A Must Read

[ReturntoGod]

For anyone interested in what is about to happen in the world
and in major events which are about to usher in the end of
all ends, this is a must read: http://www.maxkol.org/tchap01.htm


S
www.calltochrist.com

 

[venray]

Scott, old friend..Might I suggest that you read and study the Bible in it's entirety before believing what you read in articles written
by modern man.🙂


Ven

 

[Prime]

Just my luck

The end of the world will probably come before i get to see the next Lord of the Rings movie. Drats....


even the bible may not be totally reliable..its my last wish to make anyone mad over religion..everyone needs a focal point to base things on and guidelines to live within. its great to believe in something..but its my belief that the bible is'nt totally accurate.. its been rewriten and translated into so many languages over time that it has bound to have been altered from the original..especially since some of the languages that it was translated from did'nt even have words that were the same as the original translation. just my thoughts...i have no intention of replying to this thread agian so hopefully this doesnt offend anyone. i'm going back to my first instinct..avoid religious threads at all costs..lol

 

[kurchatovium]

You know Prime that was post 666. Not a good omen for us I think.🙂

 

[BigJim]

Psycho old friend, it's nice to know you're still there.

The only ones who will be swept away by a flood of fire are those who are consumed with anger, guilt, greed and self doubt. WE are God. Every human soul is a splinter of the Holy Spirit, or the "Oversoul." We have the power to shape our own destiny and the only reason to fear what will happen to each of us individually,is because we are afraid of the emotions that wrack our insides. If our soul is open to all possibilities and we accept all with love and no hatred of difference, then there is nothing to fear. The only fire that can consume an individual soul, is the fire that is created by that soul.
If you're afraid Scott, let go of your fear. If there is something about yourself that made you afraid or angry, let go of your hatred. Our focus determines our reality and all realities here are created by us, according to what we think and feel. Spirituality is the finest thing there is, but when it constrains the soul by inflicting guilt and misery upon the self, it isn't doing the work of "God." It's doing the work of whoever created the framework that snared you and that sort of thing was never invented for higher motives.

Salvation can come without guilt and fear. True salvation comes from that feeling in your heart when you know that you put more good into the world than bad. That is when we are at peace..................

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i've decided to shut up...

...and stay out of this one.
aren't you all glad? lol
steve

 

[red indian]

Sorry BJ but...........

Coming from a Policeman, that kind of stuff sounds, well, weird.

 

[WallStreet]

When someone who is weird finds something to be weird, that makes it EXTRA weird.

 

[kurchatovium]

I think I like BigJim's read on this for the most part.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Sorry BJ but...........

Coming from a Policeman, that kind of stuff sounds, well, weird.

I can be as practical as the next man in every day situations, but if you'd seen some of the shit I have and if you'd been through some of the trauma I have, you'd go looking for answers somewhere else.

If I'd been talking to anyone except Scott, I would've said,

"Stop scaring youself shitless and focus on the positive things in the world, if you want to change the bad things for the better."

Same message, different wavelength yeah?

 

[red indian]

Ah!!!.........

Now that I understand!!!

 

[omega]

Just my luck

The end of the world will probably come before i get to see the next Lord of the Rings movie. Drats....


even the bible may not be totally reliable..its my last wish to make anyone mad over religion..everyone needs a focal point to base things on and guidelines to live within. its great to believe in something..but its my belief that the bible is'nt totally accurate.. its been rewriten and translated into so many languages over time that it has bound to have been altered from the original..especially since some of the languages that it was translated from did'nt even have words that were the same as the original translation. just my thoughts...i have no intention of replying to this thread agian so hopefully this doesnt offend anyone. i'm going back to my first instinct..avoid religious threads at all costs..lol

No offense taken.

I just want to point out that as older and older manuscripts of the Bible have been found, scholars have found that the oldest manuscripts agree with our modern translations such as King James, New International Version, New Amercian Standard, and many others. The process of translating and transcripting has been amazingly accurate.

 

[dig dug dog]

Dear omega,

With all due respect, your comment about "older manuscripts agreeing with modern translations" is puzzling. Are you saying that you are aware of older manuscripts being recently discovered that are different from newer manuscripts? What language(s) are these older manuscripts in? Could you give more detail about what you are referring to here?

One thing is for certain: if you want to begin to really understand the Bible, you must study Hebrew.

ddd

 

[Deleted member 2452]

translations

i really wasn't going to respond to this, but now feel i must.
i have read just the opposite of one of the other posters.
the moden translations are far different from the original.
sorry omega.
and you are correct ddd.
the old testament was wrten in sandscrit, then translated to hebrew, etc. the new testament was writen in hebrew first. one example of where the greeks screwed up the translation of the new testament; in hebrew mary was "a young woman" the greeks translated that to "virgin". i don't mean to piss anyone off, or to ruin anyones' day but it is important to know the truth.
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: translations

i really wasn't going to respond to this, but now feel i must.
i have read just the opposite of one of the other posters.
the moden translations are far different from the original.
sorry omega.
and you are correct ddd.
the old testament was wrten in sandscrit, then translated to hebrew, etc. the new testament was writen in hebrew first. one example of where the greeks screwed up the translation of the new testament; in hebrew mary was "a young woman" the greeks translated that to "virgin". i don't mean to piss anyone off, or to ruin anyones' day but it is important to know the truth.
steve

I heard something abut that oddly enoug, but it included something about latin, which I presume came in between the two translations.
Apparently the text used the word "virgo" to describe Mary. This means young woman as you mentioned reenactor. If she had have been a virgi, it would have read, "virgo intacta."
Personally I think the bible and all it's alternate versions are a giant alllegory. Everything in there symbolises something, but is not a true historical representation. The character called Jesus for example. The singlemost important mortal man (well, nearly mortal) in western history. He lived at a time when there was a civillisation that ruled the known earth that easilly the equal of the earlier ancient Egyptians or Greeks. The Romans left behind massive archives, pieces of art, burial sites etc etc etc. Their society was SO prevalent that just about every year of it can be logged by the things they left behind. In all the archives and records they left, no mention was ever made of a miracle working, rabbi called Jesus. (Or Jeshua Ben Yosef to give him his exact name because Jesus is a Greek mis-translation of a hebrew name.)

If there had been someone physically around of Jesus's magnitute, who was as much a threat to the establishment of Rome as he was, there would be a record of it somewhere. There isn't! Nowhere in all the digs and archivisms is there a reference to this spiritual leader. That's because (I believe, feel free to disagree with me, but tell me why you do, okay?) there was no Jesus. Not in the physical sense anyway. Like everything in the Bible from Samson to the two pillars he pushed down, the character of Jesus is a symbol, not a literal representation.

 

[omega]

Re: Re: translations

(If there had been someone physically around of Jesus's magnitute, who was as much a threat to the establishment of Rome as he was, there would be a record of it somewhere. There isn't! Nowhere in all the digs and archivisms is there a reference to this spiritual leader. That's because (I believe, feel free to disagree with me, but tell me why you do, okay?) there was no Jesus. Not in the physical sense anyway. Like everything in the Bible from Samson to the two pillars he pushed down, the character of Jesus is a symbol, not a literal representation.

First, the translations. Yes, the ancient manuscripts that have been discovered are in a different language from our modern translations. But what I mean is that when these old manuscripts are translated today they agree with what we already have. Meaning that all through the thousands of years of translations and transcribing the original message is well intact. The theory is that the older the manuscripts we can find the closer we get to the original writings, and the documents closer to the orignals should be more accurate to what was in the originals.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with a few parts written in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The Old Testament was translated into Latin and many following translations were done from the Latin. Today however most modern translations are done from the Hebrew.

As far as the person of Jesus. Just because there is no record of Jesus in official Roman government documents means nothing. Jesus would never have been considered a threat by the Empire. Jesus never claimed to be a threat to the Empire. For heavens sake, Jesus told his followers to pay whatever taxes Ceaser demanded from them. What government would kill people who are telling others, "Now make sure you pay whatever taxes they want"? Even Pontius Pilate never considered Jesus a threat. The only reason he ordered the crucifixion was because Pilate considered the enemies of Jesus as a threat. The enemies of Jesus wanted Jesus dead so to placate them Pilate ordered the death of Jesus.

As far as other historical evidence for the person of Jesus. Have you ever read the history of Josephus?

Also, as far as the translation of Mary as a young woman or as a virgin. I am in no way a Hebrew scholar. My understanding is that the word was for a young woman and the common usage was to refer to a young unmarried woman who should be a virgin because she is not yet married.

 

[BigJim]

Omega, are you a religious person yourself, or are you just a theological scholar?

 

[Haltickling]

Somewhere I read that Jesus was a scholar of the sect of Essena (that's what the script rolls at Qumran hint to). This seemed to be a Jewish sect with largely the same views as later Christianity. I don't remember enough about it to tell facts. Maybe omega can shed some light on that? Thanks!🙂

 

[dig dug dog]

Dear Omega,

Thank you for correcting the point about Hebrew vs. "Sandscrit" (you see, they didn't have much paper then...) in the Jewish Bible. However, at least parts of the Christian Bible were written in Aramaic.

Now, I don't know what you are talking about when you refer to the "translation of Mary". There is no "Mary" in Isaiah 7:14, the verse in question. Isaiah tells Ahaz that God will give a sign to him right then and there: "My Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel." (See the next couple of verses also.)

It defeats the whole point of the verse and the context of the message to claim that this refers to an event some 700 years in the future.

The point about "alma" (Hebrew for young woman) vs. "betulah" (Hebrew for virgin) is that the text is not speaking of a "virgin birth". A young woman is about to give birth and by the time the boy is a few years old, Ahaz will see terrible events come upon him.

dig dug dog

 

[evilqueen]

From what I know of the Essenes, they were, in today's terms, a group of radical extremists. Their main mission was to produce a messiah who met the conditions of the prophecies well enough that he could rally the population into revolt against Rome. They produced lots of messiahs who got themselves killed on a regular basis. Jesus of Nazareth was the one whose pedigree could be doctored to fit the best, which is one reason why he is the best-known of the many who laid claim to the title of Messiah.

--------

Came back to add that the above is a (very plausible) theory about a secret society which, like so much from the time, is largely undocumented. Documentation is why I disagree with omega's assertion that the lack of historical reference on Christ is not significant. A man reputed to raise the dead, chased sellers from the Temple, and upon whose death the skies turned black at midday and the curtain of the Temple was rent, not mentioned by the historians of the time? Not likely.

 

[BigJim]

One interesting little fact that might intrigue you. The town of Nazareth didn't exist until about the mid 60's AD. The start of the town is as well documented in ancient records as anything else.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

bringing out the heavy guns

check out the book "the womans encyclopedia of myths and secrets".
by barbara g. walker.
the parts about "jesus" start on page 463.it is facinating, to say the least!
i have to once again disagree with our esteemed colleague; the older texts differ largly with the modern version of the bible. and the ancient old testamnt was writen in an early form of hebrew, sanscrit, and was later translated to arimaic and the more modern hebrew (which hasn't changed in several thousand years).
now, mary at the time of jesus' birth was already married, and no virgin! this is why the jews find it so difficult to change to christianity. the whole religion is based on a mis-transltion. where do i get my sources? one of them is the theology dept. of loyola university, where they start to teach the truth to college students.
steve

 

[shark]

I see being away for a bit hasn't changed much on the TMF.This one is one I'm going to stay out of.

 

[red indian]

"A must read"???

What is it with you "must read" "please read" people? how about just a plain old "post" like the rest of us low lifes? why do you think your posts are more important than anyone elses? you see the way it works is like this.........you make a post, you give it a subject (free of self important strap lines) and then you wait to see if anyone thinks its a "please read" or a "must read" by virtue of the number of replies to your post (is this rocket science?) and that, my dear evangelical and tin pot hitler friends is how it works for the prolitariate round these parts. DO I MAKE MY SELF CLEAR???!!!

 

[BigJim]

Re: "A must read"???

What is it with you "must read" "please read" people? how about just a plain old "post" like the rest of us low lifes? why do you think your posts are more important than anyone elses? you see the way it works is like this.........you make a post, you give it a subject (free of self important strap lines) and then you wait to see if anyone thinks its a "please read" or a "must read" by virtue of the number of replies to your post (is this rocket science?) and that, my dear evangelical and tin pot hitler friends is how it works for the prolitariate round these parts. DO I MAKE MY SELF CLEAR???!!!

I dunno, could you run me through it again?😀