B. H. Manners

I know. Christian apologists have a concience "seared as if with a hot iron" and love to lie for Jesus. I think 1/2 of them are fools for believing the other 1/2 who are willful liars.

I qoute from the Book of BH:

"It is easier for a preacher to pass through the ass of a camel than for a Christian to come to reason."

"Where there is a large profit to be made, there the revelation of god will become more common."

"The first clergyman was the first rogue who met the first fool." I admit, I borrowed that one from Voltaire.

Answerer

Well Bede, apparently you have not given me the chance to trust you in the first place. Surely, you can't expect me a stranger to trust in everything that you said instantly.
Vok, actually I had read that book before although not entirely. If the dead sea scroll deception is suggested by a few maniacs I would have dispelled the whole thing as mere fiction but the problem is, it isn't. Indeed there was a bunch of professionals(including christians) who strongly disagree with the credibility of translated DSS especially the copper scroll. Obviously, I don't think everyone of them are jealous freaks unless someone show me facts.
Emur, I'm curious to the reasons of which you distrust your own fellow christians.

emur

Hi Answerer,

When I was an evangelical minister, I found the ministry to be cutthroat and ruthless. People in the pew who didn't agree with me would gossip and slander me because my "doctrine wasn't right". Leaders also expected me to toe the "doctrine and practice" line or else.

As an example, in one church I had a group of people leave because I wasn't Calvinist enough for them. There was no concern for how this would affect the church nor was their any concern as to the truth or falsehood of their accusations. And of course I received several letters "in love" calling me a heretic and such tripe. Tolerate nothing but the "true" doctrine was their only interest.

In another church I was helping a friend of mine whose husband was abusive to her. The husband got the association's director involved and I was told by the director to have no further contact with my friend. It was all about image you see. Of course I refused and was given no choice but to leave the association. Had I stayed, I would have been skewered for not caring about "appearances". This director had even collaborated with the husband, and when I confronted him with irrefutable proof, he denied it.

I have more experiences, but I hope I have made my point. For many Christians, doctrine and image come first. Things like compassion and truth are secondary at best.

Consider also the priest sex abuse scandels now rocking the Catholic church. What was the pattern? Obfuscate and protect the image. Doctrine and image were more important than the children being abused. Sickening.

So for me, it is no stretch at all to believe that the international team in charge of the DSS would suppress certain scrolls that would potentially damage church doctrine and beliefs. And I believe Baigent and Leigh have made a good case on that issue.

Mel

Hugo Holbling

The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail was debunked by Robert Richardson in a little booklet called The Unknown Treasure: The Priory Of Sion Fraud. An abridgement was published originally in Gnosis, which you can find <a href="http://www.jungcircle.com/muse/mason.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. I got my copy of the booklet from Todd Pratum, as the link suggests.

The moral of the story appears to be that the scholarship of Baigent, et al, is very questionable at best...

emur

Hi,

Several have mentioned that Baigent and Leigh are unreliable, their scholarship questionable, etc.

Does this mean that they misquote information, deliberately lie, or attribute sources incorrectly? Or does it mean that their theories are considered by other scholars as on the fringe?

Is Robert Eisenmann also a fringe scholar, and if so why? Baigent and Leigh rely heavily upon him for their theories regarding a later dating of the scrolls and the relationship of the scrolls to the NT. If he is not fringe, then did they misrepresent his views or theories in any way?

Does "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" mean they are so bad that they cannot be trusted in anything they write?

In "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" I do believe that their views on James as the Teacher of Righteousness, Ananas as the wicked priest, and Paul as the man of the lie are out there. It certainly requires a later dating of the scrolls that I am not convinced of.

I take each book I read on its own merits. Unpopular or unaccepted theories don't bother me too much. I read them and accept or reject them based on their own merits. I tend not to rely on what "authorities" say, just because they say it. That is one of the things that got me in trouble within evangelicalism.

If Baigent and Leigh have their facts wrong in "Deception" I will certainly question any conclusions that I have arrived at based on them. But when it comes to taking several pieces of information and bringing them together, I believe it is best for the individual reader to decide whether that connection is legitmate or not.

I'm really am not trying to be a pain. I sincerely want to know the truth.

Thanks.

Mel

Hugo Holbling

emur:

I sent you a PM.