< O:p< p></O:p<> <O:p< O:p< p>1. The great Pope Clement I (died about 97 A.D.), first-to-fourth "successor" to Pope Peter, knew nothing of his great Predecessor's "Gospel according to Mark"; for, admits the CE.: "The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels." (CE. iv, 14.) 2. No other Pope, Bishop or Father for nearly a century after "Pope Clement," ever mentions or quotes a Gospel, or names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. <O:p< O:p< p> So for a century and a half – until the books “bobbed up” in the hands of Bishop St. Irenaeus and were tagged as "Gospels according to" this or that Apostle, there exists not a word of them in all the tiresome tomes of the Fathers. <O:p< O:p< p> <O:p< p> It is quite impossible that the "Apostolic authorship" and hence "canonicity" or divine inspiration of the Sacred Four Gospels should have remained, for a century and a half, unknown and unsuspected by every Church, Father, Pope and Bishop of Christendom -- if existent.<O:p< p> Hear this notable admission: "It was not until about <O:p< font O:p<>the middle of the second century that under the rubric of Scripture <O:p< font O:p< <O:p< iii, (CE. Old?! the to assimilated were writings Testament New O:pthe>275), -- that is, became regarded as apostolic, sacred, inspired and canonical, -- or "Scriptures."<O:p< O:p< p> Altough the allegations of bishop Eusebius written some 300 years later are false, they are still used by the Church as evidence for the way the four Gospels came into being, pretending they have a divine origin. </O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<>

kalkin714 said: <O:p</O:p <O:p ... this is just an attack on Christianity with the pretense of something more noble. And a pretty transparent one at that! <O:p</O:p <O:p Dear kalkin714, <O:p</O:p <O:p Showing the truth about the way false doctrine about spirituality came into being, can be interpreted as an attack, or a denunciation. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu attacked or denounced too the Maya-vada philosophy.<O:p</O:p <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

ddi said The Personality of Godhead said: Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy! (4.05) Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form. (4.06) ========================== Why lord compares His number of births as of Arjuna. Dear ddi, In this two verses (BG 4.5-6) Sri Krishna points on some aspects: of the soul of the Supreme Soul. <O:pFirst (BG 4.5) Sri Krishna delineates similarities of the Soul and The Supreme Soul: - both the soul and the Supreme Soul come into this world. This is a very important information. - Their appearance in the world happens repeatedly but not in the same way. And than he points out one first difference regarding the appearance of the soul and the Supreme Soul in this world: - the soul is in illusion, under the spell of illusory energy, and she is afflicted by forgetfulness. - the Supreme Soul is not under the grip of the illusory energy, He knows everything at all times. <O:p In the second verse BG 4.6 Sri Krishna wants to delineate another huge difference - He is never born and as such - His body is always transcendental, when He comes in this world - He doesn’t say the same about the body of his eternal devotee Arjuna the same (when His devotees come into this world they don't have a transcendental body – if anybody has any shastric evidence for the contrary is pleased to post it). <O:p PS In the BG 4.6 there is no word that could be translated as millennium. This might come only in a related commentary, not in the translation.

Statement: in Bhagavad gita.....ABANDON ALL RELIGIONS AND SERVE My LORD KRISHNA Reply: When Sri Krishna said to Arjuna "sarva dharmam paritiaja" He meant that Arjuna should discard any dharma, namely any occupational duty as described in the vedic shastra, (not religions in the sense used nowadays, which might be confusing for the western readers). As one knows from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.13, the highest perfection can be achieved by discharging the duties prescribed for one's own occupation according to caste divisions and orders of life, by which the Supreme Personality, Sri Hari is pleased. ataḥ pumbhir dvija-śreṣṭhā / varṇāśrama-vibhāgaśaḥ svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya / saḿsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.13) This type of perfection was confuted by Sri Krishna Caitanya as being external. The matter of fact Sri Krishna says in the beginning of His gita, that Arjuna should act according the karmic rules, namely following his occupational duty, namely his ksatriya dharma, without attachment to success or failure, perfectly equipoised, than this is called yoga yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi / sańgaḿ tyaktvā dhanañjaya siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā / samatvaḿ yoga ucyate (Bg. 2.48) Later Sri Krishna is giving instruction on the (third) higher type of perfection as in the verse from Bg. 18.66, sarva dharmam paritiaja / mam ekam sharanam vraja aham tvaM sarva pabebyo/ mokshay-shiami ma sucha Where He says Arjuna should renounce any dharma related to the world, he should follow jaiva dharma, the innate occupational duty of the soul - acting in divine love: bhakti, and He touches the beginning of the process, namely sharanagati - full surrender - mam ekam sharanam vraja.

Dear kalkin714, This thread is not intending to show, that power corrupts, but the implications of that corruption.

The present titles of "the Four Gospels" are not original but given to them by some unknown writers. The present clerical position, seeking to save the works, is that, like the Acts of the Apostles, "the name was subsequently attached to the book, just as the headings of the several Gospels were affixed to them." (CE. i, 117.) More particularly speaking of the Gospel titles, the same authority says: "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Gospel According to [Gr. kata] Matthew, According to Mark, etc.) which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. ... That, however,<O:p</O:p they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or<O:p</O:p at least that they are not original, is a position generally held<O:p</O:p at the present day. ... It thus appears that the titles of the<O:p</O:p Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves." (CE. vi,<O:p</O:p 655, 656.) <O:p</O:p The very fact that the late second century Gospel-titles are of Gospels "according to" this or that alleged apostle, rather than "The Gospel of Mark" etc., is itself confession and plenary proof that "Mark," et als., were not -- and were not intended to be represented as -- the real authors of those "according to" Gospels.<O:p</O:p The form of the titles to the Epistles -- also later tagged to them, -- as "The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans," etc. makes this clear and convincing, that no Apostles wrote the "according to" Gospel-biographies of the Christ.<O:p</O:p <O:p Here we have, by clearest inference, an admission that the Gospels were not written by Apostles or their contemporaries. These titles "do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings; ... do not go back to the first century; ... are not original; ... are not traceable to the<O:p</O:p Evangelists." <O:p</O:p <O:p All the flood of forged and spurious gospels, epistles, acts and revelations -- "the apocryphal and pseudo-Biblical writings with which the East especially had been flooded" (CE. iii, 272), bore the names of the pretended writers, from the false Books of Adam and Enoch to the forged "Gospel of Jesus Christ" and the "Apocalypse of St. Peter." <O:p But the authentic and true Gospels of the genuine Apostles of Messiah (simple un-schooled people), must have been nameless and dateless scraps of papyrus! Imagine the great Fathers and Bishops of the Churches, rising in their pulpits before the gaping Faithful; taking up an anonymous roll of manuscript, and announcing: "Our lesson today is from, (ahem!) one of the wonderful Gospels of our Lord and Savior; but, (ahem!) I don't really know which one… the writer forgot to sign or insert his name. <O:p PS There are many web sites, these informations are available, but usually in a more sarcastic tone.

Kalkin714 said:<O:p</O:p <O:p well it's no big secret that the Roman church-state and their version of "revealed" scriptures is a load.<O:p</O:p <O:p Dear kalkin 714,<O:p</O:p If one makes some statements, one should prove them.<O:p</O:p This thread is for that person, who wants to have some evidence for such, not quite elegant, statements as yours. This thread is not intended to hurt someone's feelings. One sould keep a moderate tone, and bring one's evidence to clarify the point. The truth .... must be proved, and the lie shouldn't spread in the name of truth.

AnAdi said:<O:p</O:p you didn't prove that whatever anadi had posted up to now is false. You just speak in slogans, no replies to the actual facts. <O:p</O:p <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->gHari said:<O:p</O:p How about prove true?<O:p</O:p <O:p Dear gHari,<O:p</O:p Than<O:p</O:p One has solid evidence regarding the falsity which is called truth.<O:p</O:p One's capacity to distinguish, namely one’s intelligence gets sharper<O:p</O:p One can understand how was possible that fake doctrines replaced fundamental Vedic Truths.<O:p</O:p

qhari said: Let's Quote From the Anti-Vedic Anti-Hindu Sites Also dear qhari, feel free to quote whatever you like, and anadi will take his time to analise it, if it is true or not. you didn't prove that whatever anadi had posted up to now is false. You just speak in slogans, no replies to the actual facts.

Bishop Victor of Tunnunum, who died about 569 A.D. and whose work, says The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited as CE., ( fifteen volumes and<O:p</O:pindex, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; New <O:pYork, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-9.)] , "is of great historical value," says that in the fifth century, "In the consulship of Messala, at the command of the Emperor Anastasius, the Holy Gospels, as written Idiotis Evangelists, are corrected and amended." (Victor of T., Chronica, p. 89-90; cited by Dr. Mills, Prolegom. to R.V., p. 98.) This would indicate some very substantial tinkering with Holy Writ; which process was a continuing one, for, says CE., "Under Sixtus V (1585- 90) and Clement VIII (1592-1605) the Latin Vulgate after years of revision attained its present shape." (CE., xii, 769.) And the Vulgate, which was fiercely denounced as fearfully corrupt, was only given sanction of divinity by the Council of Trent in 1546, under the Curse of God against any who questioned it. Though this amendatory tinkering of their two Holinesses was after the Council of Trent had put the final Seal of the Holy Ghost on the Vulgate in 1546! The ancient clerical trick of tempering with the "Word of God" and amending its plenary Divine Inspiration and Inerrancy, goes on apace today, even to the extent of putting a veneer of civilization on the Hebrew God, and warping his own words so as to make a semblance of a "God of Mercy" out of the self-styled "Jealous God" of Holy Writ. In 1902, after the sacred Council of Trent, in 1546, had put the Curse of God on any further tinkering with the Inerrant Bible, His Holiness Leo XIII appointed a Commission of Cardinals, known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to further amend Divine Inspiration; in 1907, "the Commission, with the approval of the sovereign pontiff, invited the Benedictine Order to undertake a collection of the variant readings of the Latin Vulgate as a remote preparation for a thoroughly amended edition." (CE. ii, 557.) This august body has laid before His Holiness, after all these years of labor, the revised text of the revelations of Moses in the Book of Genesis; and is now worrying with Exodus and the "Ten Commandments" in chapter XX thereof. Associated Press dispatches, relate that "the Vatican's International Commission on the revision of the Bible [is] taking steps to correct one of the most famous Biblical passages, Exodus xx, 5, now believed to have been mistranslated"! (N.Y. Times, May 18, 1930.) The actual text, and "what the Vatican Commission thinks it should read," are here quoted so that all may judge how small changes can give an absolute different meaning to the text; -- the material tampering being indicated by italics. Exodus xx, 5 -- as is. "For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of then that hate me"; ... Ditto -- as falsified. "For I, the Lord thy God, am a God of loving-kindness and mercy, considering the errors of the fathers as mitigating circumstances in judging the children unto the third and fourth generation"! But the two simple Hebrew words chiefly involved make this "correction" ridiculous and impossible. In Hebrew, Yahweh says from Sinai: "Anoki yahweh elohe-ka EL QANNA -- I Yahweh thy God [am a] Jealous God." The only false translation in this verse is "Lord thy God" for the 6,000-times falsified "Yahweh thy God,". Always "qanna" means "jealous' -- and is used of the "jealous god," husband, wife, etc.

qhari said: Then we can turn this thread into a true pilgrimage for crows, instead of a monument to one man's pain. dear qhari, if this is your way to see the thread "Scriptures under scrutiny", please don't read it anymore. One should know, what one is putting one’s confidence in, because confidence is the fundament of any endeavor, Anyway, anyone endeavors according one’s qualification. So … we are called to qualifiy.

The answer had been already given. http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/showthread.php?p=310603#post310603

qhari said: No one will impress their brother-in-law by denouncing the Christian acarya or scripture. That will only convince him that Vaisnavism is not The Way, and is truly evil. Dear qhari feel comfortable to read it again: To understand any system of religion, of any sect or creed, one should go deep and investigate how came into being the books, that religion relies on, i.e. who are their authors, and possible borowed influences. According to the vedic standard a book can convey the spiritual knowledge, if its author, had spiritual realisation of the spiritual reality (conection with the Lord, a process to attain a relation with the Lord, attainment of the described ultimate goal). One should know, what one is putting one’s confidence in, because confidence is the fundament of any endeavor, which doesn’t mean that any endeavor, may be the proper one. Anyway, anyone endeavors according one’s qualification. So … we are called to qualifiy. <!-- sig -->