"I understand what the phrase "hearing the conclusion of the whole matter" means, but simply claiming a conclusion that is in opposition to the components that lead up to that conclusion, without explaining how the conclusion is something in opposition to what the components themselves are saying, simply won't cut it. It's like saying all the evidence that led to the conclusion were false and red herrings, and somehow you inexplicably came to the right conclusion anyway."

Brian, when you make up your mind if you understand it or not, get back to me.  You asked what does it mean and now you are saying you know what it means. 

"Your original question was who was his father. I have answered that question. The Father was his father, and he was the Son, long before Mary existed. As for who "impregnated" (your term, not mine) Mary, it was the Holy Ghost. The point remains that the incarnation was not the start of the Son being "Son", nor of the Father being "Father"."

Please don't play stupid.  Are you saying you don't know what scripture I was getting at?  And the question was properly worded... Who was the "father", not the "Father".  Are you going to ask what the difference is?  The point being is that the Holy Ghost impregneted Mary, yet if they are distinct and separate (like many believe) then Jesus was wrong in that he didn't give proper credit to his daddy.... The Holy Ghost.  

"Really, FHII, your whole argument thus far has been like emptying a box of fruit one fruit at a time, admitting as you go that many of the fruits you take out are apples, and then concluding that the "whole of the matter" was that you started with a box of bananas. Unless you explain how you reach your conclusion despite evidence to the contrary, your position becomes indistinguishable from irrationality."

Well then bow out and admit you can't handle it.  My whole point that is while I admit the Bible does seem to say that at times they are separate, in the end, they all prove to be the same thing.  You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept that you have to look at ALL the scripture and not just two or three.  The Theory of the Trinity is based on a few scriptures and dismisses the rest in saying, "Well, it's not an understandable concept by human minds!"  It's a snow job and right now I'm hating snow!  And your analogy is stupid....You are explaining away my evidence to the contrary with "well maybe's... and it doesn't matter".  Jesus was called the Everlasting Father.  The Father is called the "father" yet it was the Holy Ghost that did the deed.  I've also linked Jesus to the Holy Ghost becasue in one verse he said "The Holy Ghost is coming" and a few verses later he said HE was coming.

The bottom line is that they are not distinct and not separate like the Trinitarians think.  It still remains clear it is a doctrine of man and not of the Apostles, of God, or the Holy Scriptures. 



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.