1
2EyesOpen 1 point ago +2 / -1

Same for you. Sunday School is over. You failed, I'm done with your oxymoronic statements, and I have better things to do than enter a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

1
2EyesOpen 1 point ago +2 / -1

Holy cow Sunday School is over, you failed, and I'm done with you. I have more important things to do with my time than have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Shame on you for having only arguments with no answers. You need it explained as if to a five year old, but that's for children in Sunday School. When I was a child, I spake as a child. Things change when the the divinity is sought and found.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

No you fool, monotheism is the opposite of so-called Unitarian. But you digress.

1
2EyesOpen 1 point ago +2 / -1

Im trying to raise the conversation to the height of divinity and you, my confused friend, are belittling God with blasphemous hyper-dispensations you learned in Sunday School.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Repent from your error and learn the one true god.

0
2EyesOpen 0 points ago +1 / -1

Trinitarian monotheism is a giant midget.

0
2EyesOpen 0 points ago +1 / -1

It doesn't 'belong' to Arius any more than any idea 'belongs' to anyone.

Skapegoating isn't a philosophical or theological point.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

The history of the argument isn't contained in the bible except peripherally.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Again, Arius was a messenger, not the message. I feel no need to bring him up except in historic perspective as a victim of 'killing the messenger'.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not sure why the messenger is killed in the attempt to enlighten. The subject is what needs the attention.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

'When two come together 'in my name'. To discover the name and the source from which it comes is to understand.

-1
2EyesOpen -1 points ago +1 / -2

No one attacked 'the' bible. It sounds like you reject monotheism.

-1
2EyesOpen -1 points ago +1 / -2

God as three is polytheism. God having a human son AS God is polytheism. Any more false assertions?

1
2EyesOpen 1 point ago +2 / -1

Wrong. What was brought in was hyper-dispensational polytheism.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +3 / -1

The bible.

There are/were and will be many bibles.

Only ONE god.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

If discussed, it is lowered to the level of discussion. Nevertheless, when discussed between two who see it in agreement, God says 'There Am I'.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Perusing is not reading and reading is not necessarily understanding. Your take proves to me you merely perused if that and you don't belong in the conversation at that level. Sorry. Put on the big boy pants and try again. If you insist on denying points, be concise about what points exactly, and why and how they are wrong.

As another author you haven't read, Carl Jung would tell you, symbols are NOT 'just symbols' or your cross is to no effect as well.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

As any history book will show, The Council at Nicea was about this very concept. The gnostic fathers posited that to divide God into 3 was indeed polytheistic hyperdispensation which did not exist, for which they were murdered as reward in opposition to the new Pax Romana being formed. This same argument was being fought over in the Judaic Wars and was the very cause, apart from other obvious political machinations. God as Three is Polytheism by definition. God is ONE is the tradition, not the exception that 3 was, and is.

I know a little something about the subject, as I encountered the same issue when the 'String Theory' was presented to me by the head of cognitive scientists who coined the theory/term 'String Theory'. . In conversation, I posited a change in the name to 'String, Drum or Magic theory, 'depending on your perspective' to show that it was exactly a matter OF perspective that divides cognition/reality/God into three, rather than seeing it as the ONE that it truly is. This was successful in that the name was changed. I utilized the Monochord used by Pythagorus to teach harmony to students, with a single string plucked at measured points providing insight to the nature of harmony and mathematics. Again two subjects by perspective, but one in reality. I knew that introducing the concept of Spirit as 'that which bring the 'two' together as ONE, not Three, would not be accepted by science, so I used the term 'magic' as it is invisible. This was accepted for a time as it corrected inconsistencies in the original String theory. But I waited to see if they would be able to see the three as ONE, and they failed. They now attempt to remove the spirit as 'M', but don't know how to remove the inconvenient truthbomb. I didn't have time to explain the 'magic' as spirit, or to show how it becomes its own polytheistic 'trinity' when divided and isn't reconsilable ultimately. This a rarified subject and one who can't reach the height of it will always attempt to cast down those who see it. Misery loves company and project iniquity onto its subject-victim.

God is ONE not three. Christos is an ancient Greek philosophical concept term, not a blasphemous hyperdispensational god-man of polytheism. This was the argument of the jews against their usurpers, and the gnostics against theirs. The 'winner' of this argument by the murderous slanderers at Nicea became the focal point of the Pax Romana and 'Christianity' then became a roman state religion of control through dogma. None of these points are opinions, and neither bad science, nor bad religion can replace its inconvenient truths.

3
2EyesOpen 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its no theory that tax collector Saul's father taught comparative religion at Tarsus and his son used his expertise in renting the fabric, then sewing it back together under the new Pax Romana. It's no theory that Saul said that a voice in the light TOLD HIM to join the community led by James. (see infiltration). It's no theory that James was murdered immediately thereafter with the alt 'Paul' taking his place like some huge coincidence. It's no theory that most any serious study of the era and the accompanying histories, including the ones of 'Roman' historian Josephus admit exactly that. It's revealing that you see everyone's nature as 'stupid and selfish' and think that is a defense of position or a point of discussion. He certainly infiltrated whether you 'still believe him' or NOT. Historic facts prove the so-called theory, but that doesn't deter the stupid or selfish.

2
2EyesOpen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Go ahead and read the book linked if you truly want answers.

0
2EyesOpen 0 points ago +1 / -1

Repent and turn to the ONE, TRUE God who Rome and cohorts blasphemed by stealing the prior greek concept of christos and made into a polytheistic fictional human character to rule in the Pax Romana. Those who accept myth in place of truth were called 'Seekers after smooth things' by the Essenes in their scriptural writings for reasons. They were then martyred/destroyed at Masada by those same cohorts in order to bring the ruse. People here are supposed to be research minded rather than simply accept what has been given by TPTB or popular 'history'. Josephus was a traitor historian journalist,for Rome, and Roman citizen Saul/Paul, called 'The Liar' was an inserted infiltrate who's purpose was to co-opt Judaic Christianity to solidify that same Pax Romana. That's exactly what did happen. Do the work.

view more: Next ›