Search results

Ok. Read the discussion on Philippeans 2. Look.... I am no longer going to follow this discussion. Its not getting me closer to believing the theory of the trinity.

Unless I missed something you were last in John 1 trying to show that there were 2 separate gods spoken of in verse one.

Lets not forget the next verse: Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Oldhermit, If you have a part 3, please continue (in your own time and if you desire so, of course).

In short, knowing the truth, understanding the truth and fully comphrending all the facets of the truth are different things. I have read the entire Bible. I know what it says. I do not understand it all and father away from comphrending it all. Peter said that he would stir up our pure mind...

So Yes Elohim is a plural known in its form alone. But the word in context (here, Due 6:4) is not. Everything about this verse and its meaning as a whole says there is only one and not even a collection of one. As I stated earlier, I don't read Greek and certainly not Hebrew either. But I...

I don't speak Greek. But I have translations at my disposal. Nowhere in Jogn 1:1 is the Father (pater; am I correct?) mentioned. I am going by what you wrote. Everything in your part 2 seems to suggest the there were two Gods. Yet there cannot be two Gods but there were.... And thus goes...

So let me see if I understand you correctly. When John 1:1 says that the word was with God (1) and the Word was God (2) that there are two separate Gods? I am looking at the computer tools I have at my disposal. I don't see anywhere in John 1 the father mentioned until verse 14 when the...

Why don't you start by proclaiming you position?

I figured you were John Doe based on you writing style and the fact that you were tooking to change your handle. I just didn't want to make that assumption without full assurance. I will indeed listen to what you have to say. So long as you listen to what I have to say. As a side note, I...

I still see no reason to divide them up into 3 separate persons, especially since God for 4000+ years depicted himself as one and only one. Jesus revealed himself as the son of man, the son of God and the son of David. He also appeared in the flesh, in glorified or ressurected flesh and as...

Where are you going with this? I'm not much of a fan of answering a bunch of questions. Tell me what you have to say.

I don't even think God is limited to this physical relm so why would I believe he is limited by time and space?

I enjoyed Dcopymope and Jun2u's comments. Yes the earth would've been drastically changed due to the flood. I look at the geographical clues given in Genesis 2 and by today's maps, it doesn't make much sense. But what about before the flood? I don't think we can answer that. Another thing...

So are you three persons yet one man or are you one man who manifests himself in different modes?

I am not even going to pretend to understand that. I appreciate your effort and all... But the best I can conclude from your posts is that man doesn't understand God so he uses what he can understand to try to explain God. That does not mean he is accurate, its only the best he can do. And...

That doesn't prove the trinity.

Guess not.

Yes I do. But simply because that mathematical phenomena exists doesn't mean there is a trinity.

Can't say as I have.