nnalyd{at}yahoo.com wrote:

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

You're so bad at this.  If you want to get anywhere in a discussion,
you have to be at least a little bit logical.  Yet you
contradict yourself at every turn.  P and not P can not both be
true.  On one hand, you cite the church fathers as authoritative,
since the basis of your argument is that "since the church
fathers didn't believe it, the Trinity is a later invention",
thereby making the fathers speak for all Christendom.  Then
you turn around and call them the "so-called fathers", denying
their authority to speak for all Christendom.

Make up your mind.  Are the citations of the fathers the voice
of Christendom or not?


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

"Cowardly" is just childish taunting.  It was explained to
you that we don't define the Trinity because it's like
defining God.  Try it yourself.  Give us a definition of
who your god is.  Go on, I triple dog dare ya'.


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

Contradicting yourself again.  You just said that you
_didn't_ know what this had to do with salvation, now
you say you do.

Make up your mind.


> >Hmmm....
>>You're proposing here that God _created_ a sacrifice for
>>our sins.
>
> I'm not. The Bible does. Jesus was created. He exited in the heavens
> before the need for a sacrifice was required. When the time came God
> sent his only-begotten Son. (see John 3:16 for details)

Which is my point.  You think God didn't save us, but something
else.  That is flatly anti-Gospel.


>>God can create things
>>just by thinking about snapping His fingers.  You're proposing
>>that God snapped His fingers, and called a perfect sacrifice
>>into being,
>
> I am not. Read above. Jesus exited long before the physical universe
> was even created (John 17:5; Rev. 3:14; Col. 1:15; Prov. 8:22) Jesus
> was *not* created to be a perfect sacrifice- it just turned out that
> way. God gave his best (see John 3:16 for details)

So this little tiny god you worship is subject to time?  He
didn't know from eternity that Jesus would be sacrificed?
He was surprised and disappointed when it "just turned out
that way"?


> a supreme sacrifice indeed! Do you have children?

I'd be much more willing to sacrifice them if I had the
power to bring them back to life.  Doesn't your little tiny
god have any knowledge or power?

Bart

((( 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} 3/22/05 4:00:27 PM ---