Originally posted by James Cusick
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines
Theists only.
This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.
The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.
The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."
The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.
The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.
The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."
The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The US & Britain in Prophesy:
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIn part but groups like the Etruscans, Latians (from who we get the word "Latin" from) and even Greeks proceeded them. Later groups like the Ostrogoths and especially the Lombards moved in.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostDesperately trying to get your brother's attention?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Cusick View PostObviously you are just rejecting the message and that is fine with me.
It is your loss.
When we put the pieces together it was the Assyrians (the Aryan = Germans) who carried away the northern Country know in the Bible as Israel.
So finding the Saxons on Germany is to be expected, and yet the Germans do not claim to be Saxons but Aryan.
Drawing on misinterpreted references in the Rig Veda by Western scholars in the 19th century, the term "Aryan" was adopted as a racial category through the work of Arthur de Gobineau, whose ideology of race was based on an idea of blonde northern European "Aryans" who had migrated across the world and founded all major civilizations, before being degraded through racial mixture with local populations. Through Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Gobineau's ideas later influenced the Nazi racial ideology, which also saw "Aryan peoples" as innately superior to other putative racial groups.[12] The atrocities committed in the name of this racial aryanism caused the term to be abandoned by most academics; and, in present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postit is you who are just rejecting any message that shows you to be wrong.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostDrawing on misinterpreted references in the Rig Veda by Western scholars in the 19th century, the term "Aryan" was adopted as a racial category through the work of Arthur de Gobineau, whose ideology of race was based on an idea of blonde northern European "Aryans" who had migrated across the world and founded all major civilizations, before being degraded through racial mixture with local populations. Through Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Gobineau's ideas later influenced the Nazi racial ideology, which also saw "Aryan peoples" as innately superior to other putative racial groups.[12] The atrocities committed in the name of this racial aryanism caused the term to be abandoned by most academics; and, in present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
I miss Freezbee.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Cusick View PostI just do not accept that "dominance" is the dating criteria, but if it were then yes it could arguably be 200 years and not 300.
The nation of England did not become Britain (or Great Britain) until the Scottish King James took over England in 1603. The same King James who authorized the KJV Bible. So we could use that 1603 date which would be 400 years. Otherwise in the 1700's (300 years) the American colonies were growing fast, and in the 1700's Britain was already in South Africa, in India, Australia, in Canada, and so the math can be debated, but the reality is still there to be seen.
The bigger point is that the Bible under the inspiration of God can hardly overlook such dominating superpowers of the 18th through the 21st century and still claim to be prophesy from God.
And as told in that book = Chapter 9 - "... that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days." Genesis 49:1
Prophesy for the "last days" - not the middle days or the before Christ days or the after Christ days but the LAST DAYS, and those are the key words.
Auld Alliance - Scots saw their country as an independent entity throughout the eighteenth century, even after the Union of the Scottish and English monarchies in 1603 and the Union of their parliaments in 1707 - and other European nations regarded them like that too. LINK
Merging of the three kings - ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings" (Daniel 7:17-24).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postit is you who are just rejecting any message that shows you to be wrong.
assyrians are not related to the aryans. and the aryans are not the ancestors of germans and they dont claim they are. The Nazis claimed that they were Aryans based on a mistaken idea from a book
Drawing on misinterpreted references in the Rig Veda by Western scholars in the 19th century, the term "Aryan" was adopted as a racial category through the work of Arthur de Gobineau, whose ideology of race was based on an idea of blonde northern European "Aryans" who had migrated across the world and founded all major civilizations, before being degraded through racial mixture with local populations. Through Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Gobineau's ideas later influenced the Nazi racial ideology, which also saw "Aryan peoples" as innately superior to other putative racial groups.[12] The atrocities committed in the name of this racial aryanism caused the term to be abandoned by most academics; and, in present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
The Origins of Aryan People
By: M. Sadeq Nazmi-Afshar
I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings
The king of many countries and many people
The king of this expansive land,
The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,
Persian, the son of a Persian,
'Aryan', from the Aryan race
"From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam"
LinK
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Cusick View PostClearly this topic has been sidetracked, and no reason for me to go there.
So I will give up this topic to the sidetrachers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Cusick View PostClearly this topic has been sidetracked, and no reason for me to go there.
So I will give up this topic to the sidetrachers."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Cusick View PostArmstrong (published 1975) got and shortened that message from an earlier source book called = Judah Scepter and Joseph's Birthright published 1902.
The old book is long and tedious, while the newer book is so much easier.
I do often have trouble getting people to separate the message from the messenger, in that I do not preach Armstrong but I do preach that particular book.
Too many people just attack that messenger while avoiding the message.
Anyway - I am offering the topic for discussion if anyone wants to discuss the subject, but I do not want to discuss that person.
This section of the forum called the Pulpit is said to preach - so this is my preaching and mine is far improved over the Armstrong preachings.
Calling it as "British Israelism" leaves out the USA so I do not call it that way.Last edited by Marta; 04-11-2017, 03:09 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by James Cusick View PostYes I get that.
Then God gathered His people back together from the 4 corners of the earth as done in the last days as one great nation and a multitude of other nations.
It tells all of this in detail if any one reads that book = The United States and Britain in ProphesyLast edited by Marta; 04-11-2017, 03:48 AM.
Comment
-
Reply:
Originally posted by Sparko View PostReally? everyone is talking about Britain and the USA and whether they are or are not in Prophesy as the lost tribes. Sounds pretty much exactly on topic to me. Or maybe you just want to give up because everyone has shown you that your claims (or actually Armstrong's claims) are mistaken?
You are just trying to win as if this is a competition, while my efforts to discuss the topic are derailed by that kind of forum bullying.
I realize that you are very clever and skilled at it, but any discussion of the topic ends with your constantly trying to win.
You reject the message without any true consideration, and yet you are determined to sabotage any one else from discussing it on realistic terms.
It does not make the message as wrong, and it does not make you as the winner, as it just shuts out the truth and shuts down the discussion.
--------------------------------------
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostJohn Martin...is that you?
And he had the guts to use his name instead of anonymous.
I say that each of you who disparage him needs to be ashamed of your selves for rejecting a messenger of God.
--------------------------------------
Originally posted by Faber View PostI doubt it. John Martin never tried to run for governor of Maryland and get only 10% of the Democratic primary votes.
So much more challenging and rewarding.
------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marta View Post... recitation ... ... recitation ... ... recitation ...
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment