nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:

> It's too long to read and I don't see the point.

Too funny. The guy with the record-longest posts, frequency
notwithstanding, complaining about a post 1/10 the length of
his own.

And to top it off, OF COURSE you can't see the point if
you don't read it. Once again, you claim to know the
content of something you, OTOH, claim to not know the
content of.

1. There you go applying your double standard again

AND

2. There you go using the most bizarre logic I've seen
in a long time. (And you're competing in this category
with a large group of very confused freshmen and sophomores.)

Heh...heh...heh..."I'm not reading it, because I know it
to be pointless" heh...heh...heh...


> The fact that certain "early church fathers" spoke in language that
> "sounds" like the Father and Son are both "God"

The real trouble here is that JW's can't tell the word for
a thing from the thing itself. If we collect a set of
doctrinal statements into one place and, for the sake of
convenience, decide to name that collection "the doctrine
of the Trinity", then you can't make a point by saying
"Trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture. You need, rather,
to show that some of the doctrineal statement do not
appear in Scripture. (Or, in your case, before the 3rd
Century.)

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. )))

Check out my website and tell me what you
think -http://www.templestones.com/

Please email me with your comments

adrian@templestones.com

nnalyd@yahoo.com writes:
>Matthew wrote:
>
>>But there is a book you are forgetting about. And even if you reject
>its
>>canonicity, it would be _highly_ unreasonable for you to ignore its
>witness.
>
>Before we go on. Do all trinitarians accept this book as canonical?
>What Bibles contain it? Are you Catholic?

I'm not Matthew, but the answer is, catholic yes, Roman, no. The
books of the OT that Protestants call "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical"
are accepted by the vast majority of Christians in the world, Roman
Catholic & Orthodox. The books were removed by the radical reformers.

Remember - the Protestant definition of the Scriptures is not the only
one, and it certainly is not the one agrred upon by the majority of
Christians world-wide.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

((( 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. )))