In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>To be clear - and restate my point - you claimed a 3rd century
>>origin for the Trinity, and claimed that it is pagan.  There is
>>ample evidence of 2nd century teachings about the Trinity to show
>>your statement to be categorically false.
>
>Nothing in any of your posts proves a trinity as outlined at Nicea,
>which is THE trinity you trinitarians belive.

So what? He didn't claim to prove the Nicene Trinity in that post. Why should he
have? All he needed to do is show that your claim was WRONG. And that he did
quite neatly. Stop trying to throw dust in our eyes to hide your failure.

> The early church fathers
>did not believe in the trinity.

Yes, they did.

> Before we go any further please dfine
>the trinity to me (25 words or less)

This obsession wiht 'definitions' is itself unbiblical. The biblical authors
assumed a lot of background knowledge. They assumed, for example, that the
reader knew that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is a reference to
the Trinity.
Thus:

   Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
   baptizing them in THE name of the Father,
   and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)

was clearly recognized as a reference to the Trinity. How do we know this? By
history. If you know a little about the history of the Baptism service, you know
that this was always interpreted as a reference to the life-giving Trinity even
for a long time before the service was finally written down in the 4th century.

-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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} 3/18/05 8:59:05 PM ---