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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

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.

Then at least dignify your own post by giving a source.
You seem to be doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
I am not angry, just setting the record straight in the face of a pile of false and unsubstantiated claims.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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)


I didn't say Arius lived in the first century, I said there was no such thing as the RCC in the first century. John the apostle wrote that Christ was the only begotten Son of God. The apostle John wrote that in the first century.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.


The Apostles taught Christ from the Septuagint (LXX).



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 




Do you believe that Jehovah is Jesus Christ then?


What Hebrew acrostic is formed by the phrase: "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"? And "Jehovah" is a Latinized rendering of the Hebrew YHVH. Forget the Latin renderings, they are irrelevant to OT texts written in Hebrew or Aramaic.



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



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

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.

Then at least dignify your own post by giving a source.
You seem to be doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
I am not angry, just setting the record straight in the face of a pile of false and unsubstantiated claims.


That's funny, I don't see any of your sources. Special pleading fallacy again?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 

I can buy the book for only $25.00?
Please.......
Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

There is another book out with the same basic premise:
Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill
you can get from Amazon
for $8.19 in the Kindle version.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's funny, I don't see any of your sources. Special pleading fallacy again?

You were the one making the wild claim that apparently just came out of your, or someone else's imagination.
The burden of proof would be on you that you did not just make it up.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





"Jehovah" is a Latinized rendering of the Hebrew YHVH. Forget the Latin renderings


Should we forget names like:

Jehizkiah?
Jehoaddah?
Jehoaddin?
Jehoahaz?
Jehohanan?
Jehoiachin?
Jehoiada?
Jehoiarib?
Jehonadab?
Jehonathan?
Jehoram?
Jehoshabeath?
Jehoshaphat?


How and why are these name used and translated?

What do these names mean?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

John the apostle wrote that Christ was the only begotten Son of God.

Do you believe it?
Was John lying?
The Catholic Church believes they are the authority, above the Bible.
If you believe in this statement by John, you are Arian.
If you are orthodox by the Church's definition, then you do not believe in the literal meaning of John 3:16.
edit on 26-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Brush up on your Arianism:

1

2



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





"Jehovah" is a Latinized rendering of the Hebrew YHVH. Forget the Latin renderings


Should we forget names like:

Jehizkiah?
Jehoaddah?
Jehoaddin?
Jehoahaz?
Jehohanan?
Jehoiachin?
Jehoiada?
Jehoiarib?
Jehonadab?
Jehonathan?
Jehoram?
Jehoshabeath?
Jehoshaphat?


How and why are these name used and translated?

What do these names mean?


No, I'm not suggesting they be "forgotten", but pointing out that they are translated proper names, not transliterated proper names. Would you like the Hebrew equivalent of those Latinized names above?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Just laugh at those people, they are ignorant. You could take it to it's logical conclusion and point out there were no English words at all in the original Greek and anyone who uses any English words are not preaching/teaching the Bible.

See how absurd it is?
No, but I can see how absurd your statement is.
You are jumping through hoops to support some crazy statement by your YouTube Video cult leader, who thinks everyone should stop saying Rapture, and only say Harpazo, since it is Greek.
How about doing an entire video sermon in Greek, since the NT was written in Greek? Of course not, because the general audience knows English so the video should be in English.
The fact is, Harpazo is not in the NT.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's funny, I don't see any of your sources. Special pleading fallacy again?

You were the one making the wild claim that apparently just came out of your, or someone else's imagination.
The burden of proof would be on you that you did not just make it up.


Google Council of Nicaea fact vs myth. Heck, check out the Wiki entry for the Council of Nicaea, I've posted it about a dozen times already when we have discussed this previously. Why would today be any different in regards to you clicking the link and reading?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

They don't call it Arianism so much anymore. Seems they call it Nontrinitarianism.

Maybe because people who are educated on the subject understand that Arius was actually, up until his run-in with Athanasius, considered the foremost supporter of the Trinity.
The real controversy was about whether Jesus was begotten or not.
Then it became a matter of a forced bowing to the authority of the Church, and the lack of right for the individual to form his own opinion.
edit on 26-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Just laugh at those people, they are ignorant. You could take it to it's logical conclusion and point out there were no English words at all in the original Greek and anyone who uses any English words are not preaching/teaching the Bible.

See how absurd it is?
No, but I can see how absurd your statement is.
You are jumping through hoops to support some crazy statement by your YouTube Video cult leader, who thinks everyone should stop saying Rapture, and only say Harpazo, since it is Greek.
How about doing an entire video sermon in Greek, since the NT was written in Greek? Of course not, because the general audience knows English so the video should be in English.
The fact is, Harpazo is not in the NT.


Harpazo appears 4 times in the NT, I've already shown this to you. And secondly, I've already told you why I choose to use the term "Harpazo" instead of the Latin term rapture. You have very selective memory today Dewey, are you getting enough fish oil in your diet these days?


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



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

The do-it-yourself flavour of American Protestantism means that most American Protestants are not actually Christians at all, but heretics of one kind or another. They're all going to Hell, especially if they vote Republican.

That would be true if you believe in the Pope being God's only representative on earth and holds the keys to heaven and hell.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 

False religions around the globe try to take away the deity of christ as God and make him "A God" or just a prophet.

So what is wrong with Jesus being "a god"?
All orthodox Christianity recognizes that they are distinct individual persons.
I would suggest you convert to Judaism if you want that sort of "orthodoxy".



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Harpazo appears 4 times in the NT, I've already shown this to you. And secondly, I've already told you why I choose to use the term "Harpazo" instead of the Latin term rapture. You have very selective memory today Dewey, are you getting enough fish oil in your diet these days?
The fact that you said something in the past does not magically make it true.
What you are doing with Harpazo is a trick to pretend that it is a noun, when in fact it is a verb.
Verbs have different forms in Greek, depending on how they are used in a sentence, and nowhere in the NT does it appear as, Harpazo. If it did, one could make the argument that it is a case of a verb being used as a noun, but it is not, and just a deception by your YouTube video cult leader who is a known liar and a fraud.
edit on 26-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Harpazo appears 4 times in the NT, I've already shown this to you. And secondly, I've already told you why I choose to use the term "Harpazo" instead of the Latin term rapture. You have very selective memory today Dewey, are you getting enough fish oil in your diet these days?
The fact that you said something in the past does not magically make it true.
What you are doing with Harpazo is a trick to pretend that it is a noun, when in fact it is a verb.
Verbs have different forms in Greek, depending on how they are used in a sentence, and nowhere in the NT does it appear as, Harpazo. If it did, one could make the argument that it is a case of a verb being used as a noun, but it is not, and just a deception by your YouTube video cult leader who is a known liar and a fraud.


I've never said it's a noun. Harpazo is the Greek term used for the rapture of the saints. The term itself implies a snatching away of someone or something on the brink of perilous disaster. Real world example would be a father grabbing his 3 year old daughter by her hair and yanking her away from the street as she tried to run into traffic.

Harpazo is the Greek word where we get the English term rapture from. The Latin translation of harpazo is "raptiro". Harpazo means "caught up" (raptured). So when folks cry that the term "rapture" isn't in the Bible just mock them for being fools, the term IS IN FACT in the Latin Bible. (Raptiro) And it's the Latin word used for the Greek term Harpazo which roughly means "caught up/snatched up".



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


it is NOT a grammatical mistake


Okay, well you tell that to Hebrew folks. In English when writing out Hebrew plurals take on an "im" ending, in Hebrew it would be written as "hyim" example:

Cherub ----> 1
Cherubim ---> 3 or more Cherub

Seraph ----> 1
Seraphim ---> 3 or more Seraph

El ----> 1
Elohim ---> 3 or more


Elohim is a plural noun for "El" that's always used in the singular context when speaking about the true God of the Jews in the OT. It's technically a grammatical error every time it appears and is talking about the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Sorry, learn Hebrew.


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


sorry... still intentional... the same form is used in arabic when saying prayers... its a plural singular... for a reason



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join