Not a bad response, in fact quite good!  Like I said, you are seeing things my way a little bit! 

"Trinitarianism is only making the distinction that scripture itself makes, which you admitted it makes. I cannot understand why you "reject" what you admit scripture itself does."

Not 100% true. I said it "appears" to make that.  If I have ever said differently I misspoke.  Yes, I admit that the Bible appears and often times does treat them as the different and distinct and separate.  Yet the end product is that they are not.  You have to hear the conclusion of the whole matter.


"I am not clouded at all. Just because you don't understand orthodox Trinitarianism does not mean the problem is with orthodox Trinitarianism."

Please don't get me started on "orthodox".  Just because it's orthodox doesn't mean it's right (that is of course, depending on your definition of "orthodox").  However, you are wrong in that you are not clouded.  Does the Trinity theory fully explain who God is?  By it's own definition it doesn't.

"Your questions are great, and I am more than willing to work through these types of questions with you. Jesus is the "Son", and Jesus is "God". The "Father" is his Father, who is God. The "Holy Spirit", who is God, overshadowed Mary. If you try to take the distinctions so far as to end up with three different beings, of course it falls apart, and you end up with a polytheistic mess. If you remove the distinctions, it also falls apart and you end up with a modalistic mess. Trinitarianism is the monotheistice view that fully agrees with the distinctions that scripture itself makes."

And I appreciate your responses.  I do however, remove the distinctions because I don't see them in the overall scope of the Bible.  I'd still like an answer to that question, but I won't wait for one.  It is not answerable because the Bible clearly says Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.  Yet the Father is supposed to be "not the HG".


"There is nothing wrong with "more questions". If you ever reached a point about the Godhead where you answered all the questions, I think that would be proof in itself that you went astray somewhere."


I agree that there is nothing wrong with more questions.  However, if a theory brings up more questions than it answers, what good is the theory?  Yes it's still ok in that it moves forward, but when the questions the theory brings up question the theory itself, the theory must be questioned.  (Ok, if you followed that, whoa!)  My point is that the theory of the Trinity is not validated by the many counter points that can be made.


"That is your choice. Why not make the same choice with other doctrinal words that are not in the "Bible", like "Bible" itself?"

That's a rather pointless response. My point was that if anyone in the Bible had said "Trinity" or said that these three are distinct, separate and not the same, I'd be on board.  That is my only problem with the Trinity doctrine...  Calling them distinct and separate.  I do understand the doctrine also says they are the same, but that's like saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.  George Bush would call that fuzzy math! 

Really, I don't see what the problem is.  I refuse to call them separate or distinct!  That's it!  And nothing in your post has lead me to question that.  In fact, you seem to agree with me on most of it. 


"It is not intended to "fully explain" who and what God is. No human explanation can. All it does is provide an explanation of some of the aspects that God has chosen to reveal about himself."

That's a bit innaccurate.  it IS fully intended to, but it fails to do so.  The Trinity doctrine admits it can't but intends to do so.  Overall however, this quote comes very close to admitting it is just a theory.  I like the theory except for the the "they are distinct and separate" part. 


"Yet you yourself said "Jesus and the Bible talk as if they are separate at times". Reject it at your own peril."

You have all but admitted it is just a theory.  You said it doesn't fully explain God.  I again ask you if this is just a theory or is it truth?  Theories have truth but not all truth until they are proven.  As far as I can see, even the doctrine itself admits it's incomplete and doesn't have all the answers.

So my questions to you now are if I reject the Trinity, am I in danger of judgement on that issue?  Is this something God has said I must believe or I'l be damned? 











Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Jas 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.