>Platonism was not trinitarianism it was tri-modal.

it layed the groundwork for the trinity you now believe. If you can't
see that then  no amount of reasoning will convince you. It is you that
needs to do your homework. You feed on what is friendly to what you
want to believe- you like to have your ears tickled. I could could
quote countless scholars who assert that Plato paved the way to Nicea
and you can come back with your trinitarian apologists and nothing will
change here.

>You are an idolator!  That is, you view God other than He is, and this
>is basic to all idolatry.

oh the tragic irony here. I believe in the same God Jesus believed in.
You do not. Jesus referred to this God as the "only true God" (John
17:3) He called him God on earth (John 20:17) and in heaven (Rev.
3:2,12). It is you that believes in a pagan 3-headed monstrosity that
can't even be supported by complicated philosophy. You have gone awry
in your sophistry. Jesus is inferior to YHWH- always has been and
always will be.

>As late
>as the 2nd C we see the "rule of faith" in written formulas which are
>either clearly dyadic or triadic in nature.

so what? they aren't triune

>The "Didache" (7:1-3) uses a Trinitarian blessing. Irenaeus
>clearly uses this in "Proof" 3.   I suggest you read his
"Epistle to
>Magnesian" 8.2.

You only think it's "trinitarian" because you already believe in the
trinity. Such is the case with Matthew 28:19, which is an obvious
influence. You are guilty of circular reasoning again.


>Everything was lost after the
>departure of the apostles, according to your exposition.

that is not my contention. it was a gradual decay- as time passed Greek
philosophy, gnosticism, politics played an ever increasing role in the
"church". Polycarp seems to stick quite closely to his teacher John for
example.

>The problem with this is that it is totally contrary to the Hebrew
>Scriptures.  Revelation was progressive

Sure but not when it comes to fundamentals like...what the soul is for
example - Adam was made from dust and he returned to dust (Gen. 3:19)
He didn't *have* a soul he *became* a living soul (Gen. 2:7). God's
people always believed in the resurrection of the dead not an immortal
soul- which was popular amongst pagan religions. As time passed some of
God's people were polluted with this teaching. Same goes for your silly
trinity. After the death of the twelve there was no "progression" from
monotheism to the "trinity" . It was an aberration not a progression.

>Admittedly, Trinitarianism is spoken of sporatically in the epistles.

more accurately- not at all. Do you not find it odd that somehow the
"trinity" seems to be the most important doctrine to
"trinitarians". It
is as if their definition of what a Christian is "one who believes
Jesus is God".  This is likely why the majority I have met are drunk on
emotion rather than holy spirit (you and Matthew included)

>That is partly because even the apostles themselves were transitioning
>from a singular monotheism into a trinitarian monotheism even as then
>transitioned in many other area's as well.

Not a chance. They made a transition from the Law of Moses to the "Law
of the Christ" and that was explained heartily throughout the New
Testament. Trinitarianism did not exist until the 3rd Century.
Certainly there are traces of this heresy in the writings of the "early
church fathers" but that is no surprise. The foretold apostasy was in
effect. As a side point. The "early church fathers" are not really
important when it comes to discussing what the Bible does or does not
say. The only reason I am talking about it is because of the issue of
when the trinity was "known".

>Pauline thought on this is
>probably the most developed because he was granted the most
>revelation, even being called up into the 3rd heaven twice

You are free to speculate here but it doesn't have any weight.

>his renumeration of Jesus' "IAM" declarations,

Puh-lease. John 8:58 is one of the weakest trinitarian proof texts
there is. You should know better.

>his apocolyptic revelation in Rev 4 & 5 clearly demark an
understanding >and acceptance of Messianic Deity.

Not a chance. Specious pleading.

(snip your John 1:1 cut-and-paste)

John 1:1 has been done to death. You have your favored interpretation
and I have mine. The reality is that John 1:1 can be translated either
way. Context determines which is appropriate. The Word was with
(alongside) God and therefore could not be God. Lopgic and intellectual
capacity tells you that (1 John 5:20)

THE God (ho theos) Vs. "a god" (theos) blah blah blah....all
trinitarians should skip John 1:1 because a controversial scripture
cannot be used to support a position. Unless you like using circular
reasoning.

>Yet another point is if you reduce Jesus to being but a creature, then
>you make his death merely that of "bulls and goats," i.e. finite.

what on earth are you talking about? The point is that the blood of
"bulls and goats" were not enough but a perfect human life was what was
needed.

>And how can a
>finite being hear all the prayers of his children and mediate for
them?

Your post is more like a monologue than a conversation as you are off
on a tangent here. By the way since you bring up "mediate" I have a
question for you. What constitues a "mediator"? Can a mediator be
"one"
with one side between two parties?

nevermind.....

(snip the rest of your post as it further degenerates into posturing,
insult, condescendation, arrogance and utter stupidity)

You need to read Mathhew 7:21-23 as you have a rude awakening in store
for you.

Anyway, like Matthew, you have proven to be unable to stick to any one
topic and see it through. Once again a common tendency amongst those
that grow restless when the truth eclipses their sophistry.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/26/05 12:46:01 AM ---