27 replies to this topic

[onnig]

I usually see priests and others within the Armenian Apostolic and even some Evangelical circles talking about issues that are secondary at best. As Christians, shouldn't we be primarily concerned about one's relationship to the living God of the Universe? I see other issues taking precedence, like Armenian identity, the holocaust, Armenian cultural observances, etc. Some may be gasping at the fact that I mentioned the holocaust is a secondary issue and that it should not be at the forefront of Armenian interest. Should it? Maybe it should, to those who are only Christian by name but not to those who have a real relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are in Christ realize that all these issues are mundane and that the pressing issue should be the proclamation of the gospel. There can be nothing more important than the salvation of souls or can there be? Can you name anything else that can be more important than the salvation of souls from eternal hell? I can't think of one. So, why would these "Christian" Armenians be so misguided as to priorities? Here are a few thoughts I have.

1. The truth of Christ is not a reality but just a passing acceptance due to their allegiance to a religious system.
2. Being Armenian prevails over being a Christian which is a form of idolatry.
3. The Armenian Church is inseparable to the identity of Armenian culture and therefore advocating Armenian heritage or Armenian interests one would assumingly be advocating Christianity and thus satisfying their need for any religious practice.
4. Self elevation rather than Christ elevation.
5. Personal holiness is not a concern.


The underlying issue I would say is pride. Armenian identity is preeminent in the Armenian community, especially in the Diasporas.

1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”

Armenians have a great history of heritage and culture, an ancient people but does that outweigh the greatness of the gospel? Never! Does this mean we should never teach about Armenian heritage to the next generation? No. Just don’t make it your main concern because whatever precedes in priority to the person of Jesus Christ, be it culture, identity, accomplishments, etc, it is idolatry. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of such praise and admiration.

Heb 1:10-12: And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

This world is perishing and will come to an end. Don’t let your work be in vain. There is no identity in heaven other than those who have been saved by the blood of Christ. A Christian, a true Christian will see this and his desires will not be misguided. Christians will desire to give their utmost for the advancement of God’s kingdom and not their own.

_________________________________

more at http://www.armeniansforchrist.com

[annannimusss]

Onnig,I have to respectfully disagree with you after reading all of your posts in this thread and the other ones. I belive that you are over simplfying everything. I would like you to make a list of things that are not "Christian" about the church, if you have time, or atleast the main points. Then I will ask my Der Hayr about all the points, and I will give you a very good response. I enjoy these sort of discussions, it is good to see where you come from,and your views.

[onnig]

Onnig,I have to respectfully disagree with you after reading all of your posts in this thread and the other ones. I belive that you are over simplfying everything. I would like you to make a list of things that are not "Christian" about the church, if you have time, or atleast the main points. Then I will ask my Der Hayr about all the points, and I will give you a very good response. I enjoy these sort of discussions, it is good to see where you come from,and your views.

Sako*****,

Here is but a few:

1.) The Badarak
2.) The mediatorial priesthood to absolve sin
3.) Salvation by works (i.e. baptism)
4.) Worship of saints (i.e. Mary)
5.) Veneration of idols and relics

Onnig

(after posting the word P A S H A, it was censored. Unbelievable!!)

Edited by onnig, 06 November 2007 - 01:01 AM.

[hagopn]

I usually see priests and others within the Armenian Apostolic and even some Evangelical circles talking about issues that are secondary at best. As Christians, shouldn't we be primarily concerned about one's relationship to the living God of the Universe? I see other issues taking precedence, like Armenian identity, the holocaust, Armenian cultural observances, etc. Some may be gasping at the fact that I mentioned the holocaust is a secondary issue and that it should not be at the forefront of Armenian interest. Should it? Maybe it should, to those who are only Christian by name but not to those who have a real relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are in Christ realize that all these issues are mundane and that the pressing issue should be the proclamation of the gospel. There can be nothing more important than the salvation of souls or can there be? Can you name anything else that can be more important than the salvation of souls from eternal hell? I can't think of one. So, why would these "Christian" Armenians be so misguided as to priorities? Here are a few thoughts I have.

1. The truth of Christ is not a reality but just a passing acceptance due to their allegiance to a religious system.
2. Being Armenian prevails over being a Christian which is a form of idolatry.
3. The Armenian Church is inseparable to the identity of Armenian culture and therefore advocating Armenian heritage or Armenian interests one would assumingly be advocating Christianity and thus satisfying their need for any religious practice.
4. Self elevation rather than Christ elevation.
5. Personal holiness is not a concern.
The underlying issue I would say is pride. Armenian identity is preeminent in the Armenian community, especially in the Diasporas.

1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”

Armenians have a great history of heritage and culture, an ancient people but does that outweigh the greatness of the gospel? Never! Does this mean we should never teach about Armenian heritage to the next generation? No. Just don’t make it your main concern because whatever precedes in priority to the person of Jesus Christ, be it culture, identity, accomplishments, etc, it is idolatry. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of such praise and admiration.

Heb 1:10-12: And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

This world is perishing and will come to an end. Don’t let your work be in vain. There is no identity in heaven other than those who have been saved by the blood of Christ. A Christian, a true Christian will see this and his desires will not be misguided. Christians will desire to give their utmost for the advancement of God’s kingdom and not their own.

_________________________________

more at http://www.armeniansforchrist.com

OK, I see your point. You are an anti-nationalist. You don't believe that there is such a thing as an Armenian identity of any value beyond Christianity. You don't believe there is such a thing as an identity at all beyond Christianity.

[Arpa]

Sako*****,
===
(after posting the word P A S H A, it was censored. Unbelievable!!)

You can blame me for that, thank you.
I fought tooth and nail to have that filter placed. After seeing disgustedly how some of us felt obligated to label some of our national heroes with that disgusting word, but more so describing those dogs of the kind of talaat and enver as such.
You can also blame me for the description of the Tricolor as Karmir, Kapuyt ,TSIRANIrather than narnjakapupukukukuyn,.
My next project will be to have "NK, Nagorno Karapupu" banned as well(Do we call our Homeland ermenistan?). What bothers me most in this case is that the Attsakh government official sites describe themselves as such. They may have a legal reason for it, but here on HyeForum we don't have to be POLITICALLY correct.

[onnig]

OK, I see your point. You are an anti-nationalist. You don't believe that there is such a thing as an Armenian identity of any value beyond Christianity. You don't believe there is such a thing as an identity at all beyond Christianity.

No, you misunderstood, I did not say abandon all nationalism, I said do not make nationalism prevelant above Christ, the person of Christ not some generic idea of what Christianity is. I am referring to the person of Christ Himself. If anything prevails above Christ it is idolarty.

[onnig]

You can blame me for that, thank you.
I fought tooth and nail to have that filter placed. After seeing disgustedly how some of us felt obligated to label some of our national heroes with that disgusting word, but more so describing those dogs of the kind of talaat and enver as such.
You can also blame me for the description of the Tricolor as Karmir, Kapuyt ,TSIRANIrather than narnjakapupukukukuyn,.
My next project will be to have "NK, Nagorno Karapupu" banned as well(Do we call our Homeland ermenistan?). What bothers me most in this case is that the Attsakh government official sites describe themselves as such. They may have a legal reason for it, but here on HyeForum we don't have to be POLITICALLY correct.

Arpa, are you a Christian?

Matt 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"
Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,"

[hagopn]

No, you misunderstood, I did not say abandon all nationalism, I said do not make nationalism prevelant above Christ, the person of Christ not some generic idea of what Christianity is. I am referring to the person of Christ Himself. If anything prevails above Christ it is idolarty.

If you think of it as the idea, I suspect Armenians knew Christ as Mihr long before the Jews began to debate against their own idolatry and self-importance. I choose nationalism, Armenian nationalism, over the rehashed and distorted Chrstianity pushed on us by any so-called 'Christian" church or organization that adheres to a faulty book falsely called the Bible.

I will label you an idolatrer any time of day if you throw the old Book at me. The book is a badly copied version of Armenian religion.

[Arpa]

Arpa, are you a Christian?
Matt 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"
Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,"

Am I a Christian?
Don't you mean"confusion-ist"? Can't you see that simply by the virtue of having been born an Armenian automatically makes me one, where the letter C has replaced and confused with the A. Which comes first? The Letter A(rmenian) or the letter C(hristian)? Were Tigran, Artashes, and for that matter Grigor(He never was an Armenian. Not by birth nor by death) Christians before they were Armenian?

Onnig, sometimes I picture you as little boy in a toy shop with all those shiny new toys.
You may have just discovered that “book”, I was there when it was being written.
No matter how I tried, those scribes could not understand me and they proceeded to write the way they see things. When they talked about “to thy neighbor/enemy", they forgot to add “make sure her husband is not around". When they wrote about forgiving one’s enemy, murderer they had not heard about the turk, neither had anyone else. When they composed that “Golden Rule” , the original text was “do unto them before they do unto you”.. Makes one wonder why those rabbis wrote these rules for export when they kept “eye for eye, tooth for tooth “ for themselves!! Why Isaiah (2:4)wrote “beat your swords into plowhshares “ for export to Armenia, while Joel (3;10) wrote “beat your plowshares into swords” for local consumption. That book is written in two languages, one for cowards like us and the other for the people who go by “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord” , yet they don’t wait for the Lord to act, they ACT by taking 100 lives for one of their own. WE should learn to read that “book” more intelligently and see what suits our own agenda.
And, of all those flat adages you forgot the following, for whatever it is worth, whatever it means. Does it mean to “give the turk hot coals so they can burn your house down”?
Rom.12
[20] Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Ուստի եթէ քու թշնամիդ անօթի է հաց տուր անոր, եւ եթէ ծարաւ է ջուր տուր անոր, քանզի զայս ընելով անոր գլխուն վրայ կրակի կայծեր պիտի դիզես:
Dear Onnig, you have much to learn. Stay tuned. Listen to what HagopN has to say about Lousavorich/Mootavorich, enlightener/darkener.

Edited by Arpa, 08 November 2007 - 08:34 AM.

[onnig]

If you think of it as the idea, I suspect Armenians knew Christ as Mihr long before the Jews began to debate against their own idolatry and self-importance. I choose nationalism, Armenian nationalism, over the rehashed and distorted Chrstianity pushed on us by any so-called 'Christian" church or organization that adheres to a faulty book falsely called the Bible.

I will label you an idolatrer any time of day if you throw the old Book at me. The book is a badly copied version of Armenian religion.

And there you go...

Choose anything that does not require a Lord, one that we must submit to as God, Savior and Lord, the only one, we'll reject that because we are autonomous. A Satanic lie. Call me an idolater if you will, I idolize Christ because He is worthy of it.

Your false accusation of Christianity being distorted and "pushed on us" is the classic response from a rebellious heart. One who will not take the time and really, without bias, research the overwhelming manuscript evidence of how the Bible has not changed in its original meaning and has been kept for our generation today in tact, is one who is willingly blind.

Show me how its "rehashed" and I will show you your error. Or do you not have any substance to what you are saying but just zeal without knowledge. Mihr is a pagan manacheian god of war and justice who is not, as Christ is, but I'm sure you already knew that but I'm not sure how you equate that with Christ who is the true and only God and Savior of men, an all encompassing omnipotent triune yet one God.

[onnig]

Am I a Christian?
Don't you mean"confusion-ist"? Can't you see that simply by the virtue of having been born an Armenian automatically makes me one, where the letter C has replaced and confused with the A. Which comes first? The Letter A(rmenian) or the letter C(hristian)? Were Tigran, Artashes, and for that matter Grigor(He never was an Armenian. Not by birth nor by death) Christians before they were Armenian?

Onnig, sometimes I picture you as little boy in a toy shop with all those shiny new toys.
You may have just discovered that “book”, I was there when it was being written.
No matter how I tried, those scribes could not understand me and they proceeded to write the way they see things. When they talked about “to thy neighbor/enemy", they forgot to add “make sure her husband is not around". When they wrote about forgiving one’s enemy, murderer they had not heard about the turk, neither had anyone else. When they composed that “Golden Rule” , the original text was “do unto them before they do unto you”.. Makes one wonder why those rabbis wrote these rules for export when they kept “eye for eye, tooth for tooth “ for themselves!! Why Isaiah (2:4)wrote “beat your swords into plowhshares “ for export to Armenia, while Joel (3;10) wrote “beat your plowshares into swords” for local consumption. That book is written in two languages, one for cowards like us and the other for the people who go by “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord” , yet they don’t wait for the Lord to act, they ACT by taking 100 lives for one of their own. WE should learn to read that “book” more intelligently and see what suits our own agenda.
And, of all those flat adages you forgot the following, for whatever it is worth, whatever it means. Does it mean to “give the turk hot coals so they can burn your house down”?
Rom.12
[20] Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Ուստի եթէ քու թշնամիդ անօթի է հաց տուր անոր, եւ եթէ ծարաւ է ջուր տուր անոր, քանզի զայս ընելով անոր գլխուն վրայ կրակի կայծեր պիտի դիզես:
Dear Onnig, you have much to learn. Stay tuned. Listen to what HagopN has to say about Lousavorich/Mootavorich, enlightener/darkener.

Well, where do I begin? Since you've already concluded that I have "much to learn" I will begin with a question.

Are you assuming that I made the claim that all Armenians are Christian by birthright? You've got that reversed. I believe all people are lost sinners by birthright, (Psalm 51:5, 58:3, 14:2-3, Ephesians 2:3, Job 15:14, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiates 9:3), including Armenians, that is why we went after false gods.

You confuse the personal aspect of loving your enemies with the judicial command of "eye for an eye". I'm not sure where you were going with the Isaiah and Joel passages. Your tangents are a blur. I read God's Word intelligently, that is how I love the Lord with all my "mind", I don't throw away reason with religion. I hope you don't think all religious people do that, do you?

Also, loving your enemy does not mean allowing any one to rape and kill your family "lovingly". It means to forgive them if it is done just as God has forgiven you (the believer in Christ) your sins. It is a very difficult commandment to obey, it is actually impossible, because it goes against the grain of our nature but it is the very nature of Christ:

"He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth." Isaiah 53:7

And even on the cross He prayed that His murderers be forgiven. How great His love for His enemies!

[aSoldier]

Well, where do I begin? Since you've already concluded that I have "much to learn" I will begin with a question.

Are you assuming that I made the claim that all Armenians are Christian by birthright? You've got that reversed. I believe all people are lost sinners by birthright, (Psalm 51:5, 58:3, 14:2-3, Ephesians 2:3, Job 15:14, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiates 9:3), including Armenians, that is why we went after false gods.

You confuse the personal aspect of loving your enemies with the judicial command of "eye for an eye". I'm not sure where you were going with the Isaiah and Joel passages. Your tangents are a blur. I read God's Word intelligently, that is how I love the Lord with all my "mind", I don't throw away reason with religion. I hope you don't think all religious people do that, do you?

Also, loving your enemy does not mean allowing any one to rape and kill your family "lovingly". It means to forgive them if it is done just as God has forgiven you (the believer in Christ) your sins. It is a very difficult commandment to obey, it is actually impossible, because it goes against the grain of our nature but it is the very nature of Christ:

"He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth." Isaiah 53:7

And even on the cross He prayed that His murderers be forgiven. How great His love for His enemies!

That's a great post, but don't be surprised if it falls on deaf ears.

[hagopn]

And there you go...

Choose anything that does not require a Lord, one that we must submit to as God, Savior and Lord, the only one, we'll reject that because we are autonomous. A Satanic lie. Call me an idolater if you will, I idolize Christ because He is worthy of it.

Your false accusation of Christianity being distorted and "pushed on us" is the classic response from a rebellious heart. One who will not take the time and really, without bias, research the overwhelming manuscript evidence of how the Bible has not changed in its original meaning and has been kept for our generation today in tact, is one who is willingly blind.

Show me how its "rehashed" and I will show you your error. Or do you not have any substance to what you are saying but just zeal without knowledge. Mihr is a pagan manacheian god of war and justice who is not, as Christ is, but I'm sure you already knew that but I'm not sure how you equate that with Christ who is the true and only God and Savior of men, an all encompassing omnipotent triune yet one God.

That is an arrogant assumption on your part, which is typical. First, you do not, nor will you ever know what's in another's heart. Second, you are not an authority on the topic as made evident by your insistence of the "immutability of the Bible," which is a historical and theological inaccuracy.

I happen to see the Christian as the heretic who usurped the Armenian concept of the Divine, of the Lord, of the Creator, and eventually fed it back to Armenians through violence. Therefore, if "satanic" has any meaning in this context, it is the Christian who is the actual satanist and usurper of ideas and credit.

The very name Armen is derived from "Ar" or "Ararich," the creator, and all subservient "astbatsq" were mere apparitions or metaphors of the creator's creation in its various manifestations. This monophiste belief system reasserted itself in later Armenian theology, but since prosaic readers of theology don't know how to sncretically interpret anything, they assume that by memorizing names and sticking to names, they are "knowers of truth."

"Chrst" is merely a re-hashing of Mihr, which is attested to by the Avesta, a much older sacred book than the Bible, that Mihr was an Armenian deity, a servant and creation of Ahura Mazda, which was known as Aramarz as the Armenian vartiant. Aramazd was thought of as the one Supreme Creator, the only God and Lord of all creation. It is the same concept of montheism, but the Christian detractorsa, since they were narrow-minded fanatical zealots and murderers, didn't want competitive thought.

When Grigor barged in to tear everything apart, his main goal, as with any so-called "Christian missionary" of the time, was to first of all secure the assets, gold, treasury, of the previous clergy. This is attested to by his own chronicler, Agathangelos and the narrative on the looting of these temples. Second, the book that you so boast as "divine revelation" was not faxed down to us by God. Men edited and compiled a bunch of older parables, sayings, stories, some distrorted historical accounts, into a book form. Most of the wisdom in these formerly isolated scatterllings came from other civilizations, more than likely ours for the most part. The form of this book has been contested since day one, and many, many people have been butchered by one faction or another proclaiming all the opposing factions as "heretics."

The "Bible" has changed numerous times in its history, particularly in the first 400 or so years.

[hagopn]

Well, where do I begin? Since you've already concluded that I have "much to learn" I will begin with a question.

Are you assuming that I made the claim that all Armenians are Christian by birthright? You've got that reversed. I believe all people are lost sinners by birthright, (Psalm 51:5, 58:3, 14:2-3, Ephesians 2:3, Job 15:14, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiates 9:3), including Armenians, that is why we went after false gods.

You confuse the personal aspect of loving your enemies with the judicial command of "eye for an eye". I'm not sure where you were going with the Isaiah and Joel passages. Your tangents are a blur. I read God's Word intelligently, that is how I love the Lord with all my "mind", I don't throw away reason with religion. I hope you don't think all religious people do that, do you?

Also, loving your enemy does not mean allowing any one to rape and kill your family "lovingly". It means to forgive them if it is done just as God has forgiven you (the believer in Christ) your sins. It is a very difficult commandment to obey, it is actually impossible, because it goes against the grain of our nature but it is the very nature of Christ:

"He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth." Isaiah 53:7

And even on the cross He prayed that His murderers be forgiven. How great His love for His enemies!

There is this old Ethiopian adage: Dead men have no rights.

[onnig]

There is this old Ethiopian adage: Dead men have no rights.

No, only that dead men have no ears to hear.

[hagopn]

No, only that dead men have no ears to hear.

Onnig, innuendos are the sign of Satan.

[onnig]

That is an arrogant assumption on your part, which is typical. First, you do not, nor will you ever know what's in another's heart. Second, you are not an authority on the topic as made evident by your insistence of the "immutability of the Bible," which is a historical and theological inaccuracy.

I happen to see the Christian as the heretic who usurped the Armenian concept of the Divine, of the Lord, of the Creator, and eventually fed it back to Armenians through violence. Therefore, if "satanic" has any meaning in this context, it is the Christian who is the actual satanist and usurper of ideas and credit.

The very name Armen is derived from "Ar" or "Ararich," the creator, and all subservient "astbatsq" were mere apparitions or metaphors of the creator's creation in its various manifestations. This monophiste belief system reasserted itself in later Armenian theology, but since prosaic readers of theology don't know how to sncretically interpret anything, they assume that by memorizing names and sticking to names, they are "knowers of truth."

"Chrst" is merely a re-hashing of Mihr, which is attested to by the Avesta, a much older sacred book than the Bible, that Mihr was an Armenian deity, a servant and creation of Ahura Mazda, which was known as Aramarz as the Armenian vartiant. Aramazd was thought of as the one Supreme Creator, the only God and Lord of all creation. It is the same concept of montheism, but the Christian detractorsa, since they were narrow-minded fanatical zealots and murderers, didn't want competitive thought.

When Grigor barged in to tear everything apart, his main goal, as with any so-called "Christian missionary" of the time, was to first of all secure the assets, gold, treasury, of the previous clergy. This is attested to by his own chronicler, Agathangelos and the narrative on the looting of these temples. Second, the book that you so boast as "divine revelation" was not faxed down to us by God. Men edited and compiled a bunch of older parables, sayings, stories, some distrorted historical accounts, into a book form. Most of the wisdom in these formerly isolated scatterllings came from other civilizations, more than likely ours for the most part. The form of this book has been contested since day one, and many, many people have been butchered by one faction or another proclaiming all the opposing factions as "heretics."

The "Bible" has changed numerous times in its history, particularly in the first 400 or so years.

Your eyes seem to have clear vision of other's "arrogant assumption" but very clouded when perceiving your own. It was you who first stated I had a "rehashed and distorted Chrstianity". I simply responded to such searing attacks with the source of the problem, a rebellious heart. Call it arrogance if you will, I call it truth. I was once as you but by God's grace the scales were lifted and I saw my boastful pitiful pride and I pray one day you will also see yours. Now to your misconceptions...

Second, you are not an authority on the topic as made evident by your insistence of the "immutability of the Bible," which is a historical and theological inaccuracy.

I'm still waiting for substance apart from your continual baseless claims. Are you an authority on the subject? If so, show me some substance. Why do you claim what you claim, on what basis? Is it an "obvious common knowledge" that the Bible is errant and has changed over time or is it just truly what you have made it out to be which is that of the premature convictions of the naturalistic humanist or in your case the mystical humanist. How can you ignore the overwhelming manuscript evidence that points to the near exact copies of the literal text of the Bible. No other literature has been preserved so precisely over time. Are you ignoring the Nash Papyrus, the Orientales 4445, the Codex Cairensis, the Aleppo Codex of the Whole Old Testament, the Codex Leningradensis (B 19 ), the Babylonian Codex of the Latter Prophets (MS Heb. B3), the Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets, the Cairo Geniza Manuscripts, the Erfurt Codices (E1, 2, 3), and even the Dead Sea Scrolls?!! These are just Old Testament codices. What about the New Testament codices like the P52, JOHN RYLANDS FRAGMENT (C. A.D. 117-138), the P45, P46, P47 CHESTER BEATTY PAPYRI (A.D. 250), the P66, P72, P75 BODMER PAPYRI (A.D. SECOND-THIRD CENTURY), the CODEX VATICANUS ( (C. 325-350), the CODEX SINAITICUS (
[ALEPH]) (C. 340), the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A) (C. 450), the CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS © (C. 345), the CODEX BEZAE (D [CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS]) (C. 450 OR C. 550), the CODEX CLAROMONTANUS (D2 OR DP2) (C. 550), the CODEX BASILENSIS (E), the CODEX LAUDIANUS 35 (E2 OR EA), the CODEX SANGERMANENSIS (E3 OR EP), the CODEX BOERELIANUS (F), the CODEX AUGIENSIS (F2 OR FP). I can go on and on and on.

I happen to see the Christian as the heretic who usurped the Armenian concept of the Divine, of the Lord, of the Creator, and eventually fed it back to Armenians through violence. Therefore, if "satanic" has any meaning in this context, it is the Christian who is the actual satanist and usurper of ideas and credit.

The very name Armen is derived from "Ar" or "Ararich," the creator, and all subservient "astbatsq" were mere apparitions or metaphors of the creator's creation in its various manifestations. This monophiste belief system reasserted itself in later Armenian theology, but since prosaic readers of theology don't know how to sncretically interpret anything, they assume that by memorizing names and sticking to names, they are "knowers of truth."

"Chrst" is merely a re-hashing of Mihr, which is attested to by the Avesta, a much older sacred book than the Bible, that Mihr was an Armenian deity, a servant and creation of Ahura Mazda, which was known as Aramarz as the Armenian vartiant. Aramazd was thought of as the one Supreme Creator, the only God and Lord of all creation. It is the same concept of montheism, but the Christian detractorsa, since they were narrow-minded fanatical zealots and murderers, didn't want competitive thought.

When Grigor barged in to tear everything apart, his main goal, as with any so-called "Christian missionary" of the time, was to first of all secure the assets, gold, treasury, of the previous clergy. This is attested to by his own chronicler, Agathangelos and the narrative on the looting of these temples. Second, the book that you so boast as "divine revelation" was not faxed down to us by God. Men edited and compiled a bunch of older parables, sayings, stories, some distrorted historical accounts, into a book form. Most of the wisdom in these formerly isolated scatterllings came from other civilizations, more than likely ours for the most part. The form of this book has been contested since day one, and many, many people have been butchered by one faction or another proclaiming all the opposing factions as "heretics."

Ideas and credit? What do you mean? Christ is not an idea. He is the one and only Savior of men because He is ABLE to atone for sin and has because He is the proper God-man representative to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the sinless unblemished Lamb of God. This is not an idea but a reality. Your god is not a savior god from sins and eternal hell but a savior in a temporal sense. Your god won't even acknowledge that you are a sinner which is considerable evidence that your religion is artificial and man-centered since man will never relegate himself as a sinner. You can get into linguistics and such but the underlying issue is not tracing the root of a word but in finding the evidence of what one claims historically and personally that is in the dealings of everyday life. You must be objective.

Also, I do not in any way defend the Armenian Apostolic Church. I believe wholeheartedly that the church is apostate and teaches a religion of works salvation which is foreign to Scripture. That might not interest you but it should because that is the Gospel of Christ that He came down to save sinners. As the Word of God says that we "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, " Rom 3:23. I know of the Armenian Church's inquisitions of the borborites, the first true inquisitions of any organized church. So don't side me with them because I am not of them.

I encourage competitive thought and every TRUE Christian would do the same instead of using the sword to gain adherents. As Christ told Peter, Matt 26:52 "Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

The "Bible" has changed numerous times in its history, particularly in the first 400 or so years.

Not so as I have shown merely with the short list of codices.

If you would like to have a rational discussion without the flaming arrows I would definitely prefer that.

[hagopn]

Your eyes seem to have clear vision of other's "arrogant assumption" but very clouded when perceiving your own. It was you who first stated I had a "rehashed and distorted Chrstianity". I simply responded to such searing attacks with the source of the problem, a rebellious heart. Call it arrogance if you will, I call it truth. I was once as you but by God's grace the scales were lifted and I saw my boastful pitiful pride and I pray one day you will also see yours. Now to your misconceptions...

I'm still waiting for substance apart from your continual baseless claims. Are you an authority on the subject? If so, show me some substance. Why do you claim what you claim, on what basis? Is it an "obvious common knowledge" that the Bible is errant and has changed over time or is it just truly what you have made it out to be which is that of the premature convictions of the naturalistic humanist or in your case the mystical humanist. How can you ignore the overwhelming manuscript evidence that points to the near exact copies of the literal text of the Bible. No other literature has been preserved so precisely over time. Are you ignoring the Nash Papyrus, the Orientales 4445, the Codex Cairensis, the Aleppo Codex of the Whole Old Testament, the Codex Leningradensis (B 19 ), the Babylonian Codex of the Latter Prophets (MS Heb. B3), the Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets, the Cairo Geniza Manuscripts, the Erfurt Codices (E1, 2, 3), and even the Dead Sea Scrolls?!! These are just Old Testament codices. What about the New Testament codices like the P52, JOHN RYLANDS FRAGMENT (C. A.D. 117-138), the P45, P46, P47 CHESTER BEATTY PAPYRI (A.D. 250), the P66, P72, P75 BODMER PAPYRI (A.D. SECOND-THIRD CENTURY), the CODEX VATICANUS ( (C. 325-350), the CODEX SINAITICUS (
[ALEPH]) (C. 340), the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A) (C. 450), the CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS © (C. 345), the CODEX BEZAE (D [CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS]) (C. 450 OR C. 550), the CODEX CLAROMONTANUS (D2 OR DP2) (C. 550), the CODEX BASILENSIS (E), the CODEX LAUDIANUS 35 (E2 OR EA), the CODEX SANGERMANENSIS (E3 OR EP), the CODEX BOERELIANUS (F), the CODEX AUGIENSIS (F2 OR FP). I can go on and on and on.
Ideas and credit? What do you mean? Christ is not an idea. He is the one and only Savior of men because He is ABLE to atone for sin and has because He is the proper God-man representative to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the sinless unblemished Lamb of God. This is not an idea but a reality. Your god is not a savior god from sins and eternal hell but a savior in a temporal sense. Your god won't even acknowledge that you are a sinner which is considerable evidence that your religion is artificial and man-centered since man will never relegate himself as a sinner. You can get into linguistics and such but the underlying issue is not tracing the root of a word but in finding the evidence of what one claims historically and personally that is in the dealings of everyday life. You must be objective.

Also, I do not in any way defend the Armenian Apostolic Church. I believe wholeheartedly that the church is apostate and teaches a religion of works salvation which is foreign to Scripture. That might not interest you but it should because that is the Gospel of Christ that He came down to save sinners. As the Word of God says that we "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, " Rom 3:23. I know of the Armenian Church's inquisitions of the borborites, the first true inquisitions of any organized church. So don't side me with them because I am not of them.

I encourage competitive thought and every TRUE Christian would do the same instead of using the sword to gain adherents. As Christ told Peter, Matt 26:52 "Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
Not so as I have shown merely with the short list of codices.

If you would like to have a rational discussion without the flaming arrows I would definitely prefer that.

You arrogance is still there. You speak in absolutes as if you have the scientific backing. The immutability of the Bible is fiction, and the irony is that there is so much scholarship to support this thesis, so much primary evidence, so much contemporary narrative, that it is a joke to even debate this.

Only recently the very organization that you condemn as a "religion of works salvation", the one that compiled your holy book, made more changes and ammendments upon the dicovery of the so-called Qumran Texts.

Here we have an individual who supports your view: http://en.allexperts...-made-Bible.htm, but this person seems to forget that the Qumran texts are dated a mere 2600 years old at the most. This is the kind of "dialog" we are talking about? No thanks.

What I would recommend you do is learn and then speak. There is no possibility of rational discourse with someone who has blind faith. My conclusions were based on discovery through exploration, and quite frankly if that is what is dubbed a "rebellious heart," then thank God this is what I am.

No TRUE Christian ever can offer TRUE competitive thought. Syncretism in Christian thought has long ago been condemned and violently persecuted. Learn of the fate of the Alexandrians, and I highly suggest you don't do so through the eyes of "Saint" Cyril.

In any case, if indeed the Protestants were and are Protesting as such, then why depend on the compilation (yes, a compilation) by the Chalcedonians?

The asnwer I have gotten is "Well, they were the Church Fathers," and so on. No. They were men who compiled a book. They were men who had assumed the title of Bishop, and this is frowned upon by Protestants who interpret the role of Bishops as defined in the bible. Therefore, why accept the compilation of Bishops that, in turn, supposely, also discredits the Bishops' title, the ones who compiled it?

I don't expect rational answers. Just to let you know.

[onnig]

You arrogance is still there. You speak in absolutes as if you have the scientific backing. The immutability of the Bible is fiction, and the irony is that there is so much scholarship to support this thesis, so much primary evidence, so much contemporary narrative, that it is a joke to even debate this.

Only recently the very organization that you condemn as a "religion of works salvation", the one that compiled your holy book, made more changes and ammendments upon the dicovery of the so-called Qumran Texts.

Here we have an individual who supports your view: http://en.allexperts...-made-Bible.htm, but this person seems to forget that the Qumran texts are dated a mere 2600 years old at the most. This is the kind of "dialog" we are talking about? No thanks.

What I would recommend you do is learn and then speak. There is no possibility of rational discourse with someone who has blind faith. My conclusions were based on discovery through exploration, and quite frankly if that is what is dubbed a "rebellious heart," then thank God this is what I am.

No TRUE Christian ever can offer TRUE competitive thought. Syncretism in Christian thought has long ago been condemned and violently persecuted. Learn of the fate of the Alexandrians, and I highly suggest you don't do so through the eyes of "Saint" Cyril.

In any case, if indeed the Protestants were and are Protesting as such, then why depend on the compilation (yes, a compilation) by the Chalcedonians?

The asnwer I have gotten is "Well, they were the Church Fathers," and so on. No. They were men who compiled a book. They were men who had assumed the title of Bishop, and this is frowned upon by Protestants who interpret the role of Bishops as defined in the bible. Therefore, why accept the compilation of Bishops that, in turn, supposely, also discredits the Bishops' title, the ones who compiled it?

I don't expect rational answers. Just to let you know.

You have completely evaded any substantive dialogue and continue your ad-hominem attacks. If you are not willing to even deal with the questions of the comparitive codices then you are clearly exposing your own ignorance in the matter. You have successful denied any "competitive thought" interchange with me and ironically acuse me of not wanting the same with you.

If you want to speak about the canon of Scripture I would love to but I don't think you really do. I think you are too satisfied in your inadequate understanding of the subject to dare to "learn" from others. You call me arrogant but are not teachable yourself, a true sign of arrogance. I looked at the link you supplied and found no problem with the content. Are you waiting for manuscripts from 10,000 BC? If all the evidence of the world is given to you, you will still not care since you are set in your presupposition that Christianity is a farse.

I tell you it is not and if you have the courage to have a substantive dialogue then I am here. If not, then go about your rantings.

[hagopn]

You have completely evaded any substantive dialogue and continue your ad-hominem attacks. If you are not willing to even deal with the questions of the comparitive codices then you are clearly exposing your own ignorance in the matter. You have successful denied any "competitive thought" interchange with me and ironically acuse me of not wanting the same with you.

If you want to speak about the canon of Scripture I would love to but I don't think you really do. I think you are too satisfied in your inadequate understanding of the subject to dare to "learn" from others. You call me arrogant but are not teachable yourself, a true sign of arrogance. I looked at the link you supplied and found no problem with the content. Are you waiting for manuscripts from 10,000 BC? If all the evidence of the world is given to you, you will still not care since you are set in your presupposition that Christianity is a farse.

I tell you it is not and if you have the courage to have a substantive dialogue then I am here. If not, then go about your rantings.

Onnig, not once will you ever engage in dialog. You will merely be exercising and flexing your bible memorization skills. You will hide behind your psychological ploy taught to all protestant "revivalists." I am quite intimately familiar with this. You have made every move expected of a revivalist. You are completely americanized in your outlook. "Scripture" to me is familiar from both your source and its sources. I don't pretend to sit and memorize verses of any item these days, let alone convoluted passages of religious text, but I can tell you from my experience in reading "scripture" of various religions that they mostly say the same stuff.

You would be amazed to learn that our ancetors, the Hatti/Hittites, (yes, they were our ancestors), were a major source for the Bible (Noah, that mythical "world island/ship navigator", just "happened" to land in Armenia). I say the Hatti, because religious material pre-dating Christianity in Armenia proper has been completely and vengefully destroyed, obliterated. This phenomenon, again, is described by a Christian historian, Agathangelos. the best edition, most accurately copied and typeset is still Archbishop Ormanian's edition. You are more than welcome to read him. You will be very much so educated (but I don't expect you to do so). Despite the chauvinistic trimmings of its Hebrew authors, it is made plainly evident, especially when you get familiar with the older texts that predate hebrews by many centuries, that they plagiarized, pilfered, and re-interpreted at their leisure.

You made the supposition that my opinion on Christianity is negative in its totality, which cannot ever be true. My assumption is that you are taught by your revivalist mentors to judge skeptics and critics, or even those who don't adhere to the - ironically - orthodox notions of (revivalist) Protestantism, as being "rebellious hearts" which, in today's revivalist Christian dogma is an implication of "devil worship" or "supplication to the devil" or some other nonsense.

You based this on my objections to its insistence on being "the one and only word of God," which is a preposterous and outlandish and incorrect claim. If you ever try to get to know the actual beliefs and moral value system of the other person, then all the legalist nonsense will disappear, and all names and forms will have no meaning. Since you adhere to the archaic view of the Bible's "monopoly in its supernatural status," then whatever examples of parallels between all religions I bring will be "a sign of a rebellious heart" to you. You have judged and condemned before even knowing the other person's essence, character, and beleifs. That's what revivalists do.

The idea that religions should coexist is a new and flawed model. In the old days, before exclusivist religions became the norm, syncretism was precisely that which said "all religions come from the same source," and that is precisely how certain orders of Christian monks have seen it to be Christian. That is precisely the opposite of your position. The essence of the Christian religion is not much different from Armenia's pre-Christian religious system in terms of its value system. So unavoidable is the reality that pagan religions and Christianity are overwhelmingly more alike than not, that I can give you an example of reluctantly stated position of the Catholic Church (long before Protestantism came along) that said "all religions come from God, but Christianity is the most perfected form of all these religions. All these religions were the test of God, the path to find God through Christ." Well, that's interesting, because that is precisely what the Brahmins said 1000 years before the Catholic Church existed. Yet, I don't expect you to even seek to find out whether or not I am giving you valuable information, that this might expand your knowledge and help you to perhaps even strengthen your faith in God. Perhaps (actualy, most definitely) the revivalist is taught to avoid all outside sources of "conflicting information" from that which is mandated by the revivalist movement and its siblins across the centuries and continents.

You made the standard claim that the Bible is immutable and has not changed. That is not even true between translations, let alone in its various compilations by various denominations throughout the globe. You have not brought any trustworthy scholarship to back that claim. I have searched for it, but have not found it. I began to change my views on this religion after I was exposed to its actual history and its essence in comparison to other so-called "pagan" systems of belief. Paganism was as varied back then as Christianity is today, and this too was reason for me to distrust Christian chroniclers and their blanket condemnation and discreditation tactics.

You have made the claim that Christ is not Mihr. Mythologically, they are indeed similar in attribute. They are the same deity, syncretically speaking.

You have made it clear that you believe in the historicity of myth. That is a fallacy that has been addressed by Christian thinkers as well as non-Christian.

You have made a blanket condemnation of the "ritualism" of the Catholic Church and its "pagan practices." Certainly, Christi himself - as the myuthical image passed down through "scripture" was a pagan in that respect, but the Revivalist protestant in North America - whose mental illness is spreading fast and furiously so - will not see that. Any mention of Christ's pagan attributes and similarities, stark similarities, betwen older deities, especially Mihr, will be seen as "a sign of the devil's tongue" or some other frightfu nonsense.

it is overwhelmingly accepted by science that Jesus is a mythical recreation, an inflation of a historical figure to mythical status. That is plainly evident even to the most amateur student of the history of mankind's religion and development of its cosmology. If you insist that the chap walked on water, then I will give you an example of when Krishan walked on water 10 centuries before. Miracles performed. Numerical attributes, the "age of widom, 12", the "age of sacrifice, death and ressurrection of 33," and it goes on an on. These are all pagan ideas, and they have been applied almost in the same manner in older pre-Christian, pre0-Hebraic in fact, sciprture.

Your answer will be predictable. You will be 1) poised to discredit anything that mentions anything other than the "exclusively divine supernatural status" of the Bible, 2) position to give Bible lessons from verses that you have managed to memorize in your Bible class, and 3) from this you will gloat with much self-admiration that you have managed to outquote the other, and thus you are "clearly victorious." You have "stood down the devil, and you have kept your faith with the mighty shield of Scripture."

It's a fascinating phenomenon, really.