Goundhog, you said in another thread:


I will not believe in a man made word "trinity" because it is not found written in GODS' preserved word(s) for us today!


Where in your Bible does it say that we should not accept words just because they are not found in the canon of scripture? Or perhaps you heard that in a sermon[/i], or at [u]Sunday School?


the only way GOD refers to HIMSELF is I---period---


No, that is wrong.

Glorybe, I see you are still quoting the GBV instead of the KJV, but you said:


CHRIST nor HIS APOSTLES never mention any such thing. HE SAYS "MY sheep HEAR MY VOICE AND BELIEVE....", not come to "an understanding on how to determine what is correct and what is incorrect interpretation". You are still preaching cultism Brian T, and not "HEARING" and "BELIEVING" what "IS WRITTEN" as CHRIST TAUGHT AND COMMANDED. you are trying to advocate man's false "private interpretation" instead of doing what CHRIST SAYS.


Yet a Mormon would give your advice a hearty "Amen". Mormons, like you and I, claim to "hear" his voice and "believe" what is "written" as Christ taught and commanded.

Jerry, you said:


So then, give me Scriptures that you deem contradict my understanding of things, and I will tell you why those Scriptures don't and that is all we can really do.


No, that's not all we can really do. We can also examine and study what others believe (and why), including the historical universal church. As for your disbelief in the universal church, Paul says there is ONE body, ONE church. He said to the living Romans that they are/were part of it. He said to the living Corinthians that they are/were part of it. Same with the Ephesians and Colossians. I am part of that one body, that one church. Are you?


I have answered all those questions Brian, but you do not like my answer for some reason. It is written,


You have answered that question with scripture - scripture that those people would say "Amen" to! Mormons call Christ "Lord" (1 Cor 12:3b) and affirm he "is come in the flesh" (2 John 1:7). So why aren't they part of the body?

FHII, you said:


Brian, you are slowly starting to see things my way!


Actually, the opposite: Many years ago, before I gave Trinitarianism any thought, I used to see Isa 9:6 as proof that the Son was the Father in a non-Trinitarian way. Once I began to study and understand real Trinitarian doctrine, I saw the verse in a way that fits into Trinitarian doctrine. Perhaps you are not as far off from orthodox Trinitarian doctrine as you hoped you were.


Verse 26 says the Father will send the HG, but in verse 28 Jesus says he will come again. Next, look at these verses before that:


The passage in John 14 does not say the Son is the Holy Spirit. Yes, God came again to them, and the Son is God, there is still a distinction between the Son and Holy Spirit. First, the phrases " and come again unto you" and "I will come to you" don't even have to refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit. They could refer to his still-future coming and the passage still makes perfect sense and can be perfectly true. Second, there are numerous passages that speak of him having to remain in heaven until his still-future coming, yet the Holy Spirit is here now. Is that not a "distinction"?

Brian