Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 03-20-2013, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

(40.) For no longer will they,
condemned for wicked complicity,
be deceived by you nor will they,
entangles in your abominable investigations,
continue to perish absolutely.

Your sophisms are clear
and known to all persons,
at all events for the future.

Nor indeed will you yourself
be able to accomplish anything,
but in vain will you contrive,
counterfeiting both fairness
and gentleness of discourses
and donning externally –
so to speak –
a mask of simplicity.

In vain will be all your artifice,
for straightway the truth
will circumvent you,
straightway the rain of divine power
– so to speak –
will quench your flames.

Not sure if your reply is to the point but let me remind you here that sophist are look-alikes and he hit the nail right one with what he wrote.

Sophistry itself is evidence of deprivation. Sophistry is a privation of human being, one that catalyzes on others for being in general who so by defintion are mere look-alikes. Failed philosophers, is what Plato called them.

Note his words here "truth will circumvent" as in every word [they] speak in the mastery of their art wherein they waiver between being and non-being instead of remain.

Chili · 03-21-2013, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Isn't it interesting that he would be referring to Arius as the anti Christ out of nowhere and yet the Arians still existed rather unmolested with even at least one son of Constantine adhering to Arianism until they died out over time even among the Visigoths? Were there shootouts at the asdorted Councils between 325 and 381?

The anti-christ is hard to kill and must be stamped out like a fire that keeps popping up each generation anew. What you describe here is just the evidence of the nature of the second beast and I pointed to Rev.13:11- to find it.

So Pete's reply is right that he confirmed with this:

Quote:

I do not consider the hypothesis that Arian was a Christian theologian proved. This is what the victors of Nicaea wish us to believe. My hypothesis is that he was a Platonic theologian; Arius names his spiritual father as "Ammonius".

. . . wherein Platonic theologians are look-alikes in their sophistry and failed philosophers Plato called them and always 'schoolboys' will remain.

To elucidate that see the contradiciton in "Christian theologian" wherein now the the 'mind of Christ' [as Christian] is studying theology and I see snot all over it wherein it does not help to lean on Platonic theologians as look-alikes, for snot is snot is snot and so now a PhD in theology is a degree in snottery.

Why not call it philosophic so that Plato will emerge?

Hint: 'Eagles with clipped wings' is all they are, chastised by their scholastic discipline with no liberty to soar.

Chili · 03-21-2013, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Jesus, as son of YHWH, represents harmony with "scripture", and John 1:1 thus serves as a single line version of the multi page text of the old tradition.

Arius, following his mentor's guide, is simply insisting on rigorous understanding of the original text, an attitude which puts him at odds with the existing power brokers, who seek to reject the old, and replace those dusty, weighty tomes with their own, vibrant, shiny, fresh papyrus. Arius, a stick in the mud, insisting on old traditions, was a hindrance to Catholic plans for revision, so they got rid of him, the old-fashioned way.

Exactly, read here:

Quote:

:
Originally Posted by Rowan Williams
"Arianism has often been regarded as the archetypal Christian deviation, something aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession…. Arius himself came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice, a desperate enmity to revealed faith. The portrait is already taking place in Epiphanius’ work, well before the end of the fourth century. By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art. (The account of this death in fourth and fifth century writers is already clearly modeled on that of Judas in the Acts of the Apostles.) No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of ‘demonization’".

Rowan Williams, "Arius: Heresy & Tradition

And then consider the inspired lineage of Luke (after the dove descended) that goes past all the ancients and right back to God to pave the way for John to demonstrate that all roads henceforth will lead to Rome.

And so yes: this is the son or genus of John 1:1 that even Plato was looking for in his "Sophists" 267D, I think it was. The question still remains: which Jesus was the son and that is what the 4 gospels demonstrate.

Chili · 03-21-2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

MM, If the Arians, including some famous Christian names including Eusebius and Visigoths, were Platonists rather than Christians, why then is their christology always the topic of discussion in history? Where are the hints otherwise? Certainly this begins to call into question what if any early non-orthodox Christian sects actually existed especially if it can be argued that so-called gnostic texts were simply lampooning Christianity.

The answer is that the gnostice were rivals already then, and let's add here that it is not good enough to be a Platonist, but 'be' (to on) the ideal that Plato saw wherein Telic Vision is the end that puts the halo on the man himself as the son wherein he is the genus of man as kind identified wherein so both God and Lord God is confirmed, instead of the ideal (Jesus) seen with reverence to him.

The evidence here already is in "Christian sects" or' Gnostic sects,' opposite to which 'the christian' is a solitary individual who is 'non-social' and never the leader of a pack nor is he asocial, but can be social as Freeman himself.

Chili · 03-22-2013, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Or why does duvduv think the Fathers of the Rabbanites are more reliable than the Fathers of the Christians, or why does he embrace the tradition associated with the one group, accepting its authenticity, and rejects the reliability of the one associated with the other?

I would say that the Fathers of the Christains must be look-alikes, and imposters really as look-alikes because the 'Christian' TM, is the son himself as born again, here now chosen and from the chosen has been called by name: "you are my beloved son, on you may favor rests" and so will also have the mind of Christ . . . and if not, maybe was given scorpion instead as look-alike.

Just a different reading is all that I present, but does that line up with those who were given a fish from the father as his son.

Logically this would prompt the question: how can there even be a father of the Christian Church if the Father has no church? (Rev.21:22). So are they all salemandrites firing the mind of humans so they will also be called as look-alikes?

Bottom line: the Christian church itself must be a lie and therefore is called Catholic.

Chili · 03-22-2013, 01:57 PM

But does logic not count for anything? Or do we just ignore that there is no Temple in the New Jerusalem that does not even exists, we say, and obviously must be a redaction by the evil early church.

Chili · 03-22-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

And so yes: this is the son or genus of John 1:1 that even Plato was looking for in his "Sophists" 267D, I think it was. The question still remains: which Jesus was the son and that is what the 4 gospels demonstrate.

. . . . from which follows that the NT is not even a Abrahamic religion now with a Testment of it's own in force.

The public sacrifice of Jesus, for which the testator must have died to put the testament in force severed the NT from the OT, and is why the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleansed our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! = freedom from OT obligation and thus no longer Abrahamic on it's own.

This idea is once again confirmed in Matthew and Mark's Gospel where this Jesus, I think his name was James or Jim went back to the Jews in Galilee again, while Luke and John was for those whe were not Jew that so became known as Christendom, and is not Abrahamic in origin as also is shown by the lineage of Luke wherein he goes past all the ancients right back to God.

From this follows that Christians already stand convicted as look-alikes when they even look at the OT.

Chili · 03-23-2013, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

...

In my opinion, Toto, the prohibition is very clear: Jews were forbidden to CARVE images, that represented, NOT SPIRITS, but GODS.

At this, point, I think you are just arguing to argue. The difference between spirits, archons, demons, lesser gods, pagan gods, false gods - is - what?

Quote:

...

What about Gibson's FALSE notion that "sculptilis" means "sorcerer"? Did that pan out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson, post 163

Leaving aside the fact which you seem to be unaware of that the Vulgate uses "sculptilis" to render כְשָׁפִ֖ים "sorceries", so what? All that means is that Jerome was giving the literal Latin equivalent of what he (or Lucian) found in the Hebrew text of Ps. 96. It has no bearing on whether אֱלִילִ֑ים (or for that matter "sculptillis") was thought to mean, or connoted, "evil spirits" -- a point that you have yet to deal with, and, notably, keep avoiding.

Jeffrey Gibson did not say that sculptilis means sorcerer. He said that the Vulgate used sculptilis to translate the Hebrew word for sorceries. This is an issue of translation that seems a bit far from the issue of the meaning of demon.

What was supposed to pan out here?

Lesser gods are human in origin, where they are extractions from the TOL to nurture curious minds in the TOK who run away with it and proclaim to know, such as bible passages they read and, for example, brew up salvation messages with them.

In short, anything human in origin is not divine to even our riches and that includes our PhD's as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2013, 01:57 PM	#6
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	But does logic not count for anything? Or do we just ignore that there is no Temple in the New Jerusalem that does not even exists, we say, and obviously must be a redaction by the evil early church.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.