basicallyblues wrote:
> >Platonism was not trinitarianism it was tri-modal.
>
> it layed the groundwork for the trinity you now believe.

Presumption.  You have not supported this continuing mantra of yours.

>  If you can't
> see that then  no amount of reasoning will convince you.

You haven't convinced me.  You haven't even shown the link between the
two.  Reason?  I think that is something which you are lacking.

> It is you that needs to do your homework.

I've done a lot of homework.  I've also done a far amount of formal
study as well.  What have you done?  Where did you study Greek?  Where
did you study Platoism?  Also, you know that tri-modalism is much MUCH
older that Plato.  Do you think he originated it?  If you've done your
homework, you know what I'm refering to and just how far back it goes.
.. . . and where!

>You feed on what is friendly to what you
> want to believe- you like to have your ears tickled.

Hardly.  I revisit this doctrine every 5 to 7 yrs.  My library has many
books on both sides of the issue.  The problem isn't primarily being
able to support the doctrine via the scriptures, but rather, what
happens to all the cosmological and sociological questions that once
had an answer, an archtype in a Uni-Plurality?

Tickle my ears and explain to me the basis for unity & diversity apart
from the Trinitarian Designer.

Tickle my ears and explain to me how a singular monotheistic God can be
the archtype of "love?"  "God is love" is the biblical
declaration.  It
is part of His nature.  That God is eternal, His love must also be
eternal.  However, seeing as how there was a "time" when there was
nothing outside of God, whom did He love in eternity past?  Love
requires an interpersonal relationship.  I'm sorry, I didn't hear your
answer.

> I could could
> quote countless scholars who assert that Plato paved the way to Nicea

Still relying on numbers?  How many RC theologians believed the world
was flat during the Dark Ages?

> >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.

"I and the Father are one."
"Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know. . .
he who has seen Me has seen the Father.  How do you say, 'Show us the
Father'?"

> You do not. Jesus referred to this God as the "only true God" (John
> 17:3)

Phil 2.  Don't you let scripture interpret scripture as you have
claimed?

> He called him God on earth (John 20:17)

ibid

>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.

Then how can He be declared in scriptures to be the "exact
representation."  How can the finite exactly represent the infinite?
I'm sorry.  I have once again not heard your reply.  Would you speak
up, please?
>
> >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
>
Why have you not answered my question.  Do you believe that every
doctrine was completely understood and taught by the apostles to the
apostolic churches?
>
> >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.
>
ANSWER THE POINT!
>
> >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.
>
So, I take it, because again you do not clearly state it, you believe
all doctrines where exhaustively developed and understood by not only
the apostles and the disciples, but by the apostolic churches as
well!!!  Now there is a truly unsupportable thesis if I've ever heard
one.

Hate to quote you, "scripture please."
>
> >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..

Oh ya?  Did the Jews understand that there was going to be only one
Messiah and two advents?  Did the early church, even the apostles
themselves, know when Christ was going to return.  Even Peter, who knew
he was going to die before Christ returned, believed He was going to
return during the 1st C.  Even the greatest epistle, Romans displays
progressive understanding concerning salvation by faith alone.

>.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).

Where are you going?

> God's
> people always believed in the resurrection of the dead

WHAT!?

Mark 12:18  And some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection)


>not an immortal
> soul- which was popular amongst pagan religions.

So?  This is the same line of argumentation you use with Platonic
tritheism.  Have you not yet learned the paradigm of Gen 3:1?  Have you
not yet understood the principle that he is the father of lies.  He
creates nothing.  He copies and falsifies.  Haven't you come to
understand why there are so many heretical views of salvation that
*add* to that which is elemental in principle, sola fide?  The plan of
salvation is irreducible therefore Satan must add to it.  As I have
noted, he does not create anything.

> As time passed some of
> God's people were polluted with this teaching.

And you make us so aware of this.

> Same goes for your silly trinity.

Okay.  It's "silly."  Don't you even in the least acknowledge that
there is a posibility that you are wrong and we are right?  Or do you
know God exhaustively?  To call the doctrine "silly," has the potent of
mocking God.  Have you no fear?  These are not mere formula's that we
are striving to understand.  They are God Himself.  Does this never
give you pause?  It should.

> After the death of the twelve there was no "progression" from
> monotheism to the "trinity" . It was an aberration not a progression.
>
This is your thesis.  You have provided no support for it.  You have
answered Jn 1:1-2 or Jn 1:18, "the only begotten God."  Your
methodology is that older is more original.  Well the older text favor
"God" not "Son."

And what of the preposition "with" in 1:1b?  Compare its use in Mk 6:3.
 It is used to compare **equals.**  It is used in regards to
communicable relationships.  But then I suppose you also think that man
is superior to woman in all regards even as you believe the Father is
superior to the Son.  But what do you do with the Pauline statement,
"neither male nor female?"  You confuse office with person.  Persons
can be equal and yet have different, even subordinate offices.  The
wife's office is subordinate to the husbands, but they are equal in
standing before God.  You can't have it both ways.

You must please be patient with me.  I am hard of hearing.  Again, I
apologize.  I didn't not here your answer.
>
> >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)
>
Of course it is important.  Everything about God is important.  Why
shouldn't it be the key doctrine of Christianity?  Everything hinges
upon it.  You have no salvation if the death Christ suffered was
finite.  A finite death cannot atone an Infinite indignation.  Do you
not think these things through?
>
> >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.

Why not?  Why then did they have to have everything explained to them.
Why did John have to have an apocolyptic vision at the very end of his
life if, as you say, there was no transition?
>
>They made a transition from the Law of Moses to the "Law
> of the Christ" and that was explained heartily throughout the New
> Testament.
>
The difference being?  Salvation was of grace in the OT, was it not?
This is what Paul teaches concerning Abraham in Rom 4.  So please teach
us what you understand the transition to involve.
>
>Trinitarianism did not exist until the 3rd Century.

I'm still waiting for your explaination of Eph 1.
I'm still waiting for your explaination of "exact" in Heb 1:3.
I'm still waiting for your explaination of the imperfect tense of Jn
1:1-2.
I'm still waiting for your explaination of the ingressive aorist in Jn
1:14.
I'm still waiting for your explaination of "YHVH and His Redeemer, YHVH
of Hosts."
I'm still waiting for your explaination of Jer 23, esp "YHVH Tsidkenu"
shall I go on?

> 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.

This reveals the deficiancy of your historical accuracy.  "Apostacy" (2
Thes 2:3) did not come to mean "departure from orthodoxy" until the
very late 3rd C, early 4th C.  Please, show me in scripture support for
your allegation.

> As a side point.

Another one?  How many does a replier have to answer?

>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".
>
But you base your entire thesis on what the father did or did not hold.
 Then you make this statement?  Again, don't you ever think through
what you write?
>
> >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.
>
And what is the speculation that you are refering to?  Careful, your
answer is going to reveal just how well you know your scripture.
>
> >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.
>
Where's your defense?  Is this the best you can do?  Again, answer the
point made.  How can Jesus declare, "I AM" AND have the Jews seek to
kill Him "because He makes Himself out to be God," and yet have it
support your claim?  Come on.  Teach us where our exegesis is wrong.
Do you know how to teach or do you only know who to debunk, accuse the
positions of others while you expiate your own short comings?
>
> >his apocolyptic revelation in Rev 4 & 5 clearly demark an
> understanding >and acceptance of Messianic Deity.
>
> Not a chance. Specious pleading.
>
Do you not know the Eastern custom of "sitting on the right hand?"  And
what of the worship given to the Lamb while He sits at the right hand?
And why is He sitting?
>
>
> 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.

No it can't.  Answer my objection.  Explain John's use of the imperfect
tense.  Explain, using every known grammatical rule up till Russelites
wrote their own rules, the anarthrous construction of 1:1c.
Explain how a definite article could be used in 1:1c unless John was
concluding singular monotheism and that being the Logos?  John didn't
use the definite article because he couldn't use it and yet retain what
he was teaching -that the Logos was the Creator of Gen 1:1, i.e. YHVH.

>Context determines which is appropriate.

Okay, just what is the context?

> The Word was with (alongside) God and therefore could not be God.

Oh, how unlearned you are of Koine Greek.  Go look the word up and
learn of its uses in the scriptures (you still believe that scripture
interprets scripture don't you?) and you will see that it is used to
compare EQUALS!!!

>Lopgic and intellectual
> capacity tells you that (1 John 5:20)
>
"Lopgic" =Lopsided Logic
>
> THE God (ho theos) Vs. "a god" (theos) blah blah blah....all
> trinitarians should skip John 1:1

Says who?  This just further proves that you do not study on your own,
but are spoon fed.  Please, before God Almighty, list for us all the
Trinitarian theogical reference works that you have read and studied.
"All Trinitarians?"  I guess you must be God to make such a statement
which requires omniscence.

> because a controversial scripture
> cannot be used to support a position. Unless you like using circular
> reasoning.
>
I just explained 1:1c for you and I did not use circular reasoning.
I'm waiting for your rebuttal.
>
> >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.
>
Don't you understand even this?  Both are finite.  Did "bulls and
goats" sin?  Well then, aren't they sinless?  How can Christ's death be
"a perfect human life" when you hold that He was the angel Michael?
Hello!

> >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.....

No.  You answer my objection.  How can a finite being mediate millions
of prayers at one time?  How can a finite being, at the same time He is
mediating millions of prayers, also be the Advocate of sinners?  Do
side step the issue.  It is not a tangent.  It is a question which has
been necessitated by your reduction of the Messiah to creaturehood.
(You still haven't explained Jn 1:3, how can Jesus be the creator of
everything that came into existence and yet be created Himself?).
>
>
> 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.
>

Look, each position touches on 1000's of related issues.  Like an
airplane that is required to conform to the laws of the universe
inorder to fly, just so must our theological positions conform to what
is.  I have been trying to point this out to you but apparently you
never operate on this level.  Take your position to fruition and you
left with 1000 incongruities.  And as I have repeatedly pointed out to
you and you have repeatedly coward away from the point, how can Paul
write Rom 1:20 and it have any true meaning unless the nature of God be
the archtype of the constructs of the uni-verse?  UNI - VERSE.  Get it?
 Male and female.  Get it?  The many and the one.  Get it.  The Hebrew
concept of "nephesh."  Get it?  Explain the unity and diversity of the
universe representing a singular monotheistic God.  You can't.
Therefore your position cannot conform to Rom 1:20 and is thus a false
supposition.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100