>look the frist of my
>arguments is begot from two
>neoplatonist one that was in
>the 3 century and another
>druing the 4 century. these
>men are celsus and prophyry
>clesus agrument was the ecumenial
>councils (the nicean councils)

Responce: Celsus was a 2nd century pagan philospher not 3rd century. He defeared by a man named Origen. He wrote a discourse known as The True Doctrine.

and
>if you where going to
>disect my agrument you should
>have also add to it
>how i stated that my
>agrument is proved to the
>fact that THE BIBLE EXPLAINED
>THE TRINTY.

Responce: With you so far.

THE BASES FOR
>THE ARIUS ARGUMENT WAS HOW
>CRHIST'S NATURE WAS THAT OF
>A MAN. NOW I DON'T
>KNOW HOW STUPID YOU ARE
>BUT ANYBODY WITH HALF A
>MIND THATZ READ THE BIBLE
>HAS SEEN TRINTY IN IT.NOW
>I DON'T KNOW HOW THE
>HELL WITH SUCH A STRONG
>STATMENT AS CHRIST IS THE
>FATHER SON HOLY SPRIT WRITTEN
>DOWN CAN BE A BASES
>FOR AN ARUGMENT. UNLESS THE
>REASON FOR THE ARGUMENT WAS
>THE FACT THERE WAS NO
>WRITTEN MANUALSCRIPT.

Responce: Well we all know that Arius was debating Alexander, Hosius and Athanasius correct. Lets see what Anthanasius says " Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that a person reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announed in divine scripture.

So you see they had the scripture to read right in front of them the thing that Arius did was read into the text what he wanted them to say.

LOOK I DON'T
>USE THE BIBLE FOR MY
>ARGUMENTS BECAUSE TO USE THE
>THEOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY OF THE BIBLE
>TO EXPLAIN HISTORICAL EVENTS IS
>AS STUIPD AS TRYING TO
>HIT A FOOTBALL WITH A
>GOLF CLUB. IF YOU KNOW
>ANYTHING ABOUT ROMAN HISTORY YOU
>WOULD KNOW THAT RELIGOUS ARGUMENT
>WAS THE FOCIAL POINT FOR
>THE DEMIZE OF THE EMPIRE.
>HENCE THE BREAK AND CONSEQUENT
>DIVISONS OF THEOLOGY. IF YOU
>DOUBT MY ARGUMENT PLEASE READ
>UP ON THE HISTORY ITSELF.
>
>AND STOP TRYING TO USE THE
>SAME DOCUMENT I'M TRYING TO
>DEBUNK TO SOLIDIFY YOUR ARGUMENT
>CAUSE YOUR GOING TO LOSE

Responce : Yawn.
>