Bring Ye Faith and The Word of God to the Masses

Originally posted by kinglizard


The Bible does not claim that it was sent down from god in its entirety. Instead, it claims to be written by both God and men, and written in a way that perfectly says whatever God wanted it to say. So the bible says what God intended and prophecies should be considered the word of God. Now you could say that Peter was just a man but as with every religion belief relies on faith.

Fair enough as proof of my willingness to be absolutely fair I will hold to my promise Kinglizard I appologize ......it is true There are very many references that are perceptions of visions as understood by the human mind therefore not 100% is word for word from God , but I rebut with this the visions are from GOD is that fair enough

bible.gospelcom.net...

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
The Truth Is In The Bible

if you dought the Bible I tell you this truth first read it second compare it to things that have happened since it was created 2000 plus years ago...

You do realize that the King James version of the Bible is nearly wholly incorrect from the original text...being the "Doctor" you claim to be you must realize this I guess I just do not understand your whole concept of a "noble cause" that you need to convert the masses. I have read much of the Bible (certainly not all of it), and I do not claim to be an expert either, but like any book it has been torn apart through the ages. More than likely the original meanings were lost. One example: The term "witch" did not exist in the original text, so when King James took it upon himself to rewrite the bible he convienently included it. The reason: There was a strong angst James had toward people he though practiced it (which of course we know today has no ties to Satanism). So, what a better way to try and get rid of a problem of the age...include it in the Holy book.

No one has the real truth. As humans I do not believe we will ever be privy to this information no matter what form "it" takes. You can quote the Bible until your fingers turn purple, but it does not change the FACT that it was written by HUMANS, and humans are naturally flawed. We will do anything to make others believe that "our way is best", when we fail to take into account that each person observes the world differently. Different cultures and socio-economic factors dictate how they will believe in a "divine creator/s" manipulation of the human experience. If a culture needs rain because of a drought then they have a reason to formulate the parameters and specifications for a "Godly" creator in order to give them what they so desperately need. It was the same with Christianity...the Romans were effectively the largest and most dominate culture of the time, and the people had a cultural need to hypothesize the need for divine intervention to free them. The Christians believed they were being persecuted under the Romans for their beliefs, but what they failed to realize is that it was NOT for their beliefs, but simply because they did not partake in the system of Emperor Worship. Early Christians believed this would detract attention from God, and would be like calling the Emperor a God himself. Emperor Worship, in retrospect, was actually paying homage to one's leader...much in the same way that many do to the President. Those that did not participate in this system would be punished, which I personally do not believe was right, but it was a far cry from being "persecuted because of religious beliefs".

As far as the TRUTHS that the bible has prophesized over the millennia; that could easily be attributed to an intrinsic and keen observance of the past in relation to the future. It would be much like myself stating that "...there will be a war sometime in the future involving the USA and the Middle East"...well duh...sometime in the future this is bound to happen again. History does not repeat itself, but is a pretty good indication of things to come.

Now, I am not stating the Bible is wrong in any way, just as I would never state that anyone's beliefs are wrong; because we can never assume that what we believe to be correct is in fact correct. One cannot assume that they know the truth if in fact the truth is such an abstract altruistic idea that is not inherant in humankind. NO ONE HAS THE ANSWER...until you yourself accepts that, as well as everyone else there is no point in discussing any further. Remember, the purpose of this site is to DENY IGNORANCE and in doing so you must deny your own, as well as myself doing the same. We are all ignorant in the face of such a great quandary, and admitting that is half of the goal to find the answers you so desperately seek.

You wrote your message on here in an attempt to reach out to others. What I see is an attempt to uphold your own beliefs and at the same time vilify others. I think your true purpose is to find what you do not realize yourself. If you knew the answer there would be no point in trying to prove yourself to everyone else...this is something that many religions fail to realize. Their constant preaching is nothing more than an attempt to make their own selves believe in what they think is correct, and has little to do with finding the real truth for themselves. What most seek is answers, but few will find those answers because of a refusal to "see it from the other side".

I don't mean to doubt your credentials or sophistication about this subject, but misspelling words like "dought", as well as your ramblings on this site lead me to wonder if your Biography is just made up? Surely you must also realize that the common term "Doctor" usually denotes one of the medical profession, and people do not commonly see themselves as Doctors of Theology, but "Theologists" or more regularly coined terms to describe such a profession.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

art star please join us in the research project for more details I will u2u everyone when im done talking to the advisor as to the results and if it cant be worked out here I will contact every with an alternative forum with the same set of rules in which it will work



NO MUD , NO THREATS , NO LIES

just ignorance denied


but as a tidbit the new testament is proven to be a change of policy in the general sense .....by this I offer this bit of proof God gave his son to die as a lamb to sacrifice for our sins therefore he has told us salvation is thru his son not thru the sacrifice of and animal that policy was changed by God himself and in the research project this will be at the top of my list just for you cause I kinda neglected you your answerd right off



PS sorry to make you feel as if I was ignoring you

I don't mean to doubt your credentials or sophistication about this subject, but misspelling words like "dought", as well as your ramblings on this site lead me to wonder if your Biography is just made up? Surely you must also realize that the common term "Doctor" usually denotes one of the medical profession, and people do not commonly see themselves as Doctors of Theology, but "Theologists" or more regularly coined terms to describe such a profession.

lol.

I plant to have my P.H.D in theology aswell. I'm currently a study of Philosophy and Political sciences, next semester, though, i will be taking theology and philosophy full time. Yes, his forumulation of thoughts seems to be highly suspect...

Aslong as he can convey his message in a coherent manner, that's all that matters.

Deep

Originally posted by Jazzerman

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
The Truth Is In The Bible

if you dought the Bible I tell you this truth first read it second compare it to things that have happened since it was created 2000 plus years ago...

You do realize that the King James version of the Bible is nearly wholly incorrect from the original text...being the "Doctor" you claim to be you must realize this

I guess I just do not understand your whole concept of a "noble cause" that you need to convert the masses.

Fair enough but when you join us you will find I will be bringing with me the uninterpreted hebrew version to the table as well as other less tanted texts from Jewish lines etc. I will not translate the info my self unchecked either I will get translation from those who truely fluently speak both english and jewish languages and provide the names of those people as part of the research disclosure process

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Yes, his forumulation of thoughts seems to be highly suspect...

Aslong as he can convey his message in a coherent manner, that's all that matters.

I agree, and I hope it did not come off as an insult to him or anyone else...merely an observance from what I have seen throughout his posts.

As I stated, I would not claim to be an expert on Theology in any manner (I'll leave that to you guys ), but I can offer an Historical and Philosophical element to the problem.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Fair enough but when you join us you will find I will be bringing with me the uninterpreted hebrew version to the table as well as other less tanted texts from Jewish lines etc. I will not translate the info my self unchecked either I will get translation from those who truely fluently speak both english and jewish languages and provide the names of those people as part of the research disclosure process

I will look foward to reading your thoughts and others on this matter. While personally not a Christian myself, I like to gain knowledge from anyone that can offer it, and then formulate my own opinions off such information. I would never discount the views of Christians, Hebrews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, or the plethora of other religions...in my world they are all held in the highest regard.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Yes, his forumulation of thoughts seems to be highly suspect...

Aslong as he can convey his message in a coherent manner, that's all that matters.

I agree, and I hope it did not come off as an insult to him or anyone else...merely an observance from what I have seen throughout his posts.

As I stated, I would not claim to be an expert on Theology in any manner (I'll leave that to you guys ), but I can offer an Historical and Philosophical element to the problem.


Sorry guys trying to talk to everyone at once and answering screaming kids here and trying to look things up all at the same time tends to skew me just a little

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Sorry guys trying to talk to everyone at once and answering screaming kids here and trying to look things up all at the same time tends to skew me just a little

I understand...again, sorry if I came across as being rude with my comments. I would never intend to insinuate your credentials are not what you say they are, but sometimes, especially on the internet, it becomes very hard to know who is telling the truth and who is not.

Also, I'm just curious...and you do not have to answer this if you do not prefer to disclose it, but...where did you graduate from? I like to "get to know" (for lack of better words) people whom I will be reading posts by so that I can better formulate their life's circumstances that have led them to their conclusions about certain topics.

To every one I have just sent the advisor the u2u and when I know something I will return here and let you know as for answering other posts here I will do my best but in fairness to all concearned I am putting primary concern right now on the set up of the research forum and organizing the notifications so bear with me I'm anxious to discuss this in a scholarly way

Hey DryBankRuta:

One of the biggest problems that "Fundamentalist Christians" (and Orthodox Jews for that matter) have when discussing "inspired scripture" and "the inerrant text of the Bible" is...EXACTLY what texts do they include in that description, and why...

Two immediate problems surface:

l. What list of books are to be included in this "Inspired Bible" and

2. What EXACT VERSION of these texts are the inspired ones, no two copies being exactly alike.

The list of books that went into the "bible" were the result of raucous councils of Rebbes (OT) and Bishops (NT), and there was no clear consensus for CENTURIES as to which books to include or not.

The 4th century "Codex Sinaiticus" for example contains books like the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS and I CLEMENT as "inspired holy Scripture" as part of its New Testament (NT) but these books are not part of "fundamentalist Christians' Bibles" today...

How did this state of affairs come about?

As you should know by now (I've certainly repeated it often enough in my posts !), "Jesus" (i.e. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) DID NOT have THE SAME OLD TESTAMENT that we know today (i.e. a single book between two covers).

Picture a corner of a room with 180 SEPARATE Rolls of Wallpaper standing up in a group, all of which were called SCRIPTURES during the lifetime of "Jeeezuz" (i.e. c. BC 12 to AD 36) and most of his immediate followers (i.e. AD 12 to AD 70).

The problem that people who claim to have a BIBLE is that of what books to include: since.....

The canon of Jewish Scriptures was not "officially closed" until the so-called council of Javneh (Jamnia) in AD 90, a full 55 years after the Roman execution of "Jesus". That was AFTER the Jewish War when 900,000 Palestinian Jews were slaughtered during the 1st Jewish Revolt (AD 66-72) and Rebbes such as R. Akiva and R. Hillel II had to trek all the way from Babylon to decide what books to put in their "scriptures" since they no longer had a temple standing---and had to re-arrange their worship patterns more to conform to a single AUTHORITATIVE BOOK rather than a sacred mount.

But when Iesous was alive, there had been no such council to decide such matters. The Jews had possibly 180 separate "sacred scrolls", if we are to go by the fragments of the Library at Qumran (i.e. the dead sea scroll library, e.g. in Cave 4 alone)

It is clear that the socalled Dead Sea Scroll Community (BC 165 to AD 68) copied out many hundreds of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scrolls that later did not "get voted in at Jamnia in AD 90" i.e. they never eventually became officially part of the final list of books for the Old Testament, i.e. specific books which the Rebbes said: "these books defile the hands" i.e. were considered Sacred Scriptures, or the TaNaKh (Torah-Neviim-Ketuvim or "Torah, Prophets, Wisdom-Writings).

Some of these pre-Javneh (Jamnia) texts (i.e. ones which people living in the days of "Jesus" nonetheless considered Sacred Scriptures--nobody to tell them otherwise, least of all from representatives of Babylonian synagogues) included the books like:

I Henoch (the Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch the Righteous) ,
The Scroll of the Book of the Testament of Moses (Book of Jubilees),
the Wisdom of Ben-Sirach ("Ecclesiasticus"),
the Scroll of the Book of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Being the Sons of Israel,
the Assumption of Moses,
the Wisdom of Solomon etc.

The earliest Chrstians (and even the 4 canonical gospels !) quoted freely from these texts as if they considered them to be Scripture or "inspired" e.g. Jude DIRECTLY quotes I Henoch in verse 14 ("as Henoch the Righteous, in the Seventh generation from Adam wrote...") as well the Assumption of Moses in v. 9 of Jude.

Sometimes the quotations are hidden : the Wisdom of Solomon in chapter 1 says: "Sorrowful Unto Death is the Man whose Best Friend Hath Betrayed Him..." cf: Mark's gospel when Iesous" noticed "Iudas" missing on the hill after he armed his disciples with swords ("And Iesous said, Behold the SON OF MAN is SORROWFUL UNTO DEATH..."), which suggests that the gospel writer knew the Wisdom of Solomon, and it was chapter one of that "non canonical book" which lay in the back of his mind when he was writing all that midrashic dialogue placed into the mouth of "Iesous" in his gospel...

Even the Gospel of John the Elder in chapter 4 with the Samaritan Woman at the Well Pericope quotes the Scroll of the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs (specificially The Testament of Naphtali chapter 13 verse 9: For the Salvation of Israel shall come from the Judaeans...") which means that the circle of John believed that "Jesus" thought that the Testament of the 12 was holy scripture, even though the Greek Text of John loosly mis-quotes it (it deliberately leaves off the reference to ISRAEL in the text to make it more universal sounding).

When you read phrases in the Pastoral Epistles ("all Scripture which is Inspired of God is useful..." ) such as we find in the curious non-Pauline Greek of Timothy, we cannot say that he is referring to anything in your New Testament, but refers to Jewish Scriptures---which were not FIXED until long after "Paul" died.

The so-called "Pastoral Epistles" were said to have been written by Paul--but more than 75% of serious biblical scholars doubt that every word came from Paul himself, but from someone who "lived at a time later than Paul lived.."

For example, if you compare alll the Greek versions of all the variant texts of those 3 letters (I and II Timothy and Titus) with the other 10 (the so-called "Genuine Letters of Paul") you should notice right away, even if you cannot read Greek in the original, that there are many gross stylistic differences in the three letters----and if you can read Greek you will espcecially notice all the NON PAULINE-HAPAX LEGOMENA foreign Greek words, language, diction, syntax, spelling, grammar and vocabulary throughout---all of which are not Paul's normative style as exemplified in the other 10 letters.

One wonders where Paul ended and his "amanuensis" began in these verbose documents.

In fact, large chunks of the material in Timothy and Titus seem to have been added to fragments of Pauline correspondence written at different times and from different places (i.e. what we read in the pastorals today possibly had grafted on to some genuine but shorter Pauline fragments of letters) by a later (Nazorean, i.e. non Pauline) writer who lived at a time later than that of Paul himself (died c. AD 64 during the Neronian Persecution), i.e. between AD 115 and AD 125 in their present form anyway)--and who pushed a more developed "Nazorean" agenda of Bishops, Elders and Deacons...

Which causes us to doubt that Paul even wrote "All Scripture which is God-Inspired is useful for teaching..."---but even if he would have agreed with such a statement, he could ONLY have been referring to the Old Testament Scriptures (and not the NT which was not written down during his lifetime) and to MANY MANY OTHER JEWISH "SCRIPTURES" that today are not in the Old Testament that was decided upon in AD 90.

You can file all of this rarely discussed information under "FACTS ABOUT THE FORMATION OF THE CANON OF "SCRIPTURE" NEVER TO BRING UP AT PARTIES WITH FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS STANDING AROUND"

It can just ruin their whole day...!

As always Amadeus your bring the light of the truth, I always love a good challlenge when is open minded and for everyone to share.

Drbryan, two questions if I may?

In what country were you educated? And, Opening your link what I immediately saw was just a timeline and nothing to prove any particular prophetic event, which is the crux of proof. There is much history in the Bible, I certainly don't argue that, so what is it that you would like to show us that proves The Bible was teh word of God?

*grabs a bag of popcorn* By all means continue, looks like I'll be learning a few things from this thread...

Originally posted by saint4God
*grabs a bag of popcorn* By all means continue, looks like I'll be learning a few things from this thread...

You and Amadeus has just make my day, I think I will leave the bible class to the experts and sit back like you and eat popcorn also.

This thread is going to be a great one

Amadeus v. drbryankkruta...now that would be one to watch!

I would love to contribute more, but alas, I am no Biblical scholar so like Marg and others I will sit back and watch.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
how do you explain that you will find the Bible directly matches history word for word almost 97 % of the Bible has already happened and this is after it ad been written and now 2000 plus years later

Is this a joke or something? Almost none of it has happened. Tyre, for example, still stands.

It is as relevant today as it was yesterday.

Some parts are relevant, other parts are not. The parts that are relevant today tend to not be particularly original, by that I mean that they tend to be universally held.

here is and example it in time line format j

Its just a timeline of world history. If you expect anyone to beleive you, you'll have to provide specific events foretold in the bible and then demonstrate that they actually occured and then people will be able to judge for themselves whether or not its miraculous or prescient.

marg
First of all he is insulting the people of ATS, he is calling us �unwashed masses� and he is talking about the forums here.

Also note that he is stating that everyone who disagrees with him is a christian hater or liar or some such. There is no more malice in the responses to him than in his initiating post.

drbryankkruta
I am simply supplying a set of information and challenging you to test my results and better yet can you change my mind

Hows that? If you have faith, why should any reason or evidence change it, its not based on reason in the first place. And you aren't simply offering bibles, you were calling everyone liars, christian hater, god haters, etc etc.

kinglizard
I would fight for a Wiccans right to express their opinion on this site

Doesn't look like people were saying he isn't allowed to post. Would you stick up for a wiccan who came in saying all christians are morons and liars?

dr
as witnessed by the parables that are directly quoted from him

Then why do their accounts contradict one another?

sorta a think tank type thing no mud slinging just hard facts and my first invite is to kindly ask any wicca/ scientologist / cryptozoologist etc to be the first to join in because I am truely interested in your views and evidence I am not prejudiced in taking in your info as false hewey

And yet, you start off calling people who don't agree with you unwashed liars and fools and don't present any of the incidents that the bible foretells and that came true.

I see alot out there that is said yet no point of reference to prove the claims I am saying with no dought my proof is in the Bible and God himself

Exactly, you haven't presented anything. You also haven't made any particularyl specific claims, and people have asked you about this but you've ignored them. Instead you've, at this point anyway, responded mostly to people praising you.

sorry but in acordance with Gods laws as written in the Bible directly from him to man it says put ye not any other god before me

Thats pretty absurd. Almost every religion states that its the correct one. How does that make it true?

but I rebut with this the visions are from GOD is that fair enough

How does any of that demonstrate that the visions are from god? How do you distinguish between god visions and non god visions?

I am putting primary concern right now on the set up of the research forum and organizing the notifications

Why in the world did you start a thread claiming some of this stuff and now all of a sudden are starting a research forum? Whatever has to be said can be said here, besides, what the heck is the reserach forum suposed to do, decide if the bible is the literal word of god? That's a matter of faith, not somethign a research forum can address. Just address and discuss it hear, a research forum is a waste of time, and hand picking people to participate in it is pointless.

marg
This thread is going to be a great one

Why? You think he is going to seriously address anything amadeus brought up? He hasn't adequately addressed anything yet.

Nygdan,

Please by all means join the experts and enlighten us with your knowleage.

[edit on 123131p://444 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
Nygdan,

Please by all means join the experts and enlighten us with your knowleage.

[edit on 123131p://444 by marg6043]

If this was to me where is this place. and who are the experts?