FHII,


Like I said, you are seeing things my way a little bit!


If that is true, it is you that have moved, not I. Can you indicate where I have changed my view on this in the last few days, let alone the last several years?


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.


So "Jesus and the Bible talk as if they are separate at times", but you reject when Jesus and the Bible do that, because of "the conclusion of the whole matter"? What does that even mean? Is that like Jesus "appearing" to do miracles, but you have to reach the conclusion of the whole matter?


Does the Trinity theory fully explain who God is?  By it's own definition it doesn't.


Already addressed. If I say "I have a car", and "I have a green car", the latter has more detail but does not "fully explain" what my car is. The Creed is not intended to "fully explain" who God is, that would be absurd. It is intended to identify some key doctrines in response to some false and/or less detailed interpretations.


I do however, remove the distinctions because I don't see them in the overall scope of the Bible.


Again, what does that even mean? Why are so many distinctions included in that "scope"? Are they put there as false witness?


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".


No need to wait, it is easily answered: The "Father" was the "Father", and the "Son" was the "Son, and the "Holy Spirit" was the "Holy Spirit" long before the incarnation. His birth from Mary was not the start of him being "Son", he's been "Son" for all of eternity - "begotten before all ages" as the creeds put it. When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of God overshadowed her, then the Word was made flesh - that did not make him "Son", for he already was "Son".


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.


I completely disagree it is a "theory". It is definitive Christian doctrine.


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'm not sure what you mean by "separate". I'm not sure you do either. In fact, the Creeds say "nor dividing the divine being".


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.


So, Jesus and the Bible can make the distinction, but you refuse. Got it.


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.


No, it is NOT intended to, no matter how much you wish it were so. What does "the Trinity doctrine admits it" even mean?


You have all but admitted it is just a theory. You said it doesn't fully explain God.


I drive a green car. It has four wheels. That is not a "theory", even though it does not fully explain my car.


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.


Interesting. So please "fully explain" to me the resurrection of Christ, God speaking the world into existence, how the Word was made flesh and born of a virgin, how scripture penned by men is God-breathed, etc. Or are these just "theories" too?


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?


I cannot say who is and who isn't saved. However, I personally do not see how one can hear a primary, definitive Christian doctrine and then consciously and willfully "reject" it and still be part of the body of Christ. This is why, despite Jerry's difficulty in grasping the concept, it is safe to assume that Mormons, Muslims, and New-Agers are not "saved" - because even though the call Jesus "the Lord" and believe he is "come in the flesh", etc., they have wrong definitions on primary, definitive Christian doctrines. You can affirm every single verse of scripture, but without the correct interpretation on key issues, it's irrelevant.


The doctrine itself admits it, and thus by it's own admittance makes it invalid.


Again, you have to explain what "itself admits it" means, and how your logic works to reach that conclusion.


It is only blasphemy against the Catholic Church, which ain't a real bad thing!


No, it's blasphemy against a fundamental, definitive Christian doctrine. The Catholics simply affirm it (as do many other groups), just as they affirm the NT canon, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the creation of the universe by God, etc.

Brian