Michael Neumann
Premium Member
Here is a great site that parallels the original Hebrew to Latin translation of the bible to several other versions. If provides you a deeper meaning of the versus http://www.latinvulgate.com/
Actually, the Vulgate is a mish-mash of sources. Some the Old Testament is from Hebrew (unknown manuscripts), some from Greek, some from Aramaic paraphrases of Hebrew. The web site may be a good way to learn Jerome's Latin, but its presentation of the King James as an "alternative semantic" is dishonest. The King James was not translated from the Vulgate. The King James was translated from the same or older sources as the Vulgate. There was no Latin step. Latin was not and has never been an original language of the Bible. The original languages of the Bible are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
That being said, if you want a great site that parallels multiple translations, consult the following:
http://studybible.info/
http://bible.cc/
http://interlinearbible.org/
View attachment 3078
Per Katherine Crawford of St. Olaf College, The Foundation of the Roman Imperial Cult, Roman rulers were considered between deity, sons of deity, or appointments of deity since the time of Augustus. Thus when the Counsel of Nicea was formed it was understood that if the Roman ruler was next to deity then Jesus MUST be a deity in order to ensure he was above all.
I am attempting to gather all the original writings of the bible before a bunch or self involved power hungry men decided what people would be feed in order to make them easier to control.
I am increasingly convinced that much of the nonsense contained within the texts are made to bring you into a hypnotic state. Anyone who has watched a stage hypnotist knows that people are quite easy to control in this state and their behavior is out of the ordinary.
If the israelites were slaves in Egypt when Moses led them from there, where the hell did they get enough gold to make a golden calf to worship? And why a calf?[/QUOTE]Research Jordan Maxwell and Michael Tsarion for some really eye opening info on the bible and religions threw out the world, and their similarities. Here are a few of my favorite thing explained...
If "lucifer" is the morning star, why does Jesus describe himself as "the bright and morning star"?
If lucifer and Satan are the same person, why does Jesus tell Peter, " get the behind me Satan"?
As for the Bible being corrupted by man, the troubles plaguing the Holy See, the Nag Hamadi library and the dead sea scrolls should be more then enough proof of that.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are far more pedestrian and mainstream than some make them out to be.
The lists of canon were compiled by individual holy men and laterratified by Councils. Absolutely none of the "rejected" texts are anymore "liberating" than the Canonical texts, if one reads the canonicaltexts in context.
Satan was NEVER called "Lucifer" in Scripture. "How, o Lucifer, art thou fallen" is a reference to a human king who was called "morning star" by his flunkies. It was mocking him. Jesus is the true Lucifer, the true Light-Bearer.
Here is what I am trying to reconcile. First, scientifically, what always has been and always will be, can neither be created nor destroyed? Now Biblically what always has been and always will be?
Now, if you believe the Bible is valid --> A
Then you must believe the Trinity is valid --> B
If you believe in the Trinity then you must believe in the spiritual world --> C
If you believe in the Bible, the Trinity and the spiritual world then you must believe in the biblical account of Jesus casting out demons from a man --> D
This means you believe that possession and then exorcism by the Word of GOD is real --> E
This mean you believe the Roman Ritual (the Vatican 'How To' on exorcism) is real --> F
This means you believe that man can control spirits through the Word of GOD and cast them out of an afflicted person--> G
This means you believe that ... opening a can of worms here... we can communicate with and be possessed by spirits, as exorcism is only conducted on those possessed. --> H
If you read up on exorcism it is not a -one and done- procedure. It is VERY much like hypnotherapy in which you have to return multiple times. This train of thought would lead me to believe that possession is nothing more than a psychological state in which people act out in a manner they believe is congruent with demonic/spiritual possession according to their belief set. Like the hypnotherapist the Exorcist has a number of appointments with the 'victim' and eventually resolves the core issue that caused the behavior.
Could you elaborate on what you mean. I have made a personal study of them for some time and even took some plane flights to make that study and I will admit that on the face of your statement I find it academically indefensible and sense, which I often do with you Brother Bryan, and underlying anger of some sorts or maybe distaste for what you believe is an attack of some sorts. Hard to tell with the written word. But in the other thread you have failed to provide a single piece of evidence for some of your more severe statements. I am willing to debate, but can you point me in the direction of understanding your standpoint on this particular area.
Can you explain what you mean by mainstream? What is the historical evidence of this and which writings in particular do you find pedestrian?
I like your reasoning, if the bible is correct in stating that Jesus was the Word in human form he would have a unique ability that would not necessarily transfer to the church. Also I knew only of the Catholic practice of exorcism, the Jewish practice is new information. My knowledge on the subject is thus far limited to the actual ritual (pdf upload) and the few articles on Catholic websites.Your reasoning is severely flawed, specifically: Let us accept A -> B -> C -> D. E does NOT necessarily follow from D. A case could be made that Christ, being the Word of God, was able to exorcise specifically because of His unique nature. Therefore, mortals could not exorcise by such means. But let us accept, for the sake of argument that E follows from D. If E follows from D, it does NOT, under any circumstances mean that F must follow from E, since the Roman Catholics could still be doing it wrong. That is, they do not actually operate within the appropriate parameters exorcism via the Word of God. The rest then falls by the wayside.
However, what about the Jews, who have exorcism but do not have a "Word of God"? Instead, they implore Ha-Shem (God most High) to please come down and help. They cannot command God, they can only humbly plead his assistance? For the Jews, A is true, but the rest doesn't follow from A. Thus, all the magical commanding that others claim would be, at best, self-deception, and at worse deception of the "commander" by demons.
In most cases the 'victim' undergoes psych eval before a exorcism is granted. The fact that it takes multiple sessions is what alerted me to the similarities between hypnotherapy and exorcism. Several of my friends are hypnotherapists and a few are stage hypnotists... quite good ones. I have seen them make people do some amazing things that would not have been possible if they were in a normal state of mind due to self imposed limitations.Actually, I'd wager that professional (properly licensed by hierarchy) exorcists within the Catholic Church (to accept their validity for the moment) would agree that this "repeated possession" phenomenon would be far more likely to be a psychiatric issue than a spiritual one.
Bryan the sources you provided from "Grace Ministries" which I am guessing has a bit of an agenda still didn't answer the questions I posed which is what do find so mainstream and pedestrian.