It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arianism - still kicking

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





God the Father. And I agree, no man has ever seen Him at any time. But you have a problem now if there is no such thing as the Trinity. Adam and Eve "walked with God", Abraham and Sarah met "face to face" with God in Genesis 18, Joshua met God in Joshua 5 "The Angel of the Lord" who told him to remove his shoes for he was standing on "HOLY ground", Jacob wrestled with God on Mt. Moriah, Elijah saw God seated on His throne, Moses met with God on Jabal al Lawz in Saudi Arabia (Median). So how can you reconcile the verse you mentioned with all these men seeing and interacting with "God" or "The angel of the Lord" who accepted worship from man in the OT? Jesus said no man had ever seen the Father, which is true, the Father is a Spirit. No man has ever seen Him except the Son. But MANY folks in the Bible saw the Son, and He too IS GOD. It's called a "Christophany". Great verse!!! I'd like to see how you reconcile what it says with all the OT examples of men and women meeting/talking/interacting with/seeing God. You either have to admit Christ was lying, or these people met someone called "God" who wasn't the Father YHVH.




Your whole argument contradicts itself.

No man has seen God.

Humans interacted with God's representatives.

God is holy and undefiled, would He really physically interact with imperfect humans?

If so, then why does imperfect mankind need an intermediary in Jesus Christ?

Why, after establishing God's Kingdom on earth and doing away with death, does Jesus subject himself to God?1 Corinthians 15:24-28




On another note.

Why should we trust translations of the bible that have removed Jehovah (or Yahweh's) Holy Name from its text?



My belief is the Name was removed in part to obscure God Almighty and promote the trinity doctrine.




The trinity is said to be a mystery.

God's Name is not used.

The Holy Bible was written in Latin and not allowed to be written for the common people.

Greco Roman Mystery Religions


Cult of The Great Gods

The identity and nature of the deities venerated at the sanctuary remains largely enigmatic, in large part because it was taboo to pronounce their names. Literary sources from antiquity refer to them under the collective name of "Cabeiri" (Greek: Κάβειροι Kabeiroi), while they carry the simpler epithet of Gods or Great Gods, which was a title or state of being rather than the actual name, (Μεγάλοι Θεοί Megaloi Theoi) on inscriptions found on the site.

Link

The Greco Roman mystery religion thought it was taboo to pronounce the name of it's god.



A mystery....................




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The Psalms were written by David. That is David talking there. Do you have any scriptural backing for the claim you have made (that the "Psalm 2 is an end-times conversation between the three members of the Trinity")? Because otherwise it is a pretty far out claim to have come up with on your own.


I never said Psalms wasn't penned by David. I said the Psalms are very prophetic in nature.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



Your whole argument contradicts itself.

No man has seen God.

Humans interacted with God's representatives.


You are not listening to my argument. No man at any time has or had seen "the Father". I never said no one at any time had ever seen the Son, in fact, the OT is littered with accounts of men or mankind interacting with God (the Son). look at Genesis 18 for example. God shows up with two angels and speaks face to face with Abraham and Sarah. Then contrast that with what Christ said, "NO MAN" has seen God the father at "ANY TIME" and that God the Father is "A SPIRIT".

So which "GOD" was interacting with mankind in the OT accounts?



And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;... And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?... And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.... And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.


Genesis chapter 18 ^^^



Why should we trust translations of the bible that have removed Jehovah (or Yahweh's) Holy Name from its text?


Everywhere you see the term "the Lord" in the above passages the Hebrew text says "YHVH". That is of course if you wish to know precisely.




edit on 26-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   


You are not listening to my argument. No man at any time has or had seen "the Father".
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18

Jesus was seen, a god.

Holy Spirit was seen.

God Almighty has never been seen by humans (outside of visions).



Angels interacted with Abram

Angels interacted with Jacob.



We are engaged in a discussion.

Are you interacting with?

your computer?

the internet?

my computer?

my keyboard?

the person I am using to dictate this?

or

dusty1?


Do we need to list everything involved between us, in our discussion?


Isn't this just a discussion between you and me?


Therefore when a human interacts with God.

He really is.



But there are things, or at times representatives in between.



edit on 26-5-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



Angels interacted with Abram

Angels interacted with Jacob.


Angel only means "messenger". How you can tell when one is a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son (Cristophany) the "angel" will accept and encourage worship. Something the sons of God (Bene ha'Elohim/Aggelos) NEVER did or condoned at any time. No created angel at any time spoke of the land he was standing on as "holy", only the Son did so, and the Son was the captain of the Lord's host of angels in His pre-incarnate form. And the passages I linked from Genesis 18 said the "LORD" appeared to Abraham accompanied by 2 angels, all 3 appeared looking like men.

So how can we have numerous appearances in the OT of God meeting face-to-face with men and then Jesus saying that "no man" had seen the Father God at any time? How do you explain this contradiction of the text? Was Jesus lying? I think NOT!




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





So how can we have numerous appearances in the OT of God meeting face-to-face with men and then Jesus saying that "no man" had seen the Father God at any time? How do you explain this contradiction of the text? Was Jesus lying? I think NOT!


So you think the interactions were all with God the Son and not God the Father ?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 

I was under the impression that Arianism was only concerning the nazis belief about tall blondes...
You are thinking of Aryanism.
Think, Ares, the Greek god of war, known as, Mars, to the Romans.
According to Theosophy, the Aryan race came from Mars.
This pseudo-religion was adopted by people high up in the Nazi hierarchy.

Arianism as an alternative explanation of the origin of the Trinity gets it's name from the presbyter of Alexandria, Arius.

edit on 26-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Jesus was sent to earth by god, his boss, to teach the way, again.

This idea, that God the Father is the boss, is what Arianism was about, where it's enemy, Athanasius, believed that the two were equal.
Athanasius was well connected with Emperor Constantine, so his opinion became Orthodoxy, and Arius' opinion, which was previously the mainstream view, was declared to be heresy.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . there are a couple Arians posting here regularly.

So, are you Roman Catholic, now?
Was Jesus begotten?
If your answer is yes, then you are Arian.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

The Council of Nicaea was convened to address the Arian heresy. And it was a virtually unanimous vote against Arius. Only one person voted with Arius and it was the companion he brought with him to the council.

The claim that the Council of Nicaea was convened for that reason is not supported by the official document that described the happenings and results of that meeting.

You are probably describing the questionable story that comes from a secondary source written by a loyalist to, and beneficiary of, the Emperor. According to the story, there were about equal representation but the supporters of Arius left once they realized that the voting process was rigged against them, with a forgone conclusion.
edit on 26-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Oh yes, alive and well. Arianism is an offshoot of Gnosticism actually. All of that came from Alexandria, Egypt.
You cite no credible source to support this claim so I will assume you got this opinion from your favorite source, a YouTube video from your on-line cult.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 

Why do you call God, Him, and not use His Divine Name?

The Christian Bible, the New Testament, tells us that there is one name given, which is, Jesus.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





So how can we have numerous appearances in the OT of God meeting face-to-face with men and then Jesus saying that "no man" had seen the Father God at any time? How do you explain this contradiction of the text? Was Jesus lying? I think NOT!


So you think the interactions were all with God the Son and not God the Father ?


What did Jesus say? Did Jesus say "no man" had ever seen God the Father or not? You hvae a serious problem if you're non-Trinitarian. You either have to accept that the verse you mentioned is an addition not spoken of by Jesus, or you have to accept that Jesus lied, or lastly you might accept that the writer of Genesis invented chapter 18.

So as a non-Trinitarian what is your choice?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . there are a couple Arians posting here regularly.

So, are you Roman Catholic, now?
Was Jesus begotten?
If your answer is yes, then you are Arian.


There was no such thing as the RCC in the first century. That was a later invention. Arius taught that Christ wasn't of the same eternal essence on the Father YHVH, that He wasn't co-equal and eternal in nature with the Father. That He was a created being.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by dusty1
 

Why do you call God, Him, and not use His Divine Name?

The Christian Bible, the New Testament, tells us that there is one name given, which is, Jesus.


Which scriptures did the apostles teach from? There was no NT when they were evangelizing the world for Christ.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HardToStarboard
 

I've talked at length with some friends who are United Pentecostal who don't believe in the Trinity either.
Those would be Oneness Pentecostals, who are so far out that I would not even consider them to be Christians.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Oh yes, alive and well. Arianism is an offshoot of Gnosticism actually. All of that came from Alexandria, Egypt.
You cite no credible source to support this claim so I will assume you got this opinion from your favorite source, a YouTube video from your on-line cult.


I'm not dignifying your attacks. When you have no argument you slander and use ad hominem attacks. You're mad because you yourself claim to be Arian.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

There was no such thing as the RCC in the first century. That was a later invention. Arius taught that Christ wasn't of the same eternal essence on the Father YHVH, that He wasn't co-equal and eternal in nature with the Father. That He was a created being.

Everything you just wrote here is wrong.
You should try reading books instead of just going off YouTube videos.
Arius lived in the early Forth Century.
So, are you now claiming to be Catholic?
Arius believed that before the creation of the universe, there was no time.
So there was no time at which the father existed without the son.
edit on 26-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Which scriptures did the apostles teach from? There was no NT when they were evangelizing the world for Christ.

The Apostles were given a special outpouring of the spirit, directly by Jesus, to establish his church, so were authoritative in their own right.
You are giving away your anti-Christian nature. You believe in a flock outside of Jesus', making you a robber, to cite the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Everywhere you see the term "the Lord" in the above passages the Hebrew text says "YHVH". That is of course if you wish to know precisely.


So in Genesis 18 YHVH, Yahweh, or Jehovah appears to Abraham.


The Lord, is Jehovah.

Do you believe that Jehovah is Jesus Christ then?



Jesus view of his Father


18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

Mark 10:18



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join