Wasn't this settled in the Forth Century? ;)

D'oh Fourth Century

God does not have the ability to become flesh and whatever the holy spirit is made of. God is Yahweh. Or Jehovah. Period. What good is a God without limits?

Oh, are we talking Christianity?

Elvis died and was buried. On the third day he ascended into Las Vegas and through Andy Kaufman his spirit inhabit many so called "impersonators"...

::What good is a God without limits?:: Blue Berry

"A God", to use your words, without limits is not God.

So you're saying God is limited?

I should have thought about what I was saying better. I meant "A God", to use your woreds, WITH limits IS NOT God.

If we were created in God's image as it says in Genesis, then how can there be any debate about the trinity. God is not something that cannot be explained. He is a person, and is our father. We were created to look and be like him. I have two arms and legs. So does he. I ahve a body of flesh and bone - so does He. Sure, we are not Gods, but we have the potential to be - one day - just as I have the potential to grow up like my Dad. This seems to make sense to me from reading the bible.

If the 3-in-one concept of the trinity was a correct interpretation, then we would not have been created in this image.

What makes more sense is to say that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three separte beings. Jesus is God's son, our elder brother. The doctrine of the 3 in one trinity really doesn't make sense. How can Jesus be praying to Himself?? A much simpler way of explaining the biblical scriptures where Jesus says that He and the Father are one, is that they are one in purpose, just as I would say that when a husband and wife are in love, with the same goals in mind, they are one.

A person can be a Christian and not believe in the concept of the trinity.

You're taking the "in God's image" too literally.

But as for your arguments against the Trinity, well said.

Sandy

I, for one, do not dispute the right of unitarians* to call themselves Christian, based on their understanding of the New Testament, and the person and mission of the Christ. Examining our beliefs in light of alternative theories is one of the better ways to strengthen our faith and our testimony. And it's a good way to start long-lasting friendships. There is no point in antagonizing such a potential friend by claiming they are not only absolutely wrong in their beliefs, but they don't even have the right to think of themselves as Christian.


*small u -- any person of faith within the Judeo-Christian and muslim traditions who believes in only God the Father, as opposed to trinitarians and belief in the triune Godhead -- not necessarily the Unitarian (capital U) denomination.

I would like to have such an opportunity for discussion and growth with you. I am, however, at a total loss how to respond to the statement We were created to look and be like him. I have two arms and legs. So does he. I have a body of flesh and bone - so does He. My first reaction is that I want to believe you are pulling our legs, but I can't just treat it as a "joke" because it sounds like you literally mean it in some sense, and I don't want to insult you if that is true. Perhaps if you explain and elaborate, I can come to understand where you "are coming from" better.

She seems to be taking the "In God's Image" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too literally. I mean, God having real arms, legs, bones and flesh?

I never really understood the Holy Ghost role. What is he/she/it exactly? And how come we never hear anything about he/she/it outside of Holy Trinity discussions? Is he/she/it really that minor of a role?

Rene,

You mean we shouldn't take the Bible too literally? (Sorry, you kinda walked into that one. I'll go away now.)

No I didn't :p

There is a difference between thinking the story of Genesis is true and actually thinking God has flesh and bones because we were created in "God's image".

I never really understood the Holy Ghost role. What is he/she/it exactly? And how come we never hear anything about he/she/it outside of Holy Trinity discussions? Is he/she/it really that minor of a role? MarkN


"The Holy Ghost" is one of the expressions that the Authorized Version (King James Translation) used to refer to the Spirit (Greek pneuma, Hebrew rvh) of God. This entity (trintarians believe "it" to be a person, unitarians merely a quality, or at best an aspect of God) is also called the Wisdom (Greek sophia, Hebrew hkmh) of God.

The fullest description of the purpose and relationship of the Spirit is in Proverbs chapter 8:

1 Doth not Wisdom cry out, and understanding put forth her voice?
2 She standeth at the top of high places, by the wayside where the paths meet.
3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors:
4 "Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of man.
5 O ye simple, understand Wisdom; and ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
6 Hear, for I will speak of excellent things, and the opening of my lips shall be of right things;
7 for my mouth shall speak truth, and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
10 Receive my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold;
11 for Wisdom is better than rubies, and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
12 "I, Wisdom, dwell with prudence, and disclose knowledge of learned thoughts.
13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the froward mouth do I hate.
14 Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, I have strength.
15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
16 By me princes rule and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
17 I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me.
18 Riches and honor are with me, yea, durable riches and righteousness.
19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold, and my revenue than choice silver.
20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment,
21 that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and I will fill their treasuries.
22 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth,
26 while as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the first parts of dust of the world.
27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a compass upon the face of the deep,
28 when He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
29 when He gave to the sea His decree that the waters should not pass His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth"
30 then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him, and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him,
31 rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
32 "Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children, for blessed are they that keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not.
34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain the favor of the LORD.
36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death."

It is interesting that while the God the Father and Jesus the Son are percieved as masculine, both "Spirit" and "Wisdom" are feminine nouns both in Greek and in Hebrew. This may indicate that the Holy Spirit represents the feminine side of the Divine essence.

And a couple of comparisons to support my association of the Wisdom of God with the Spirit of God:


Proverbs 8 (Wisdom):
22 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth,
26 while as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the first parts of dust of the world.
27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a compass upon the face of the deep,
28 when He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
29 when He gave to the sea His decree that the waters should not pass His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth"
30 then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him,

Genesis 1 (Spirit)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

----------------

Proverbs 8 (Wisdom)
18 Riches and honor are with me, yea, durable riches and righteousness.
19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold, and my revenue than choice silver.

Galatians 5 (Spirit)
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, quarreling, rivalry, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 envying, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. About these things I tell you again, as I have also told you in times past, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Thanks Tom.

Any time

::If we were created in God's image as it says in Genesis, then how can there be any debate about the trinity. God is not something that cannot be explained. He is a person, and is our father. We were created to look and be like him. I have two arms and legs. So does he. I ahve a body of flesh and bone - so does He. Sure, we are not Gods, but we have the potential to be - one day - just as I have the potential to grow up like my Dad. This seems to make sense to me from reading the bible.:: Sandy

That's so far from what it really means that I don't even know where to begin with debunking that kind of thought process. Well, maybe one thing....The thing about "image" is the Soul. That is the part of humanity that is like God. The immortal and unendin part of humanity.

::A person can be a Christian and not believe in the concept of the trinity.:: Sandy

That depends on what you call a "real" Christian.

::There is no point in antagonizing such a potential friend by claiming they are not only absolutely wrong in their beliefs, but they don't even have the right to think of themselves as Christian.:: TomM

Yes, if they're not willing to listen to you.

::She seems to be taking the "In God's Image" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too literally. I mean, God having real arms, legs, bones and flesh?:: Rene

I think I may faint from the shock of agreeing with you.

::I never really understood the Holy Ghost role. What is he/she/it exactly? And how come we never hear anything about he/she/it outside of Holy Trinity discussions? Is he/she/it really that minor of a role?:: MarkN

The Holy Ghost was the messenger of God's Word into the minds of the Apostles, and those they chose to distribute the gift to as well for only that level, so that they could teach properly before the Bible was completed and able to be distributed.

::There is a difference between thinking the story of Genesis is true and actually thinking God has flesh and bones because we were created in "God's image".:: Rene

While I see your point. The problem with it is that God can do anything. That being said, it very well could be literal so it's not so far fetched to think so.

::It is interesting that while the God the Father and Jesus the Son are percieved as masculine, both "Spirit" and "Wisdom" are feminine nouns both in Greek and in Hebrew. This may indicate that the Holy Spirit represents the feminine side of the Divine essence.:: TomM

The gender of something does not necessarily indicate an identity of gender. If that were the case, a dress would be male clothing.

The gender of something does not necessarily indicate an identity of gender. If that were the case, a dress would be male clothing.

That depends on the language. Although it is true in Spanish. Likewise, shirts are feminine.

Why is it that it doesn't surprise me that the only thing Rene and Jwb agree on is to insult a third person's beliefs? And because that person takes the Bible too literally!!

While it is true that in many languages the grammatical gender of a word need not have any relation to the gender of its referrent, it usually does. And in this case it wasn't just one word, but four -- and in two different languages. Still, my statement was merely meant to be speculative and not conclusive. And to be totally fair, the first chapter of the Gospel of John uses a masculine noun for what appears to be a closely related idea.

Proverbs 8:22 (Chokmah/Wisdom)
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights [were] with the sons of men.

John 1:1-5,9-10,14 (Logos/Word)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not....[That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Of course, in this instance John is not talking about the Holy Spirit, but rather about the Divine nature of the Christ, so its strength as a counter-example to my speculation is somewhat weakened.

There is no point in antagonizing such a potential friend by claiming they are not only absolutely wrong in their beliefs, but they don't even have the right to think of themselves as Christian. TomM

Yes, if they're not willing to listen to you. Jwb52z

As far as I know, Sandy has only made one post, which did not indicate that other views would not be considered. I believe in giving people a chance before deciding that it is useless to talk with them, and even when I do, reluctantly decide that, I still no reason to end the conversation with a tactless statement which could be considered an insult. [Note: I am just expanding on my original statement. I am not accusing you, or anyone else, of stooping to insults.]

TomM,

You're right. Sandy's beliefs are Sandy's beliefs. If she believed that Swiss cheese was pumpernickel and wanted to call herself a Limburger she has a right to think of herself that way. Calling herself a Christian is like a Catholics calling themselves Christian just because they happen to believe in Christ.

TomM,
John chapters 14-16 contain references to the Holy Spirit that use the pronoun "he", and I thought they might interest you.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:26)

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (John 16:7)

MarkN, since those verses also deal with some aspects of the role of the Holy Ghost that you asked about(for example: teaching all things, bringing the words of Christ to remembrance, testifying of Christ, etc.), I seem to have killed the proverbial two birds with one stone with these quotations, and didn't even use Proverbs to kill said proverbial birds.

There's really a lot more that could be said about the Holy Ghost and his role (and hey, that kind of is one of the points of this particular board, right?), so I may post more later if I find time.

Sandy, I'd just like to welcome you to the board. Hopefully you'll post here again sometime. I hope you don't feel too set-upon right from the get go. Keep expressing your beliefs, no matter what response you may get.

I'll go on record as defending Sandy's position. If fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Sandy turned out to be LDS. At least the ideas she expressed are very Mormon. As a Doctrine & Covenants scripture says,

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (D&C 130:22)

Apparently this is not the general concensus among Christians. Oh well. I don't expect that in producing a list of scriptures that support the idea that God has an actual body, I would sway anyone's opinion, if they're so firmly attached to their conception of the figurativeness of the word "image", but I should like to quote at least one, in any event.

Luke 24 describes some of the events that occurred after Christ's resurrection. The following account is rather interesting.

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24:36-43)

This states that at the time Jesus appeared to the apostles following his Resurrection, he had a body of flesh and bone, and was not merely "a spirit". The apostles could reach out and feel him. He could eat. His body was physical. If the resurrected Christ had a body, what about the Father? Well, Paul says on many occasions that Christ was the "image" of the Father, but there's that ambiguously pesky word again. Frankly, I'm thankful for the plainness of D&C 130:22, and in a much larger sense, I'm thankful for all scriptures, the ancient as well as the modern, and for the clarity they bring when studied in harmony with one another.

Thanks Matt. As I said, I'm not wedded to the idea of the Spirit being feminine. I just think it's an interesting speculation. However, I do think it important to note that neither the word ekeinos (He/She/It) in the first two verses, nor the word autos (Him/Her/It) in the third is gender-specific in the original Greek.

I'd like to hear more about this idea of God the Father having a flesh-and-bone body. And some verses that speak to that idea.

Luke 24 was probably a poor choice for the first attempt, since it speaks of Jesus, not the Father. Together with John 1:14 (And the Word was made flesh...), possesing a fleshly body could be taken as a unique aspect of Jesus, and one of the things that distinguishes Him from the Father.

From what I've learned in school about Poetry as a subject, since Proverbs is basically a book of poetry, poetry is rarely written about anything masculine or about men. The only exception I can think of at the moment is some of Shakespeare's sonnets to teh Young Man. I'd guess that ancient poetry would be no different.

God does NOT have a physical body. If the book of Mormon says that he does, you have just proven it contradicts the bible.

And Jesus had a body only until he returned to heavens.

John 4
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John+4%3A24&NIV_version=yes&NASB_version=yes&AMP_version=yes&NLT_version=yes&KJV_version=yes&ESV_version=yes&CEV_version=yes&NKJV_version=yes&KJ21_version=yes&ASV_version=yes&WE_version=yes&YLT_version=yes&DARBY_version=yes&WYC_version=yes&language=english&x=13&y=8

Atman, Vishnu, and Shiva all had bodies. Oh, you're talking about the Christian Holy Trinity.

From what I've learned in school about Poetry as a subject, since Proverbs is basically a book of poetry, poetry is rarely written about anything masculine or about men. The only exception I can think of at the moment is some of Shakespeare's sonnets to teh Young Man. I'd guess that ancient poetry would be no different. Jwb52z

I could spend a few hours explaining the differences between ancient and modern poetry, but it would be irrelevant. The words are feminine in form everywhere they are used (including the passages from John that Matt quoted above, not just in the Proverbs passage, or only in "poetic" passages.

I do know that no current school of thought actively teaches that the Holy Spirit is feminine and whenever that teaching did arise in the past it was denonced as heresy. I am not advocating it, merely remarking on the possibility.

Rene,
Yes, I was aware of what John 4:24 says. Still, I do appreciate your choice of Bible translation in this case. It's less problematic than the KJV's John 4:24, "God is a spirit". So, "God is spirit". How exactly does that rule out God having a body? Was Jesus making a declaration about the physical nature of God, or rather about an attribute of God, such as "God is light" (1 John 1:15)? So, does "God is light" make God a collection of photons? How about "God is Love" (1 John 4:8)? Does applying descriptions such as light, love, and spirit to God negate the possibility of his having a material form?

"Spirit" is even used at times in the scriptures to refer to human beings, who most certainly have physical bodies. In John 3, Jesus talks of being born of the Spirit, and in verse 6 he says, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Paul says, "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (1 Cor. 6:17) This could diverge into a discussion of exactly what it means to be "born of the Spirit" or to be "joined unto the Lord", but at least the word "spirit" has been used to describe people who nevertheless have bodies.

Though I believe God has a body, I don't believe it's like our bodies. He is immortal and perfect, after all. His is like the "spiritual body" spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:44, a glorious body like that of the resurrected Christ, after which pattern "our vile body" will also be fashioned and changed in the resurrection (Philippians 3:21).

Our current mortal bodies are not quite like God's, but they are patterned in God's form and image. Yes, we do take the phrase "in God's image" quite literally. You don't. Fair enough. On the other hand, perhaps I could say you take the phrase "God is spirit" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy to literally. The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible just because we've proven it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible (especially since the Book of Mormon doesn't talk of God having a body; that was Doctrine & Covenants )


TomM, as far as providing some scriptures about God having a body, Luke 24 is the most explicit Bible verse I can provide to that effect. Yes, it does refer to Christ, not the Father. There are verses in the NT that speak of Jesus being the express image of the Father, and other such statements of their similarities. It's rather an indirect association, I admit. Even in uniquely LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants verse I provided earlier is really the only explicit reference to God having a body of flesh and bone. In any case, I'll provide a link to a page in a scriptural topical guide for this subject.

Topical Guide

I'm sorry, but to even suggest God has a physical body of flesh and bones is laughable to say the least.

In any case, if He does have one, why would 1 Kings 8:27 say the follow :

1 Kings 8
27 "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+Kings+8%3A27&NIV_version=yes&language=english

And any reference to God having actually body parts is obviously symbolic as the follow comparison shows :

Luke 11
20But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

Matthew 12
28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Matthew+12%3A28&NIV_version=yes&language=english

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+11%3A20&NIV_version=yes&language=english

::I'm sorry, but to even suggest God has a physical body of flesh and bones is laughable to say the least.:: Rene

I'm glad someone besides me thinks that.

Well, it's one thing I can agree with you on, Jwb.

Woah, I really didn't expect the response to the post I made a few days ago. I was simply stating why I felt that it made so much sense to say that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost were three separate beings. The statement about God having a body was really just part of the intro (and not a joke, by the way - but thanks TomM for not assuming that that was the case). Call me niave, but I am really shocked that people find it, well to use Rene's diplomatic word, "laughable". I was really, genuinely surprised that this was such a new, mad idea to most people.

Genesis 1:27 tells us: "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them." Now if I was to create someone in my own image, and I was a big ball of energy, wouldn't I create a big ball of energy? Why would I create a being that had a body of flesh and bone - yes, with arms and legs and a head - what reason would I have to create something that looks like this?

Now I've heard many Christians (both trinitarians and unitarians) say that they believe that we are all children of God. The bible tells us this. Don't your children look like you? Don't they inherit characteristics from you? Could I ask what people who don't believe this doctrine think God is? What do you think he looks like, and why do you think he created his children (if you believe we are such - and I'm not saying that you do necessarily) to be so different from Him? I would be genuinely interested to know.

As regards Christianity, I did say that a person can be Christian and not believe in the concept of the Trinity, to which JWB52z replied: "that depends on what you call a 'real' Christian". Well I suppose it does. But, for the record, I believe a 'real' Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, that He was and is the Saviour of the world, that His atonement was absolutely necessary for our salvation and who not only believes these things but also does all they can to follow His example and teachings. (I could be cheeky here and say something about how Jesus would never have mocked another person's beliefs but I believe I will refrain - and I'd now insert that smimey thing into my post if I actually knew how to do it!!)

So yes, I call myself Christian and still believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Gost are three separate people - and are indeed people.

Thanks to TomM, Matt Duke and others for making me feel welcome to the board. Truth is, I was a little scared to post again. I doubt I'm as knowledgable about the scriptures as most people who post here are and I don't have a degree in theology.

Good call on the LDS thing, Matt. I'm so glad you showed up. Now I can give all the hard questions to you.

Jesus also called his apostles his brothers. Paul, Peter, etc. called their fellow Christians "brothers". So does that mean all Christians are literally siblings? Again, you're taking the "God's children" too literally. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that you think Satan actually looks like a dragon and a serpent.

Em, Rene, I think you've unintentionally agreed with me there. Yes I do belive we are all part of the same human family and that we are all brothers and sisters - not only Christians, but all people that ever lived on the earth. Like you said, Jesus said it. This is obviously a different type of relationship than the literal family relationships we have on earth. On earth, we are not siblings by blood. But we have a a father in Heaven as well as an father on earth. If we are all God's children, then we are all, in a way, brothers and sisters. And that is why we all have arms and legs and a head!

I ask you again, because, honestly, I am dying to know, what do you believe about this? Because so far, I've only heard you argue about other people's comments.

I doubt I'm as knowledgable about the scriptures as most people who post here are and I don't have a degree in theology. Sandy

Neither do most of the people who post here. A few of us remember some scriptures that connect, and are good at using the search engine on our favorite Bible study website, that's all. And even that isn't a requirement. If it were, more than half the posters here would not qualify.

So welcome again, and don't be put off by a few bad experiences.

And about the smileys: the simple ones are handled automatically, if you type the eyes and the mouth of the "sideways" version (only without the space in between) : ) = : ( = : O =

I agree that the mention of body parts can be symbolic, and in many cases is. I don't think that any and all references necessarily are symbolic, though.

As for God not being contained, His power and influence are everywhere, not limited by physical presence.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88:11-13)

His presence can be said to be everywhere through the Spirit.

I'm sorry, but to even suggest God has a physical body of flesh and bones is laughable to say the least. Rene

Laughable, huh? I see. Derision, how charming...

Well, I've stated my position. I stand by it.I'm willing to let the matter rest, if there's nothing more to do but trade insults. I have better things to do today anyway.

It's nice, at least, to know unequivocally where you stand on the issue. It's also highly gratifying to have brought Rene and Jwb together in such a meaningful way.

Hey, it works!

Thanks TomN - Thats been driving me nuts for ages.

Thanks TomN

Hey, Tom, glad to have you (and MarkN) as a brother!

BTW, Sandy, you'll find that I take very little as deadly serious, and enjoy pointing out typos... call me obsessive...

Hey, Obsessive!

Looks around...

Now where did MJ leave that lever for the lion pits... ?

Oh, yeah, it's in her control. Darn.

No I didn't agree with you, Sandy. You know very well that "brothers" have the same two direct ancesters. You're just twisting things to prove your weak point.

So if God has a flesh and bones body, can he be stabbed or killed? It would seem so.

Oh and don't bother quoting that mormon book to prove anything. I don't believe in it and it's been proven to contradict the bible and it's laced with Trinity teachings, so no thanks.

[ASBESTOS]
Oh, and don't bother quoting that New Testament book to prove anything. I don't believe in it and it's been proven to contradict the Torah and it's laced with non-Jewish teachings, so no thanks.
[/ASBESTOS]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Thanks to TomM, Matt Duke and others for making me feel welcome to the board. Truth is, I was a little scared to post again. I doubt I'm as knowledgable about the scriptures as most people who post here are and I don't have a degree in theology.
Sandy, if I haven't welcomed you before (I have a frickin' selective memory so I'm unsure if I did or not, plus I'm too lazy to go look for it) then welcome and please don't shy away from RM. I welcome all civil discussions of differing veiwpoints on religion on these boards (likewise on PM concerning political veiws), so feel free to say what you like, within reason, of course. Awhile ago I had to close RM and PM (except for members) due to some rather disruptive individuals, which I really hated to do, but I've thankfully been able to reopen the boards because those people have left (let's hope I didn't just now jinx my boards!).

Hey, Tom, glad to have you (and MarkN) as a brother!
Yo, bros! Is there something my...our...parents haven't told us?

So if God has a flesh and bones body, can he be stabbed or killed? It would seem so.

Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but it does appear to have happened once.

Matt Duke-

I've had a chance to go through that topical guide you linked to. Thanks.

Like the Luke passage, some of the passages are related more to the fact that Jesus had/has a fleshly body, rather than that God the father does. In fact, the reference to Phillipians 2:6-8 actually suggests (like the John 1:14 passage I quoted earlier) that His body is one of the ways Jesus differs from the Father.

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Emphasis mine)

We can agree that the Risen Christ does indeed have a body which is physical and incorruptable, and that in the latter days believers will also attain such incorruptable "Resurrection bodies." (see Romans 8:29 and 1 Corinthians 15:52)

Some of the passages from Exodus, especially chapter 33, are as problematical for my position as Philippians 2 and John 1 are for yours.

I won't comment on the Uniquely LDS scriptures included, beyond saying that I found them interesting.

TomM,
Thank you for taking the time to study those passages, including the LDS verses. I appreciate your insights. They made me think.

One comment: The phrase in Philippians 2:7, "and was made in the likeness of men" could refer to Christ taking upon himself a mortal body, as the passage does reference his time on Earth. Since the Father's body is immortal (like Christ's body after the Resurrection; and no, Rene, God the Father can't be stabbed and killed, and Jesus won't be dying a second time), that could account for the difference noted between the two. While it's true that John 1:14 doesn't make a distinction between mortal "flesh" and immortal, in my opinion, at least, the difference can be considered implied.

Matthew said, " (my statement) [So if God has a flesh and bones body, can he be stabbed or killed? It would seem so. ]

Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but it does appear to have happened once."

Um...no. That was Jesus and when he had a human body on Earth.

And Tom, that scripture in Phillipians is refering to Jesus' time on Earth as a human.

Rene -
"Oh and don't bother quoting that mormon book to prove anything. I don't believe in it and it's been proven to contradict the bible and it's laced with Trinity teachings, so no thanks."

.....which is precicely why I did not annouce myself as Mormon in the first place. You'll notice that in none of my posts did I use any Mormon scripture to support my points. In fact I wasn't trying to argue with anyone. I was simply stating what I believe and why I fell it makes sense, even with only the old and new testement to go by. I do genuinely feel that the bible tells us that we are Children of God and are created in His image. I also believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings and are not one entity, but are one in purpose - did I not say this in my first post. Is this what you call "laced with Trinity teachings?"

I really don't want to get into a discussion about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This is not the place. Still, I'd love to know what other "facts" you consider to have been "proven" in the world today.

Anyway, Rene, brother dear. You seem to be avoiding my question. I ask you, for the third time, if you could please tell me what you believe about the Trinity and the type of being that God is. Maybe that way you could contribute to the discussion instead of trying to find ways of arguing against everyone else's "weak points".

Who needs spellcheck when I've got you ScottN? Sorry, but typos are my speciality - especially when I don't have a spellchecker on these boards. Glad to know you're there for me, my obsessive bro. And thanks for the welcome MarkN.

It suddenly occurs to me Rene that you could in fact be a sister. If this is the case, I apologise profusely.

Oh, and, by the way, I'm not trying to say in the above post that I do not believe the teachings of the Morman Church (or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints as it is correctly called), or the scriptures that are unique to the LDS church. Obviously, everything I do believe has been infuenced by the church's doctrine. But I do think that I can (somewhat) objectively look at the bible alone and see how what I do believe is actually supported by the bible. Does that make sense?

Honestly, I wish I hadn't brought up the fact that I was Mormon, for the simple reason that I do not wish for anything I say about what I believe to automatically be assumed to be Mormon teachings. I'm not as confident as MattDuke (and that's no slight on you Matt - I admire you for the knowledge that you do have) and would be afraid that I would post information that was inadvertently inncorrent.

In any case, I look forward to reading about all your different beliefs, and also sharing some of my own - always with the understanding that, while we may never agree, we will be better able to appreciate each other's points of view. If my friends agreed with everything I thought, my life would be incredibly dull.

And Tom, that scripture in Phillipians is refering to Jesus' time on Earth as a human. Rene

While I would phrase it differently, I basically agree with that statement, and it is why I said that the verse is problematical for the theory that God has a fleshly body. I don't understand the point of your post.

Or are you reacting to my later references to a "Resurrection Body"? In that case it's not my understanding of Phillipians, but of Romans and 1 Corinthians that you disagree with.

Anyway, Rene, brother dear. You seem to be avoiding my question. I ask you, for the third time, if you could please tell me what you believe about the Trinity and the type of being that God is. Sandy

Although you did not direct the question at me, I realize that I, too need to state and defend my position instead of just reacting to others' posts. I'll begin tomorrow night.

Honestly, I wish I hadn't brought up the fact that I was Mormon, for the simple reason that I do not wish for anything I say about what I believe to automatically be assumed to be Mormon teachings. Sandy

To be fair, I suppose I brought up that fact, so I'm sorry about that, if it was a problem. And you make a good point...

Disclaimer: My posts represent my views, not necessarily those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and are not official statements of doctrine. Thank you.

Sandy, please don't ever feel uncomfortable discussing your religion or views on RM, ok? That's what it's here for, to see how others interpret this or that religion, religious texts, or to share their views and how they arrived at them, and many other things concerning religion. You're more than welcome to civilly discuss anything you'd like regarding religion here so have at it! You can see there is lots of arguing going on sometimes but don't let that dissuade you from expressing your views or discussing someone else's, ok? The First Amendment rules here! Well, within reason, of course. Gotta stick to Phil's rules, ya know.

And as for spellchecking, well, if you ever have trouble at spelling something then don't worry about it. The Great and Powerful Spellchecker is known to periodically peruse NC so if you're lucky he'll correct a misspelled word or two of yours now and then. Just don't try finding out who the mysterious GaPS is, because that's a deeply held secret that no one on NC is allowed to reveal, under penalty of 1,000 lashes with a wet noodle.

A day late and a dollar short, but I am ready tro begin to explain my position on the Trinity.

Three times I started this post and got bogged down in describing the history of my spiritual journey and search for meaning back in the '70s. I've already explained it a little on a more appropriate board, and eventually I realized that all I needed to explain here is the point I was getting at.

Because of how I became a believer, I do not have the luxury of approaching the Scriptures already certain that I know the truth, and thus able to declare which passages are true, and which are "not to be taken literally." I have to examine each on its own merits and in context. I have to let the Scriptures guide me, rather than force them to conform to my own ideas.

This also means being willing to change my opinions as my understanding of the Scriptures becomes clearer, if they do not support those opinions. This is one reason I like talking with people of many different beliefs. Even if I don't accept a person's interpretaion of an issue, their understanding of some of the verses that touch on that issue might be clearer than mine and I can learn from that.

And I just noticed, I'm still avoiding explaining my understanding of the Trinity. One of the reasons is because it is easier to explain what it's not, rather than what it is, possibly because I don't have pre-digested dogma to fall back on.

Anyway, almost every unitarian argument against the Trinity is against a doctrine which is not the Trinitarian doctrine as I understand it, but a weaker doctrine.

The first weaker doctrine is a pure straw man, the arguments against the others show some attempt to understand the doctrine before refuting it, and these versions of the Trinitarian doctrine may in fact be held by some who have not sufficiently understood the point of the Scriptures.

The first "misunderstanding" of the doctrine of the Trinity assumes that Christians simply believe in three separate but equal gods. Not too many arguments make this assumption, but every once in a while, one will turn up. I'm going to assume that no one on this board will disagree with any argument to refute this version of "Trinitarianism," nor assume it is what trintarians actually believe. I mention it only for completeness.

The second version of "Trintarianism," almost as easily dismissed, is that there is only one God, but that he "possessed" Jesus to make Him the Christ. This was actually taught in two different ways in the early Church. Some taught that Jesus was an illusion created by God to teach us His truths. That the man did not exist. The first chapter of the gospel of John was specifically written to counter that argument. The second version goes that Jesus was an ordinary man until the day He went to listen to John and was baptised. It was then that the power of God possessed Him and He became the Christ. Luke 2 can be cited as a counter-example, though it is less conclusive, by itself, than John 1 is for the other version.

Most of the arguments against the Trinity, however, do attempt to argue against the actual doctrine. It is true that they usually confuse some of the details with those of similar non-Christian doctrines: the European idea of the three-aspected god (or more often, goddess), and the Hindu idea of the avatars of Vishnu. But it is my experience that most trinitarians who have not looked into the doctrine for themselves also confuse these concepts.

Tomorrow, I'll compare the three-aspected god(dess) with the Trinity which, hopefully will start to clarify my point of view. Then I will do the same for the avatars of Vishnu.

(Disclaimer for MJ -- [I see from your recent reponse to Scott that while you generally avoid posting in the "Christian" boards you do apparently read them.] -- I am not claiming and will not be claiming that an argument that disproves a "trinitarian" doctrine which is based on the triple-aspected Goddess is an argument against a belief in the Goddess. Only against a b*****dized combination of pagan and biblical ideas which is true to neither.)

(Note to MJ: Except for the occassional "casual" incident, such as reading your posts on the Wicca board, and similar "brief reminders," most of my knowledge of the Lady comes from my research thirty years or so ago. If I made any major blunders, I apologize. Feel free to correct me)

When I was a young student in St. Aloysius Grammar School, the nuns told me the story of St Patrick converting the Irish. They told me how he explained the mystery of the Trinity to the heathen king who could not understand the concept of a Triune God, by using a shamrock as an example.

There are two things wrong with that story. The Celtic and Germanic peoples already knew about the triune nature of some gods (or more often godesses), and the trefoil was already one of the symbols of the Triple Goddess.

Celtic mythology was rarely written down until after the countryside was converted to Christianity. Some tales of the gods were retold of saints that "just happened" to have the same or similar names. The Irish saint Bridgette or Brigid had many of the same attributes and "adventures" as the Irish goddess Brigid. Brigid was one of those godesses who was a local version of the Triple Goddess.

Christian monks recording the myths of Brigid did not know how to interpret some of the details of her triune nature. Some made her one of a set of triplets, or split her into three generations of godesses. Others said that she changed her name and her function as she grew older. The "saint" named for her even shows a vestige of the Triple Goddess, hidden under a morality tale: the beautiful young (Maiden) Brigid felt that her beauty was too much of a temptation to the young men, so she prayed with St Patrick and was "blessed" with a withered face and figure (Crone) that would no longer distract them. This is similar, but opposite to the story of Ragnel, a wise hag whom Gawain championed and reluctantly married. In this case, it was the Crone who transformed into the Maiden, when, by a generous act on their wedding night, Gawain "broke the spell" which had been placed upon her.

Protestants tend to look suspiciously at Catholics' veneration of Mary, feeling that there is something vaguely pagan about it. Actually it is not a vague as it seems. The Catholic doctrine of Mary has borrowed heavily from the Triple Goddess. The doctrine of her perpetual virginity identifies her with the Maiden. Her historical role as the mother of Jesus identifies her as the Mother. The titles "Mother of God," and "Queen of Heaven," and her role as the Intersessor suggest a dowager Empress and/or a wise old woman, both approriate images for the Crone.

I'm doing it again. Avoiding the real point of this post. Which is to compare the Triplicity of the Goddess with the Trinity of God.

Whether we call Her Gaia (Mother Earth or Mother Nature), or Fate (Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos), or Mary, or Brigid, or simply The Lady, the Goddess is a single entity. She can choose to show a particular face or aspect, that of the Maiden, the Mother, or the Crone, or her worshippers can call upon one of these aspects, but these are little more than masks for an entity greater than any one aspect. And she can change aspects "overnight" like Ragnel and St Brigid. The Triple Goddess is older than the classical pantheon, and untouched by it. Even Zeus cannot change Fate, but Fate can affect even Zeus.

In many ways, this is similar to the last "misunderstood" version of the Trinity, where the Gnostics considered the earthly body of Christ to be an illusion so that God could manifest and teach his followers. But it is closer to the truth (as I understand it), because, often the aspects of the Lady were so well defined that they seem to poor mortals to be totally separate godesses: Clotho, the Maiden, spins the thread; Lachesis, the Matron, weaves it; Atropos, the Crone, cuts it.

The difference is that God so totally and perfectly fills these "aspects" that they are totally different persons, not mere masks. Although each is part of the whole of God's being, they can act independently and go their separate ways. "The Son" could "empty" Himself of much of His Divine Nature and choose to be born a man, while the Father and the Spirit continued to hold the Universe together "without" Him.

Congrats MJ! You're Catholic! (Even if you don't know it.)

Since the real point of your post was to include the smiley, I'm not even going to ask how you arrived at that conclusion.

I am concerned though, that new readers (and we have a few of those), unfamiliar with your sense of humor, might read your short comment before tackling my longer posts and think that I have said something unkind about either Catholics or Wiccans.

Thanks, TomM. Your posts were realy interesting - particularly because I am Irish an had the whole shamrock thing drummed into me in school.

I'll have to admit that I am still a little confused as to your position, but I think maybe I just need to read through the posts again. Let me think about it before I respond.

Thanks again though, for responding to my request for other points of view about the Trinity and the nature of God. I am genuinely interested in hearing about what other people believe.

I'm not surprised that you are still a little confused about my position. There are two reasons for this. First, I am not sure myself of all its details -- they are still evolving. And of what I've been posting, I'm only about halfway through the background material. Then there are still the supporting Scriptures to consider, and how they affect my ideas.

I thought I included a paragraph in my last post thanking you for letting me know that you are reading the postings, that it is worth my continuing. I guess I didn't. So I am now. Thanks.

I wasn't so sure it was worth continuing after I posted on Friday night (Saturday morning) when I noticed that no one else had posted in over over 48 hours

Sandy,

TomM is right. I'm just being sarcastic on general principle. TomM is normal. (Well, relatively.) I'll continue being a sarcastic censored thingy and ask TomM:

TomM,
Are you implying that calling Wiccans Catholic is insulting them? Is is insulting to call Catholics Wiccans too?

I'm not sure I agree with the comment about the Triple Goddess being a single entity, Tom.

On the one hand, that is incorrect - if you look at the Greek version (Persephone-Kore, Demeter, Hecate), they are three distinct and separate Goddesses. They existed at the same time, and they could pass judgement simultaneously.

But on the other, it is correct. The Goddess is a reflection of women - women possess the ability to be all three within a single body. Take a woman who is both mother, grandmother, and still married/with her lover. Her lover will - in all likelihood - continue to see her as the beautiful young girl from so long ago. Her children will always see her as mom. Her grandchildren will always see her as grandma.

In the same body is the Maiden, the Mother, the Crone.

So it's both correct and not.

MJ, as I recall, Hecate was an aspect of Selene, not Persephone or Demeter.

Incidentally, Persephone and Demeter are also different -- Demeter was Persephone's mother.

I'm not sure I agree with the comment about the Triple Goddess being a single entity, Tom. Machiko Jenkins

I'm mainly going on 30-year old outsider's impressions. That is precisely why I wanted your corrections. Thanks

But on the other, it is correct. The Goddess is a reflection of women - women possess the ability to be all three within a single body.

In the same body is the Maiden, the Mother, the Crone.

So it's both correct and not.

And that is the side I was focussing on. How it differs from the Christian Trinity is that Jesus is never the Father, etc. (A doctrine which Rene keeps bringing up, and which I agree with, up to a point -- I don't agree that it proves that Jesus is/was not God, just that He was/is not Yaweh the Father).

Are you implying that calling Wiccans Catholic is insulting them? Is is insulting to call Catholics Wiccans too? Blue Berry

Not at all in either case, as long as it is clear that you are just being you, and don't mean too much by it. It's just that your sense of humor is an aquired taste and I was concerned that it might be misunderstood.

It really depends on whom you ask, Scott.

There are some Wiccans who will make mention of the unspoken fourth side of the Goddess - the side called the Sorceress. (Waxing phase = Maiden; Full moon = Mother; Waning phase = Crone; Dark phase = Sorceress).

That would be where Selene comes into play.

Perhaps this might be more appropriate at the proper boards.

I know I'm only half-way through my explanation(?) of my view of the Trinity, and it's been a week since I last posted. I'm sorry about that.

For the first few days there are two explanations. First,unlike MJ and my take on the Triple Goddess, as far as I know, we do not have a Hindu member who can correct my misinterpretations, so I wanted to re-research the Hindu teachings on the avatars of Vishnu*. Second, I expected that there would be more dialog about what I've already written, and that would hide the gap. As far as the later days, I'm afraid that they have fallen victim to the dreaded "real life." Hopefully, I'll be ready to post Monday night or Tuesday.

* Googling on "avatar" to verify my impressions of the Hindu teachings on the avatars has also been slowed down by the many web-pages that have been written about the relatively recent theory that the Kalki Avatar, the prophesied last and greatest of the avatars, who will remake the world, has already come, in the person of Mohammed. (ScottN, I suspect that you, more than most of us, can understand why that kind of theory would upset many devout Hindus. Everyone else, try substituting the "Mem" word, or its Greek equivalent, the "Chi-Rho" word for the phrase Kalki Avatar)

Thanks for starting the ball rolling again TomM. I too have fallen victim to "real life", and I was kinda waiting for everyone else to respond. In the end I thought maybe this board had been given up on.

In any case, I am facinated by the information about other non-Christian religions, and how they have simalar (or not) trinity doctrines. I know you're not finished, but am I right in thinking then that you believe that maybe all truth is derived from the same source and that this would explian why so many religions seem to have an inbuilt concept of a trinity?

Or that many people who believe in the Trinity of the Christian God, have so confused the doctrine with that of other religions that they are not sure what they believe?

I could be way off, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks again for continuing.

I believe God designed us to recognize the truth of His Plan for us as long as we are ready to hear it. Because of this, any religion (except those that use "brainwashing techniques" -- though even many of that do also fit here) must match the "God-shaped hole" in our lives, and therefore come close to the truth in most respects. That's not quite the same as "believ(ing) that ... all truth comes from the same source" in the sense I understand your question. I do not believe that "all religions lead to the same goal," as some people do, but I do respect that most people are sincere in their search for meaninig in life and have made what seems to them to be the best choice to reach that goal.

While I believe that those who do not understand God's message the way that I do, at least in the broad outlines (which, to a large extent, is the same way most members of the more conservative branches of Mainstream Protestantism, certain conservative Catholics, and many Greek/Russian Orthodox understand it -- major differences on many "minor" points not withstanding) have not chosen the truth as I know it, I am willing to admit 1) I could be wrong and they (you) could be right, and 2) Even if I am right, it is possible* that God might still have made provision for those who sincerely choose the wrong path to Him.

The Great Commission requires that I profess my faith and to "evangelize," but it does not require that I condemn those who believe differently. (In fact it would be hard to "evangelize someone who does not want to be around me because every time I see him I call him an unrepentant sinner.)

When the Spanish missionaries first came to the Americas, many of them were horrified because "the devil" had been working on the natives and there were many things in their religions that were "perversions" of God's Word. I see this again as evidence that any attempt to fill the "God-shaped hole" has to be roughly "God-shaped."

*There are certain Scriptures (such as "I am the Way and the Truth, and the Light; no man comes to the Father except by Me") that seem to deny there are alternative routes to God, but then there are also Scriptures (such as the "many mansions" verse) that seem to allow it. Although I tend toward the former, I am not as sure of my interpretation as I am on more important points, so I hold open at least the possibility of God's provision.

::The Great Commission:: TomM

I'm glad there's not a board on that idea. We don't need anymore arguments than we already have.

::but then there are also Scriptures (such as the "many mansions" verse) that seem to allow it.:: TomM

"Many mansions" doesn't mean that. It means there is room enough for everyone who will go to Heaven.

In fact it would be hard to "evangelize someone who does not want to be around me because every time I see him I call him an unrepentant sinner.

Thank you TomM!!!!!! No if only others would realize this...

One of these days I'll actually *LOOK* at the preview...

"Now if only..."

There were three positions at the Nicene council:
1.The Position of Arius and his followers.
2.The Position of Athanasius and the Orthodox
3.The Position of the Moderates that has come
down to us as semi-Arianism.
Semi-Arianism was probably the most logical and
rationally consistent of the three views.Too bad
it lost out.

Is anyone here a Oneness Pentecostal..? Isn't it true most
Pentecostal Christians are Trinitarian ..?

The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza bar and says "Can I have one with everything?"

Who cares what other people believe? You do you and let everyone else do themselves as well.

This is a good web archive link to a site defending the doctrine of
The Trinity, https://web.archive.org/web/20041212184514/http://www.uq.net.au/~zzmstefa/

A Superb book on The Trinity is
"The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief" by James R. White

Found this good article that Proves the Trinity , https://www-thegospelcoalition-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-to-use-the-back-of-a-napkin-to-prove-to-a-jehovahs-witness-that-jesus-is-god/?amp=&amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16827121034637&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegospelcoalition.org%2Fblogs%2Fjustin-taylor%2Fhow-to-use-the-back-of-a-napkin-to-prove-to-a-jehovahs-witness-that-jesus-is-god%2F

And Also The Trinity section on
Carm.org by Matt Slick

Then discuss it. Don’t just post a link.

Oh who am I kidding? You never learn. Tell Paul hi from us.

*shakes head*