In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>It was only after Christ that the non-converting Jews _in reaction to
>>Christianity_ denied the Trinity.
>
>>You don't know history.  And you sure don't understand the doctrine
>>of the Trinity.
>
>You only know trinitarian revisionist history. Once again.

No, it is you who know only _anti-trinitarian_ revisionist history. I have read
multiple histories of the period, including Kelly, Pelikan, Newman, Kartashev
and even a little Bolotov.

Reading all those sources is one of the many ways I know it is your 'history'
that is false to the core.

> The trinity
>as you believe it was not taught by any of the so-called "church
>fathers" prior to the third century.

False again. They did teach it, but in different language.

> None of you have yet to disprove
>that.

Just as you have yet to prove _your_ claim that they did not teach it. So why
are you whining about our alleged failure to disprove when you too fail?

> You are reading your trinity into their writings.

No, we are not.  We are reading it interpreting carefully in the context, unlike
you who relies on doubtful translations for your dogmatic, insistent
mis-statements.

> My request for
>a definition of the trinity is elementary

What is _elementary_ is understanding why definitions do not help here. And both
Steve and I have already explained this to you.

> and I find it cowardly that
>none of you dares even tell me what YOU think the trinity is...why
>can't you just cut and paste it from the Nicene Creed?

Have you even _read_ the Creed lately? They didn't feel the need to _put_ the
definition in there.

>>You don't know what Jesus has to do with salvation?
>
>sure I do.

You think you do, but you do not. For Jesus Christ could not have done anything
for our salvation if He had not been both fully Man and fully God. That IS what
Hebrews is about.

> >Hmmm....
>>You're proposing here that God _created_ a sacrifice for
>>our sins.
>
>I'm not. The Bible does. Jesus was created.

The Bible never says this.

> He exited in the heavens
>before the need for a sacrifice was required.

You must have meant 'existed'. THis is true, but it does not help you.

> When the time came God
>sent his only-begotten Son. (see John 3:16 for details)

This is also true: but what you sweep under the rug is even more important! His
sacrifice would have had no effect for us if He were not consubstantial to us,
no saving power if He were not consubstantial to the Father.

This is why the Fathers of the Council at Ephesus said:

Begin quote--------------

EPOMENOI TOINYN TOIS AGIOIS PATRASIN, ENA KAI TON AUTON OMOLOGEIN YION TON
KYRION HMWN IHSOUN XRHSTON SYMFWNWS APANTES EDIDASKOMEN: TELEION TON AYTON EN
QEOTHTI KAI TELEION TON AYTON EN ANQRWPOTHTI. QEON ALHQWS KAI ANQRVPON ALHQWS
TON AYTON, EK PSYCHS LOGIKHS KAI SWMATOS, OMOOUSION TWI PATRI KATA THN QEOTHTA
KAI OMOOUSION TON AYTON HMIN KATA THN ANWRWPOTHTA. KATA PANTA OMOION HMIN CWRIS
AMARTIAS.

Following the Holy Father, we all with one voice taught to confess one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; perfect in Godhood and perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly Man, from a rational soul and body, CONSUBSTANTIAL TO THE
FATHER according to His Divinity and CONSUBSTANTIAL TO US according to His
humanity. In ALL things like us except for sin.

End quote----------------

THAT is true theology, without a trace of 'revisionism' of any kind.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
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} 3/23/05 8:02:13 AM ---