Hellenic religion

[julie]

http://itmightbewrong.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/biblewarninglabel.jpg

The book of truth, sent to me by a self proclaimed atheist, but when you read the labels, it is all true

[Vangelovski]

66 Episkopes, 66 Churches, almost all Macedonians, and to remind, the Macedonians are those who received the Christianity FIRST in Europe.

sorry on my charlatan bastardized english, which part is not clear to you?


edit:

iŽll try also this way, what is "theory" in the fact from the text in the picture above?

koj del ti smeta? Makedonjanstvo? ili toa sho tie koi PRVI go primile Slovoto Bozje, neposredno posle Smrtta na Isus, ne se soglasuvale so tie koi podocna, od interes, a ne od Vera i Ljubov kon Bog go primile Hristijanstvoto?

any logic left?

I wasn't talking about your English, and I think you know that very well. Your still talking about events that occured centuries AFTER the New Testament was completed - of which we have thousands of copies that were made BEFORE the events you are talking about.

Again, your Arianism was INVENTED over 200 years AFTER the New Testament was written. The New Testament, written by the apostles, clearly tells us that Jesus is God. The Council of Nicea, merely reaffirmed what was clear in the Bible.

Again, we have thousands of copies of the New Testament which were produced 200 years BEFORE Arianism was INVENTED, so no matter what happened at the Council of Nicea, we still know that Jesus is God.

This is the same Gospel that Paul took to Macedonia - that Jesus is God, nearly 300 years before Arianism was INVENTED by Arius.

Further, Arius was from EYGPT. So how you have connected him to Macedonia still baffles me.

[Vangelovski]

Julie, Makedonche, Makedonin, Serdarot and Philosoper, thanks for the upfront and honest answers.

I said 'if' and you ask 'why' - why? It was a hypothetical question, and I even gave an example. Not sure why you even bothered responding other than trying to turn a simple matter into something complex.

Interesting response. I am still trying to work out if it is in jest.

One obvious example of where they can be separated is the Macedonian Muslims or 'Torbeshi'. I don't consider them any 'less' Macedonian, they aren't the 'norm', but they are an 'exception' I am prepared to accept. Vangelovski, I asked a simple question, I can cite several hypothetical scenarios, is it context you seek? Here is one more example and that will be it, because I refuse to believe you guys are unable to understand what is being asked.
-------------------------

You are living in Macedonia and the Balkans breaks out into war. One group of Macedonians, all of them Christians, are calling for you to join their cause because they've formed some apparent alliances with Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks, with the aim of establishing a Christian state that would include all of the Balkans. The other group of Macedonians, mostly Christian but with some Muslims in their company, urge you to join their cause in the spirit of Macedonian solidarity, with the aim of (re)establishing a truly Macedonian state for Macedonians (This doesn't mean Christianity will lose its significance or place in Macedonian culture).

What would appeal to you more?

(If you can't or won't answer definitively, I don't see much point in responding)

SoM,

I'm going to be patient and assume you are asking out of innocence one last time and explain this as best as I can.

I would never accept anything short of a free Macedonian republic. And I don't believe the Bible requires me to. Further, I’m not sure what gave you the impression that I would.

God instituted the nations and told us to 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is Gods'. Ethnic identity and political organisation do not contradict God’s will nor does having a personal relationship with God contradict ethnic identity (in this example - Macedonian) and political organisation.

I know what you are digging for but I am unsure why. I will ignore the fact that you are asking a fallacious question one last time. However, if you pursue this, I will tear it apart.

[sf.]

But, why does there have to be a choice between your ethnic and religious identity, and who and why is imposing this choice?

I said 'if' and you ask 'why' - why? It was a hypothetical question, and I even gave an example. Not sure why you even bothered responding other than trying to turn a simple matter into something complex.

I originally said that you are asking two different questions. It seems that you're relating a religious identity to relationships/loyalties to others of the same faith. For the purpose of the argument, we will disregard the christian abhorence (and the debate over) of violence. In your last hypothetical, it is possible to be a christian foremost and side with the faction that wants to build an independent Macedonia for the Macedonians, regardless of their religious beliefs.

But I want to go back to the notion of choice, as this theme often crops up when discussing Macedonian identity and politics. It seems like we are the only people who need to prove every aspect of ourselves, to each other and to outsiders.

How many times have we seen our neighbours court us with the argument of religious brotherhood? They try to instill this notion that christianity binds us, as the most important aspect of human identity, that our Macedonian identity is somehow less important or is incompatible with our religious beliefs.

When we use these same extremes to test/explore our identity, we are in fact doing there work for them. I'll reiterate, there is no reason to have to choose between your religious and ethnic identity. For me, this is a simple matter. My intention is not to be argumentative, but to simply put forward my personal point of view. Make of it what you will.

[Serdarot]

I wasn't talking about your English, and I think you know that very well. Your still talking about events that occured centuries AFTER the New Testament was completed - of which we have thousands of copies*that were made BEFORE the events you are talking about.

you were talking about? Rusian? or My Macedonian?

if you dont understand the meaning of the Russian Text on the picture, is not a problem, i can translate, but that is not a problem i think...

You are being offensive here, insulting everyone who does not fit in your imagined frames of "good Christian".

You are telling lies and desinformations, are you aware?

Again, your Arianism was INVENTED over 200 years AFTER the New Testament was written. The New Testament, written by the apostles, clearly tells us that Jesus is God. The Council of Nicea, merely reaffirmed what was clear in the Bible.

Again, we have thousands of copies of the New Testament which were produced 200 years BEFORE Arianism was INVENTED, so no matter what happened at the Council of Nicea, we still know that Jesus is God.

This is the same Gospel that Paul took to Macedonia - that Jesus is God, nearly 300 years before Arianism was INVENTED by Arius.

Further, Arius was from EYGPT. So how you have connected him to Macedonia still baffles me.

what "Arianism"? dude, if it is normal to call the things wrong names in the vaticanized verzion of Christianity and your World, it is your problem, but tell that to youself in front of mirror, pls dont try to make fool of everyone who doesnt fit in your la la land. I like to call the things with their real names.

If i was satanist, i would call myself satanist. If i was speaking about tomatos, i would say tomatos.

When i say Makedonjanstvo, i mean Makedonjanstvo, and when i say Bogomili i mean Bogomili.

I dont care if you insult me, but do NOT try to twist the words and terms, specialy if you dont understand them.

Btw, you are constantly lying about some dates, the New Testament isdeveloped throough the centuries, taking itŽs most "famous" form (4 Gospels and the Book of Revelation) many Centuries after Isus lived.

There are lots of examples of Gospels and other writings writen soon after Isus lived, most of them are not included in the New Testament, couse they donŽt fit in the "vatikanized" version of Christianity.

You have problem to understand that those who decided how will Christianity "look", how will the New Testament look, and the "relation" between Isus and God, were prosecuting , torturing and killing Christians, and they "recognized" the Christianity from political interests, 12 years before they decided in what form it will be preached accros the (Roman) Empire.

You have problem to understand the 66 Macedonian Episkops disagreeing with the Roman Episkops and leaving the Nicaea together with their Brothers from Egypt.

On that "congress" at Nicaea, and on the second one, ~400 - 450 years later, it was "decided" the "definite" relation between Isus and God.

Also it was decided a lot about the New Testament.

It doesnŽt metter if you like it or not, it is so

I can say here that this my post - writing is actualy writen much earlier, few years ago, on some other forum(s), but on this forum, in this form, it is writen today.

And it is not copy-paste

here, enjoy watching this, was already posted on the forum

YouTube - Old Bible Proves Quran is Right

greetings


p.s.

because you will surely not concider the posibility that you are wrong, later i will explain you why 66 Macedonian Episkops could not be influenced by the guy you mentioned, that "Arius" guy

in between i will meditate concentrated on the numbers and chronology, maybe it will help you start thinking


* = thousands of copies? name few pls, New Testaments from that period. Not to be misunderstood: Some references of the Holy Bibles / New Testament "published" (writen) before 325 AD. Not legends, not misteries, History pls, date of publication of the New Testament, where it is published, where is kept / can be found now. New Testament, with the 4 Gospels and the Book of Revelation...

[Vangelovski]

Serdarot,

Arius is the one who invented your believe system - that Jesus is not God and the Council of Nicea met specifically to discuss this issue. The links that YOU provided discuss this matter. How is it that you don't know this? Didn't you read YOUR own links about YOUR own belief system?

I don't know where you get your crap from, but the fact the Gospels were written by the apostles and approximately 5,500 copies were made within 100 years of their being written shows us that regardless of what happened at the Council of Nicea and what Arius believed, we today have the same gospels that were originally written by the apostles of Jesus and these Gospels tell us that Jesus is God.

When Arius invented your belief system, nearly 200 years later, he was essentially creating a cult - which we know is false because we have these thousands of copies of the Gospels which were made hundreds of years before Arius invented your cult.

Further, no serious scholar (Christian, non-Christian, atheist or whatever) has ever questioned the dates the Gospels were written or when the thousands of copies where made.

Timeline:

Christ Crucified 33 AD

Gospels written by apostles by 70 AD

Approximately 5,500 copies of the Gospels made by 170 AD

Arius invents arianism (Jesus was not God cult) approximately 320 AD

Council of Nicea meets 325 AD

Christianity established as the Roman Empire's official religion 380 AD

I included the last one to show that Christianity had no official backing untl 380 AD - until then, Christians were persecuted and had no capacity to undertake persecution as Serdarot claims.

[Serdarot]

отець Северiан вмить вилiчував усi ресi, якi вiн знаходив у
латинян: савелiанство, жидiвство, македонiанство, аполiнаризм, армянство,
монофелiтство, монофiзитство, арiанство, несторiанство, iконоборство.

http://lib.tira.com.ua/index.php?cat=./lib/cat/proza/SU/UKRAINA/ZAGREBEL_NIJ&file=yevpraks.txt&str=7&fs=4

ti brat, vrska nemash sho pishish... Arianstvoto e "po-novo", ama ne e Makedonjanstvo.

Vo Makedonjanstvoto i Isus i Svetiot Duh se SOZDADEDNI od Bog.

I "Makedonjanstvo" ocigledno za cel svet osven za slepi pri oci odi od Makedoni, a ne od Arius

eve ti malku wikipedija, ne mi se bara pokje za tebe, prvo treba da svatis to sho dosega ti pisav, a za to ke ti treba izgleda mnogu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#The_Great_Persecution

This persecution lasted, until Constantine I came to power in 313 and legalized Christianity.

[Vangelovski]

http://lib.tira.com.ua/index.php?cat...txt&str=7&fs=4

ti brat, vrska nemash sho pishish... Arianstvoto e "po-novo", ama ne e Makedonjanstvo.

Vo Makedonjanstvoto i Isus i Svetiot Duh se SOZDADEDNI od Bog.

I "Makedonjanstvo" ocigledno za cel svet osven za slepi pri oci odi od Makedoni, a ne od Arius

eve ti malku wikipedija, ne mi se bara pokje za tebe, prvo treba da svatis to sho dosega ti pisav, a za to ke ti treba izgleda mnogu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...at_Persecution

Serdarot,

This wikipedia article you just provided is about the persecution of Christians, not your cult.

You originally described your beliefs as those of Arianism and provided the relevant links to the Council of Nicea that dealt with the Arian cult.

Now you are claiming to be an adherent of Macedonianism, another cult invented by Macedonius even LATER than Ariansim - approximately 40-60 years later. It was in fact the Council of Constantinople that dealt with this heresy in 381 AD. This now puts your cult even further away from the date of the Gospels.

On a side note, I'm still wondering what actual connection Macedonius had with ethnic Macedonians other than sharing a similar name?

[Serdarot]

Serdarot,

This wikipedia article you just provided is about the persecution of Christians, not your cult.

i posted the Wikipedia link to compare your numbers, couse seems you are bit in mess with them

I didnt wanted to present "when my cult was persecuted", couse I HAVE NO CULT.

Btw, pls try to avoid using such expressions like "your cult" , "sect" and etc, couse Makedonjanstvo was how the FIRST CHRISTIANS in Europa understood and practiced the Christianity.

You originally described your beliefs as those of Arianism and provided the relevant links to the Council of Nicea that dealt with the Arian cult.

your lack of knowledge and attention is obviosly a problem here... you made conclusion that i speak about Arianism, and i told you in almost each my post that i speak about Makedonjanstvo.

Now you are claiming to be an adherent of Macedonianism, another cult invented by Macedonius even LATER than Ariansim - approximately 40-60 years later. It was in fact the Council of Constantinople that dealt with this heresy in 381 AD. This now puts your cult even further away from the date of the Gospels.

much to learn you have...

On a side note, I'm still wondering what actual connection Macedonius had with ethnic Macedonians other than sharing a similar name?

read above, very, very much to learn you have...

i would like to help you, but you are too offensive for my taste...

i can TEACH you, but if you act properly

have a nice day

[Vangelovski]

Serdarot,

If you believe in time travel or some sort of time warp where 320-380 AD happened before 70 AD or even 33 AD, then maybe you have the events in the right order, but as far as I know, 320-380 AD was some 250-310 years AFTER 70 AD.

The last of the Gospels was written by 70 AD. By 170 AD, 5,500 copies had been made. We have these copies available to us now, proving that the Gospels we read today are the same as the originals.

The cult that you subscribe to was invented between 320 AD and 380 AD. So, firstly, how was it that your cult somehow came first, and secondly, how could have the Council of Nicea (325 AD) have changed the Gospels (as you claim) when we have these 5,500 copies that were made between 155-250 years before the Council met, proving they are the same as the Gospels included in our Bibles today?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I would never accept anything short of a free Macedonian republic. And I don't believe the Bible requires me to. Further, I’m not sure what gave you the impression that I would.

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I had such an impression.

I know what you are digging for but I am unsure why. I will ignore the fact that you are asking a fallacious question one last time. However, if you pursue this, I will tear it apart.

Vangelovski, what are you talking about?

.......there is no reason to have to choose between your religious and ethnic identity.

A hypothetical question with a couple of scenarios to put it into context, and still the dancing, why even bother.

Gents, forget I asked the question, or ignore it and allow others to answer it (as others have).

[Bratot]

Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman page 10

http://books.google.pl/books?id=kXdXKaJWs2UC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=Possibly+it+is+easiest+to+put+it+in+comparative+terms:+there+are+more+differences+among+our+manuscripts+and+there+are+words+in+the+New+Testament.&source=bl&ots=a0rMkVih2_&sig=WGR2yAk5LtoL0uv-5FZHpZ2M6QY&hl=pl&ei=Ji1pTMGHLYquOPegubsF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ

[Vangelovski]

Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman page 10

http://books.google.pl/books?id=kXdX...ed=0CB0Q6AEwAQ

Thats not true. The author would have been greatly assisted by visiting a few museums. It would also do him well to compare the 5,000+ copies that were made of the New Testament (within 100 years of it been written) to what we have today. Ehrman, in general, has serious issues as a scholar and has come under heavy criticism from his peers.

[julie]

Bratot, that is interesting.

[makedonin]

For anyone who want's to have something different than all those Church Apologetics, this should be a good start:

Who wrote the Bible?

It is a interesting book....