| |
Bet-Nahrain Forum
Malik Don Re: To Persi and Nissan
Posted By: Akhna (CPE-144-132-165-65.nsw.bigpond.net.au)
In Response To: Re: Shamian KhatieRe: To Persi and Nissan (Malik Don)
Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2006, at 7:20 a.m.
sorry Malik, I had forgotten to mention some points
Akhnaee B'Omta O'eetie Khlita
You said "PLEASE do not word it that way. We were not khampe before Christ nor after him "
Akhonee Khelia, Khempeh refers to people who knew God fully and did not accept him. How could Assyrian be called Khampeh if God was not disclosed to them, and after Christ, how could be called Khampe if they have lost millions (and probably billions during the centuries, in his name that is whorshipped by every tongue in the world)? St. Paul says that if there is law there then is sin but if there is no law, then there is no law. so according to St. Paul, our forefathers, before Christ, were not Khampeh as they did not know God in the begining anyway. as for after Christ, the blood that they shed for his son's name is enough to make them saints, for Christ said "whosever loses his life for me, will gain THE ETERNAL LIFE" and this word FOR ME is enough to make me believe that Assyrians were the true carriers of the Christ's cross. for he said "if anyone denys carrying my cross (his life and death) is worth me". actaully the true Khampeh are the jews people whome were the chosen nation of God, yet, in both books one which is their own, they are the outcasted ones, as well as the other christian LEADERS who think that they have Christ in their own image yet they do not live in his own image. so who is Khampeheh? Certainly not Assyrians, and that is why you should read the Bible besides the science of today, whatever it maybe. In regards to people's customes such as Nusardil, I do not deny it and do not say that it was a Khampeh treditions, for as I said, if there were no laws then there was no law breaking. so the people's customs such as Nosardil and Baoota D'Ninvaieh (and some others probably) kept on going, for there was no law breaking but a compliment of heritage given by God himself to the Assyrian, unlike the idol worshipping of the romans, for which God called the Isralites, the whore nation by Isaiah and my Lord and God himself, for a whore, would leave her true man to sell herself to other man and that is what the jews did and that is what the catholicism did, for bringing the idols into christianity so that they gain more people in the early stages and gain more power in return. and also with the referals that you gave to prove that a religion is a continuation of the old customs, I disagree with you, for that fact that Christianity and Christ was perfecting our Assyrian forefathers thoughts of Divinity but not a "mere continuation of it" as you stated, otherwise, then why would be or have the right to claim the true faith, among jews, and christians? if you want to be like the rest it is up to you, but if you want the truth, read the Bible (the old and new and please do not read it as a shallow story but look into dept of meaning as our forefathers had) and then you will see the truth WHY ASSYRIA WAS THE FIRST AND IT WILL BE THE LAST, as my Lord and God said in the revelations" I AM ALAB AND I AM TAOE".In the paragraph about the Whore Babylon that I mention, you should read my posting. the name Babylon was a code name for Rome and not Assyrians or Assyria. look into Papal Legacy by the Catholic Professor of Theology of Saint Magdaline college. this book is well known and indorsed by the vatican. so you do need to give me any extra references to convert me into what I already believe in (smile).
In regards to God's real name that you said "is ASHUR", I would like to ask you as an educated man to think about something that I want to tell you or ask you. why do you think the reason is that we have names? isn't it to distinguesh one from another? if yes, and if we believe and believed in one UNSEEN GOD WHOSE NAME WAS NOT DISPLAYED ACCORDING TO THE ACTS IN BIBLE WHEN ST. PAUL ENTERED THE ARAMAEIC TEMPLE, then why would we go against our forefathers and give a name to the Almighty God? is it to distinguish him from any other God? We have believed in one unseed God whose name ORIGINALLY WAS ASHUR and as the times progressed, we found him to be namelss (according to the ACTS and St. Paul's sighting) and later reaveled to us through his begotten son Christ, Jesus, so why would we want to do what out forefathers never believed in anyway. Our (very early) forefathers gave name to the holiest of the holiest of all gods and his name was Ashur and that is why when they were praying to Ashur, they were parying to the unseen God, but now that we have the Son of God telling revealing us about God, his father, that he is THE ONE AND ONLY, as it was said on and on in the old testemont, then why should we give him a name? A name is given, logically, for something so that it is distingueshed from others like him or similar to him, and since Our God is the only one and has no other similar to him or like him, then why would we need to give him the name that our forefathers used to distinguish the useen God whom they did not know, from other Gods? Are we going back or forward?
Regards
| |
Bet-Nahrain Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.12.