|
Post by Dave on Dec 21, 2023 11:52:20 GMT -5
Infinity + Infinity + Infinity = Infinity Not as you claim three Infinity gods. Second you state 3 gods working as a term. This is yachad. Not echad, designed oneness. Not working as a team at all.You know the truth You know that you have only taught pagan polytheism here all this time.
TRINITY – God = The Son = The Holy Ghost (Spirit) One God – there is no other God – that no man can see – beyond creation The Spirit of God – God invisible that man can experience The Image of God – Christ visible – God incarnate Deny it again Exo 33 God - the Face of God that no man can see and live The Spirit of God – the Glory of God that man can experience The Image of God – the Back – visible in 3D form Deny it again Coin = heads + tails Coin – a concept that is beyond 3D description Tails – one side of the coin Heads – the other side of the coin Deny it again Tell us again why God and Christ MUST be two different gods – because Jesus prays top the Father Tell us again why there must be multiple gods in the godhead so love can exist – love is relational Man up - be honest - admit that you have been posting nonesense----------------------- Dave" My paper is only - 217 KB (222,748 bytes) You cannot even lie without lying ROb" What are you saying here? If you want me to read your book just email it me, I receive 1MB attachments all the time, your entire book is not even 1/2 a MB? As a favor to me – I asked you to proof read my paper for academic submission Σατανᾶς G4567 –vs- Σαταν G4566 How One New Testament Chaldean Loanword Causes Confusion in the Identity of Satan 10/24/2023 You read the first paragraph – then blew me offIt is how SDA Christians respond to favors of friendship – I guess
|
|
|
Post by rob on Dec 21, 2023 14:57:43 GMT -5
Dave" You read the first paragraph – then blew me off
ROb" Oh sorry. my pride got the better of me perhaps and wanted to defend myself from perceived errors. Since spending so much time with you, I have discovered that unlocking confusion is not so easy. Nevertheless I am not threatened by your theories anymore, they have many holes in them.
I am happy to read your paper again, but as I said before there is a serious lack of references and scholars who support your theory.
When I presented my theory about faith, I showed a reference to Ellen White, who uses the same word meaning as I do, yet her understanding of faith is void within SDA circles, meaning nobody understands faith correctly. But at least I include a grand reference for my theory.
In order to present your theories my friend, you need references, lots of them. Now we can find some references to "archons" but none so far about archons as satanas beings. All references I have read show archons as princes.
Now I am researching into 200BC writings looking for evidence the shedim where fallen angels.
I asked you for scholar evidence and support that "angelic entities" does NOT refer to "messengers" or "shadad" or "shad" or "cherubs that sin".
Where is your evidence and your reference?
Now my reading of murduk was a picture of a winged creature. A dragon with wings.
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 22, 2023 18:10:32 GMT -5
What is the two babylons theory? The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop | Goodreads In this book he argues that the Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than pagan cult, with roots in Babylonian mystery cults, which have a bank of secret knowledge only available to those who have been formally accepted into the cult. Never heard of the Book – never heard of the guyRoman Catholic Church is nothing more than pagan cult Agree – If presented like this:1- No invader could ever rule the Jews Because the Jews already have a King and a Law So the only choice was an attempt to quash the language and the religion 2- Jesus taught Pentecostal Messianic Judaism Powerful and influential men of the day could not rule these Pentecostals Because Pentecostals are led by the Spirit and already have a Gospel So the only choice was an attempt to quash the language and the religion 3- Gnostic Valentinus taught three types of Christians 1- the lost 2- believers 3- Spiritual – led by the Spirit The Roman Catholic Church was BORN in the struggle between 2- believers – dependent upon a priest and the church AND 3- Pentecostals led by the SpiritThe Roman Catholic Church was BORN in the struggle of human alpha power for the control of the people1- step 1 – vilify the Pentecostal – call them Gnostic and lump them with a pagan gnostic religion 2- step 2 – teach dependency upon the church Man is not worthy to speak directly to God – the church will be your intercessor To be godly – man NEEDS a priest and the church 3- step 3 – Jesus taught Messianic Judaism – so dejudify the new Roman Religion Synod of Laodicea - Canon 29www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htmChristians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. 4- step 4 – invent a Machiavellian tangible enemy to frighten the people with Catholic Satan Is the Roman Catholic Church – a satanic cult? GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY – just be honestThe Roman Catholic Church was BORN in the struggle of human alpha power for the control of the peopleIt is a cult of men – a cult of Rome – men seeking power and control over other men Once married to the State – The State using men of the church to control the people Have these men been deceived by their own arrogant importance – absolutely The archon have been whispering in their ears – be the alpha – be top dog – be important – be King of Tyre When does the Roman Catholic Church become a satanic cult?Ezk 28 an angel of the Lord rebelled and Fell from Grace 1- Denies the absolute sovereignty of God – God lost control of His own creation 2- it elevates satan to godhood - while diminishing the absolute sovereignty of God 3- it teaches that even angels can fall from Grace Christian Grace = unrequited Love – who can fall from that – impossible! When does Christendom become a satanic cult? 2- When it elevates satan to godhood www.pbs.org › newshour › arts › ancient-but-sma... At its core, Zoroastrianism emphasizes a never-ending battle between good and evil — a contest between the religion's God, Ahura Mazda, and an evil god, Ahriman. Catholic Answers - Is There Really a Devil? www.ewtn.com › catholicism › library › is-ther... Scripture and the Church's tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil'" Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Seventh-day Adventists Believe... The Great Controversy SDAnet - www.sdanet.org › atissue › books All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. Once married to the State – The State using men of the church to control the people The only good Indian is a dead Indian – America The only good Aborigine is a dead Aborigine – Australia Ellen White accused of being a Racist Ellen G. White and Church Race RelationsAdventist Archives - documents.adventistarchives.org › In her writings she states, ‘The separation of the races was expedient.’ However, such a position could be used to cover hidden racism. History – she did not sponsor church in black communities Her defense = she did not because she did not want to offend any of her white members Definition of Racism the Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than pagan cult, with roots in Babylonian mystery cults,YES - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH NO - to Pentecostal Messanic Judaism taught by Jesus Christ and His disciple in the Book of Acts Yes – church history – the mission of priest was to fill the seats and the collection plates – many pagan tradition were added to the Faith to attract new converts. Yes – church history – statues of the Crucifix and Mary were used to replace worship of idols Yes – Christmas – Christmas decorations - Easter – Ham dinners - Lent – no meant on Good Friday www.pbs.org › newshour › arts › ancient-but-sma... At its core, Zoroastrianism emphasizes a never-ending battle between good and evil — a contest between the religion's God, Ahura Mazda, and an evil god, Ahriman. Does the Roman Catholic Church have a bank of secret knowledge only available to those who have been formally accepted into the cult.(wiki) The Vatican Apostolic Archive, formerly known as the Vatican Secret Archive, is the central repository in the Vatican City of all acts promulgated by the Holy See. The pope, as the sovereign of Vatican City, owns the material held in the archive until his death or resignation, with ownership passing to his successor. Step Into the Vatican's Secret Archives History Channel - www.history.com › Topics › Religion Dec 6, 2017 — The archives' indexes are not public—and are only accessible to scholars once they are 75 years old—and they are housed in a fortress-like part of the Vatican.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Dec 23, 2023 4:03:36 GMT -5
Greetings Dave
The two Babylon theory is that Chaldean religion edited all other religions, including Jewish religion, and your idea of only a Roman Edit affecting Jewish religion is a myth. In fact the Opposer has been opposing God's religion as soon as God presented it to Adam and Eve, after they sinned.
Missrepresent away Robert You deny the history of canonization of the Bible
You state incorrect information - take a class - read a book YOUR STATEMENTS OF IGNORANCE are OUTRIGHT LIES
The book is difficult to read, and seems to embrace Gnostic elements, though I suspect Gnostic books were not around in the time of Hislop.
I offer you the chance to study scripture Instead you just post other people ideas - other people's beliefs YOU DO NOT KNOW SCRIPTURE - you play one word at a time out of context
Your only intention is to corrupt scripture - and missrepsent it to others Your interntion is to prase satan as a god - Ellen White says satan is a god
You just posted God and satan as equals on a tennis court Just satanic nonsense
Some aspects of his book:-
The two babylons by Alexander Hislop, published 1916.
Was it in a period of patriarchal light that the corrupt system of the Babylonian "Mysteries" began? It was in a period of still greater light that that unholy and unscriptural system commenced, that has found such rank development in the Church of Rome. It began in the very age of the apostles, when the primitive Church was in its flower, when the glorious fruits of Pentecost were everywhere to be seen, when martyrs were sealing their testimony for the truth with their blood. Even then, when the Gospel shone so brightly, the Spirit of God bore this clear and distinct testimony by Paul: "THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Thess 2:7). That system of iniquity which then began it was divinely foretold was to issue in a portentous apostacy, that in due time would be awfully "revealed," and would continue until it should be destroyed "by the breath of the Lord's mouth, and consumed by the brightness of His coming." But at its first introduction into the Church, it came in secretly and by stealth, with "all DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness." It wrought "mysteriously" under fair but false pretences, leading men away from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. And it did so secretly, for the very same reason that idolatry was secretly introduced in the ancient Mysteries of Babylon; it was not safe, it was not prudent to do otherwise. The zeal of the true Church, though destitute of civil power, would have aroused itself, to put the false system and all its abettors beyond the pale of Christianity, if it had appeared openly and all at once in all its grossness; and this would have arrested its progress. therefore it was brought in secretly, and by little and little, one corruption being introduced after another, as apostacy proceeded, and the backsliding Church became prepared to tolerate it, till it has reached the gigantic height we now see, when in almost every particular the system of the Papacy is the very antipodes of the system of the primitive Church.
ROB" What was this Mystery already at work in Paul's day, slowly destroying the true church Jesus had established?
In conformity with the principle out of which the confessional grew, the Church, that is, the clergy, claimed to be the sole depositaries of the true faith of Christianity. As the Chaldean priests were believed alone to possess the key to the understanding of the Mythology of Babylon, a key handed down to them from primeval antiquity, so the priests of Rome set up to be the sole interpreters of Scripture; they only had the true tradition, transmitted from age to age, without which it was impossible to arrive at its true meaning. They, therefore, require implicit faith in their dogmas; all men were bound to believe as the Church believed, while the Church in this way could shape its faith as it pleased. It was this priestly claim to dominion over the faith of men, that "imprisoned the truth in unrighteousness" ** in the ancient world, so that "darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people." ** Romans 1:18. The best interpreters render the passage as given above. It will be observed Paul is expressly speaking of the heathen.
ROB" Paul spoke about this edit coming into the gospel.
Dr. Hales has attempted to substitute the longer chronology of the Septuagint for the Hebrew chronology. But this implies that the Hebrew Church, as a body, was not faithful to the trust committed to it in respect to the keeping of the Scriptures, which seems distinctly opposed to the testimony of our Lord in reference to these Scriptures (John 5:39; 10:35), and also to that of Paul (Rom 3:2), where there is not the least hint of unfaithfulness. Then we can find a reason that might induce the translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria to 83 lengthen out the period of the ancient history of the world; we can find no reason to induce the Jews in Palestine to shorten it. The Egyptians had long, fabulous eras in their history, and Jews dwelling in Egypt might wish to make their sacred history go as far back as they could, and the addition of just one hundred years in each case, as in the Septuagint, to the ages of the patriarchs, looks wonderfully like an intentional forgery; whereas we cannot imagine why the Palestine Jews should make any change in regard to this matter at all. It is well known that the Septuagint contains innumerable gross errors and interpolations.
Rob" Interesting the Jews changed things to make themselves bigger
Thus does Scripture contain, within its own bosom, the means of vindicating itself; and thus do its minutest statements, even in regard to matters of fact, when thoroughly understood, shed surprising light on the dark parts of the history of the world.
Rob" Interesting
If the Egyptians and Greeks derived their arithmetic and astronomy from Chaldea, seeing these in Chaldea were sacred sciences, and monopolised by the priests, that is sufficient evidence that they must have derived their religion from the same quarter
Rob" The Chaldean Edit is far greater than the Roman Edit, which is oldest and first to influence Jewish religion.
And here I have to notice, first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognised in words the unity of the Godhead; and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other nations did the same
ROB : The first idea is this notion of Trinity, whatever this idea means?
In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. * * LAYARD's Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of their "triform divinity
. Some have said that the plural form of the name of God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to heathen divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest.
Rob" Interesting
The Babylonians, in their popular religion, supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures and in images as an infant or child in his mother's arms. From Babylon, this worship of the Mother and the Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, the Mother and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. * In India, even to this day, as Isi and Iswara; ** in Asia, as Cybele and Deoius; in Pagan Rome, as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy; in Greece, as Ceres, the Great Mother, with the babe at her breast, or as Irene, the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms; and even in Thibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were astronished to find the counterpart of Madonna *** and her child as devoutly worshipped as in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a child in her arms, and a glory around her, exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had been employed to set her up. Now, assuming that this is the "Father of the gods," by whom Rhea, whose common title is that of the Mother of the gods, and who is also identified with Ge, or the Earth-goddess, had the child called Muth, or Death, who could this "Mother of the gods" be, but just our Mother Eve? And the name Rhea, or "The Gazer," bestowed on her, is wondrously significant. It was as "the gazer" that the mother of mankind conceived by Satan, and brought forth that deadly birth, under which the world has hitherto groaned. It was through her eyes that the fatal connection was first formed between her and the grand Adversary, under the form of a serpent, whose name, Nahash, or Nachash, as it stands in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, also signifies "to view attentively," or "to gaze" (Gen 3:6) "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes," &c., "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."
ROB" What views does Hislop have of the Opposer?
The Kronos to whom Hesiod refers is evidently at bottom a different Kronos from the human father of the gods, or Nimrod, whose history occupies so large a place in this work. He is plainly none other than Satan himself; the name Titan, or Teitan, as it is sometimes given, being, as we have elsewhere concluded, only the Chaldee form of Sheitan, the common name of the grand Adversary among the Arabs, in the very region where the Chaldean Mysteries were originally concocted,--that Adversary who was ultimately the real father of all the Pagan gods,--and who (to make the title of Kronos, "the Horned One," appropriate to him also) was symbolised by the Kerastes, or Horned serpent. All "the brethren" of this father of the gods, who were implicated in his rebellion against his own father, the "God of Heaven," were equally called by the "reproachful" name "Titans"; but, inasmuch as he was the ringleader in the rebellion, he was, of course, Titan by way of eminence. In this rebellion of Titan, the goddess of the earth was concerned, and the result was that (removing the figure under which Hesiod has hid the fact) it became naturally impossible that the God of Heaven should have children upon earth--a plain allusion to the Fall. Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of that assumption itself. Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been the founder of Babylon. If Ninus was in reality the first king of Babylon, how could Belus or Bel, his father, be said to be the founder of it? Both might very well be, as will appear if we consider who was Bel, and what we can trace of his doings. If Ninus was Nimrod, who was the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for "Cush begat Nimrod" (Gen 10:8); and Cush is generally represented as having been a ringleader in the great apostacy. * But again, Cush, as the son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the "son of Ham/; ROB" I note that BEL the shedim god Murduk would have arisen in this time.
"Bel is confounded: Merodach is broken in pieces" (Jer 1:2). Before the flood, the great sin that brought ruin on the human race was, that the "Sons of God" married others than the daughters of God,--in other words, those who were not spiritually their "sisters." (Gen 6:2,3) In the new world, while the influence of Noah prevailed, the opposite practice must have been strongly inculcated; for a "son of God" to marry any one but a daughter of God, or his own "sister" in the faith, must have been a misalliance and a disgrace. Hence, from a perversion of a spiritual idea, came, doubtless, the notion of the dignity and purity of the royal line being preserved the more intact through the marriage of royal brothers and sisters ROB" Hislop sees the Gen 6 account similar to my own view
Now Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was black, in other words, was a Negro. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" is in the original, "Can the Cushite" do so? Keeping this, then, in mind, it will be seen that in that figure disentombed from Nineveh, we have both the prototype of the AngloSaxon Zer-Nebo-Gus, "the seed of the prophet Cush," and the real original of the black Adversary of mankind, with horns and hoofs. It was in a different character from that of the Adversary that Nimrod was originally worshipped; but among a people of a fair complexion, as the Anglo-Saxons, it was inevitable that, if worshipped at all, it must generally be simply as an object of fear; and so Kronos, "The Horned one," who wore the "horns," as the emblem both of his physical might and sovereign power, has come to be, in popular superstition, the recognised representative of the Devil.
The Chaldean version of the story of the great Zoroaster is that he prayed to the supreme God of heaven to take away his life; that his prayer was heard, and that he expired, assuring his followers that, if they cherished due regard for his memory, the empire would never depart from the Babylonians. What Berosus, the Babylonian historian, says of the cutting off of the head of the great god Belus, is plainly to the same effect. Belus, says Berosus, commanded one of the gods to cut off his head, that from the blood thus shed by his own command and with his own consent, when mingled with the earth, new creatures might be formed, the first creation being represented as a sort of a failure. Thus the death of Belus, who was Nimrod, like that attributed to Zoroaster, was represented as entirely voluntary, and as submitted to for the benefit of the world
ROB" Don't know much about Zoroaster, seems weird to be in Babylonian religion?
You teach it here with every post - two gods locked in a great controversy - a god of tov and a god of ra CO-EQUALS - on the same level - two tennis players on a tennis court
There is here, of course, all the extravagance of idolatry, as found in the Chaldean sacred books that Maimonides had consulted;
ROB" Maimonides is influenced by the Chaldean Edit
" As we have seen that Nimrod and the Chaldean Zoroaster are the same, the conclusions of the ancient and the modern inquirers into Chaldean antiquity entirely harmonise
As Christ, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, was called Adonai, The Lord, so Tammuz was called Adon or Adonis. Under the name of Mithras, he was worshipped as the "Mediator." As Mediator and head of the covenant of grace, he was styled Baalberith, Lord of the Covenant (Judges 8:33)
We have seen that the sufferings of the Babylonian Zoroaster and Belus were expressly represented as voluntary, and as submitted to for the benefit of the world, and that in connection with crushing the great serpent's head, which implied the removal of sin and the curse. Now, this Babylonian god, known in Greece as "The sin-bearer," and in India as the "Victim-Man," among the Buddhists of the East, the original elements of whose system are clearly Babylonian, was commonly addressed as the "Saviour of the world."
The Roman Church maintains that it was not so much the seed of the woman, as the woman herself, that was to bruise the head of the serpent. In defiance of all grammar, she renders the Divine denunciation against the serpent thus: "She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel."
p85 so far
I don't see the Roman Edit being the first to change the view of Satan, but that the Opposer was changing different views of himself to suit different religions, making confusion where he can.
Shalom
|
|