Blessed Trinity, an Unblessed Monstrosity???

[archierieus]

I just finished re-reading all of your posts on this thread. The only Scriptural references pertaining specifically to the Trinity, which I found (and I may have missed some) were included in your post # 196796, which was an excerpt from another website. In addition, you referred to 1 Jn., about denying the Son and the Father (although that didn't seem specifically on point) Using the Bible and the Bible only, then, are these the references to which you are referring? Am I correct that you have nothing to add to these? If so, then I believe that the matter may be easily resolved. Please do confirm whether or not you have any additional Scripture references to add to those.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Well, out of curiosity I looked up the reference in Col. 2, checking out the word, 'godhead.' Here is what I found:

Greek word, 'theoteetos' occurring only once in the NT, as follows-- (Nestle-Aland 26th ed.)

"oti en autoo katoikei pan to pleerooma theoteetos soomatikoos' meaning, 'because in him inhabits all the fullness of the deity bodily'.

I include two treatments of this verse, first BAGD:

" the full measure of deity" (Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.)

Secondly, Louw/Nida:

"‘for the totality of the divine nature lives in him (Christ) in bodily form’ . . . ‘for just what God is, that is exactly what Christ is.’ " (Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.)

So, we can see that the word, 'godhead' in the KJV, does not occur precisely in that form, in the Greek. This is a good reference on the Divinity of Christ, but not suitable as a substitute for the Trinity.

Yet, 'trinity' is an ordinary English word, invoking, as I recall, the concept of 'three.' Really, what is so bad about that. Granting that there have been perversions of the Trinity doctrine, why throw out the baby with the bath water? We haven't done that with many other Bible doctrines, why do it with this one.

After all, the Bible clearly identifies three Divine Beings. Take, for example, Mt. 28:19: ". . . baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) Since the Father is God, and the Son is God, then, logically, consistently, the Holy Spirit too should be God. But, speaking of Mt. 28:19, I have a question, which I should like to direct to John317 (Jim):

Looking at Mt. 28:19, and comparing the various extant Greek texts, how reliable is this verse? Does this represent the majority text? Is there a minority text? How much controversy surrounds this verse? I hope you will have time to respond.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

I think it is deception to say that the Bible teaches it. The Bible not once even comes close to mentioning trinity. Trinity lumps all of the majesty of each representative of God into one conglomeration, and thereby denies that Jesus was, in fact, a human being, as well as fully divine. We cannot erase all the mystery of the godhead by coining a term whereby humans have weaved in philosophical arguments into the web. There is not a term trinity, let us be safe with the term godhead and all is well.

---

Hmm. Well, I don't have volumes which I would cherish, the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, but I do have good ole Webster's Unabridged. Looking under Trinity, I find the origin of the word to be from Middle English, 'trinite', thence from Old French, and originating, of course, in the Latin 'trinitas' which means 'triad,' 'trio.' The common meaning is 'a group of three, triad;' 'the state of being threefold or triple.'

That most definitely is accurate in describing Elohim, the threefold God. As Jesus formulated it (Mt. 28:19, ". . .the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Trinity, then, is a common word describing a trio or triad, or the state of being threefold. The Bible very clearly, and in a number of places, describes that. Remember that 'trinity' is an English word. The concept is unquestionably Scriptural.

Regards, Dave

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

I think it is deception to say that the Bible teaches it. The Bible not once even comes close to mentioning trinity. Trinity lumps all of the majesty of each representative of God into one conglomeration, and thereby denies that Jesus was, in fact, a human being, as well as fully divine. We cannot erase all the mystery of the godhead by coining a term whereby humans have weaved in philosophical arguments into the web. There is not a term trinity, let us be safe with the term godhead and all is well.

---

Hmm. Well, I don't have volumes which I would cherish, the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, but I do have good ole Webster's Unabridged. Looking under Trinity, I find the origin of the word to be from Middle English, 'trinite', thence from Old French, and originating, of course, in the Latin 'trinitas' which means 'triad,' 'trio.' The common meaning is 'a group of three, triad;' 'the state of being threefold or triple.'

That most definitely is accurate in describing Elohim, the threefold God. As Jesus formulated it (Mt. 28:19, ". . .the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Trinity, then, is a common word describing a trio or triad, or the state of being threefold. The Bible very clearly, and in a number of places, describes that. Remember that 'trinity' is an English word. The concept is unquestionably Scriptural.

Regards, Dave

---

If God needed to call Himself trinity, He would have inspired His men of old to be moved by the Holy Spirit to call Him a blessed trinity. But there is not one mentioning of trinity. The Jews will even tell you that the LORD is one God, not three. When did the Bible writers need nestle-Aland when the scriptures were being compiled? We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater when, in fact, there is no such baby represented in trinity. The concept of trinity is unquestionably a contrivance of the man of sin that Adventists had avoided for years prior to Froom's erroneous assertions in "Movement of Destiny." Give my regards to Angel Manuel-Rodriguez. Return, dear friend, to a more primitive faith and you will not regret it.

We disagree on just about all counts.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

How can you say that the SDA version of trinity is any different from the RC version if you use the same word? Why would SDA's even concieve of risking a look-alike doctrine with those whom they have previously condemned as pagans, the leader of which we identify as the man of sin from the scriptures? I believe the reason is that they have forgotten their first love. Your thinking is highly illogical on this point.

Dennis

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

If God needed to call Himself trinity, He would have inspired His men of old to be moved by the Holy Spirit to call Him a blessed trinity. But there is not one mentioning of trinity. The Jews will even tell you that the LORD is one God, not three.

---

Well, I guess that's it. That is the summary of your challenge to the doctrine of the Trinity. I had asked you for any additional Bible references in support of your position, and you have not provided any. I reckon that answers the question.

BTW, God's men of old did describe God in the plural, and those same men described three Beings as comprising Elohim. As for the Jews' position, well, I can't say that I have researched that lately, but I reckon if you're gonna use the Jews' position as authority, remember that the Jews don't even recognize Christ as the Messiah. Doesn't seem like too reliable a source of authority for Christians.

Okay, Gregory, at your suggestion I undertook this project, and I reckon its time to put this baby to bed. Yeah, I do have one more post, pertaining to Christ's coming as the Son of man, but I feel like the issue has substantially been resolved.

Regards, Dave

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "If God needed to call Himself trinity, He would have inspired His men of old to be moved by the Holy Spirit to call Him a blessed trinity."

I don't think so. "Trinity" is a theological word, used by Theologians. God does not in the Bible use many theolgical words that came into existance many years after the birth of Christ. God simply, in the Bible, gave common people a work that they could understand. God, did not give them a work that could only be understood by Theologians.

Dennis has also point out the EGW did not use the word "Trinity" in her writings. Why should she? Or, better, why would she? EGW was not a Theologian, and the word "Trinity" is a Theological word used by Theolgians. EGW was a simple person who wrote great insights that could be uderstood by common people. She was clear in her understanding of Christ when she wrote the in Christ was life unborrowed, and you all know the rest of that quote.

[Gregory Matthews]

Thank you, Dave. I appreciate what you have attempted to do.

All in all, my expectations were not met. I had expected a better defense of his anti-Trinitarian beliefs. But, I guess that I was expecting to much. As I see it, there are three aspects to this issue, that SDAs must meet:

1) What does the Bible teach: This should be primary, fundamental, and foundational to every other question. I had expected/hoped that Dennis would be able to stick closer to Scripture than he did. In any case, he had the freedom to post as he wished. That he did.

2) What did our early SDA leaders believe: This is of interest. It is clear that many were Arian in belief. I had hoped that Dennis would be able to give us an infomed discussion on this point. He came across to me as simply making sweeping generalizations that virtually all of our early SDA leaders supported his position. But, he seemed unable to support such.

3) What did EGW believe, and what did she teach in her published writings: Those are actually two quesions that may have different answers. EGW was developmental in her spiritual understanding. It is possible tha she held some personal beleifs that she did not teach in her writings. In any case, Dennis did not seem to me to deal well with what EGW actually said in her published writings.

Thanks again for you effort.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Dennis has also point out the EGW did not use the word "Trinity" in her writings. Why should she? Or, better, why would she?

---

I need to begin by saying that Archie leveled the charge that I did not use any scripture to back up my claims, when actually I did mention several texts in refutation of a supposed Biblical trinity.

As to the above post by Gregory, the answer is that she DIDN'T ever use the term trinity, and rightly so. I can see clearly by Gregory's reasoning that our Church is coming to a bitter crossroads. The majority calls themselves "Evangelical" at the same time bringing in all sorts of compromises to the mission and message laid out by the testimony of Jesus through the prophet Ellen White, and through the experience of the first fifty years of the pioneers of the SDA faith. They use just enough SOP texts to back up their mistaken theories and Babylonian doctrines to maintain a veneer of Adventist appearance; while at the same time, they insinuate doubt as to their(SOP) credibility when it comes to Church function and mission. And This group, which sadly is the majority, is slowly causing the early sweet experience to disappear from radar due to its agenda of minimizing the SOP, and adopting the creeds of Babylon. The group seems to be comprised mostly of multi-generational SDA's who are in the professional sectors of society, doctors, lawyers, archeologists, theologians, college professors, church administrators, pastors, chaplains, highly educated folks (not always the case)!!! Gregory tows the party line of these Evangelical standards, he has from the first day I recognized him as a moderator on this forum.

Another group, those who are not detecting this false "fleece", are ignorant of the polarization between the evangelicals and the traditonals, mostly comprise the newer converts (though many new converts have this newer heretical, Evangelical, theology in their crops too).

The Seventh-day Adventists (non-Evangelical), who I would judge as faithful to the testimony of Jesus and to the commandments, shun these Babylonian standards and Roman doctrines, especially the trinity, and seek to warn the ignorant of their designs and ensure the people are ready for what is about to spring upon the world as an overwhelming surprise. These comprise the remanant of Her seed.

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

EGW was not a Theologian, and the word "Trinity" is a Theological word used by Theolgians. EGW was a simple person who wrote great insights that could be uderstood by common people. She was clear in her understanding of Christ when she wrote the in Christ was life unborrowed, and you all know the rest of that quote.

---

Ellen White often times condemned theologians for their lack of humility and simplicity when it comes to Bible interpretation.

"Not all the books written can serve the purpose of a holy life. "'Learn of Me'," said the Great Teacher," "'take My yoke upon you,' learn My meekness and lowliness." Your intellectual pride will not aid you in communicating with souls that are perishing for want of the bread of life. In your study of these books you are allowing them to take the place of the practical lessons you should be learning from Christ. With the results of this study the people are not fed. Very little of the research which is so wearying to the mind furnishes that which will help one to be a successful laborer for souls." {MH 442.4}

Take your own words to heart when you say she was "simple". For, doesnt the Bible say that in the latter days the people will return to a more primitive faith? Forget about Nestl-Aland, Greek exegesis, Hebrew syntax, etc... God has seen fit to render the KJV for the faithful, and that is what we outta use. Anything else is climbing up another way (this Evangelical way).

This hellish trinity doctrine will not last on the books for long. God is working and when God works, things will happen. He will have a purified church. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but one day soon, the men in the cages in high places will face their "the LORD will not do good, neither will He do evil" attitudes. Those who stood idly by while precious souls were lead into error and darkness, who watched as whole congregations left the faith, will suffer the pain of their guilt! There will be recompense, the accounts will be paid in full folks. Where are you going to end up?

Dennis

[Clio]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

The Seventh-day Adventists (non-Evangelical), who I would judge as faithful to the testimony of Jesus and to the commandments,

[Dennis

---

Precisely. You would judge. You usurp the role of the Father every time you do so Dennis.

Man looks upon the outward appearance, Abba looks on the heart.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

John317 said:

Dennis,

It is an impossibility for someone to be Deity, or God, who was created, or came into being, by means of another. That would be a contradiction in terms. Christ is Deity because He is eternally self-existent, the same as the Father.

---

How is it that you think you know God the Father so well that you can say what is and is not possible? God is the One who makes things possible is He not. With God, ALL things are possible.

Quote:

---

John317 said:

Jesus Christ was the one who appeared to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as "I AM". He appeared under the name of Jehovah, or Yahweh. Both "I AM" and "Yahweh" come from the Hebrew verb "to be," and have reference to the fact that Yahweh is eternally self-existent. In John 8:58, when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," He was declaring that He was the same One who called Himself "I AM" in Exodus 3:14.

---

You are likely correct here, but in conceding this point, does this make a trinity doctrine warranted? Because His name is I Am, does that prove that He is eternal God the Father? You seek to go too far in your understanding where God has not explicitly stated friend. You cannot take several leaps and bound beyond this and claim a trinity doctrine. You have not even addressed the problem of the Holy Spirit. This issue is so deep that we could cover many, many pages of refutation and debate, all ending up where we started. If you are a thinking Adventist, you will understand that we began as non-trinitarians, if we proceed as Evangelicals in making this creed a test of fellowship, we will not end up as Adventists, but rather as a daughter of Belial.

Quote:

---

John317 said:

The Jewish leaders described in John 8:59 knew this, and that is why they took up stones to kill Him. That is also why Jesus said that when we see Him, it is the same as seeing the Father, because Jesus is exactly like the Father. (Hebrew 1:3; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6.) Do you believe this? If not, why not?

Please see Desire of Ages, pp. 52, 307. Jim

---

While this is true that He is in all ways like His Father, He IS NOT His Father (the same substance). That would make God a liar, using all sorts of deceit and trickery to "save" His created race. We are not of those who believe the scriptures teach cunningly devised fables. The priests wanted to kill jesus because they thought He was a blasphemer and a fraud. They knew not the day of their visitation. Do we?

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

The Seventh-day Adventists (non-Evangelical), who I would judge as faithful to the testimony of Jesus and to the commandments,

[Dennis

---

Precisely. You would judge. You usurp the role of the Father every time you do so Dennis.

Man looks upon the outward appearance, Abba looks on the heart.

---

That is what the Word says Clio... those who keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus...

Dennis

[archierieus]

There is one other aspect of the nature of Christ which I should like to address while on the subject. That is the incarnation and how it affected Christ's nature. Phil. 2:5 - 8 provides some helpful information. The passage reads as follows in the NKJV:

"Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

The phrase, "being in the form of God" caught by attention. What is meant by this phrase? I looked at the Greek. The Greek word for 'form' here is 'morphee' (feminine singular dative). I wondered in what sense this word was used. Here is what I found:

" the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external form - ‘nature, character.’ hos een morphee theou huparchoon‘ he always had the very nature of God’" (Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.)

Well, that answered that. No major issues so far. Continuing in the verse, "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Okay, I looked this up as well. Here is what I found. The Greek word translated 'robbery' is 'harpagmon' which means essentially to grasp. Note how this word is used in this passage:

"‘he always had the nature of God and did not consider that remaining equal with God was something to be held on to forcibly’ Php 2.6 (Louw-Nida, op. cit.) And compare Kittel: "“He did not regard it as a gain to be equal with God,” the reference being . . . to a free (if unexpected) act of self-abnegation." (Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1985.)

In other words, when Paul says that Christ was in 'the form' of God, He means that Christ always had the very nature of God. For that reason, then, Christ did not consider remaining equal with God a thing to be grasped or gained or held on to forcibly.

This information is helpful in understanding the pre-incarnation Deity of Christ.

The passage continues. Php 2:7 "but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."

Notice that it says that Christ "made Himself" of no reputation, and that Christ took "the form" of a servant, coming in the likness of men. This was a voluntary act of Christ. The Greek here is "ekenoosen,' which literally means that He 'emptied Himself.' ‘he took on the nature of a servant’ . . . ‘he became truly a servant.’ (Louw-Nida, op. cit.)

As I read this passage, it put in perspective Jesus' frequent statements in the NT that His Father is greater than Him, and similar words. These statements were made AFTER the incarnation, AFTER Christ had humbled himself and came in the likeness of men. Without question, Jesus AS A MAN was lower than the Father.

The passage in Philippians continues: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name." (v. 9) After ascending to heaven, Christ did not exalt Himself. The Father exalted Him. Some believe that Christ will forever retain his servant status, throughout eternity--that He will never be restored to His original state with the Father. Others believe that He will be so restored. Neither option affects His nature, His self-existence, His Deity, before the Incarnation.

My own view has been somewhat colored by a reading of 1 Cor. 15:28:

"Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

I looked this up in Nestle Aland 26th ed., and came to the conclusion that what this is saying--in Paul's distinctive writing style, which the apostle Peter commented on--is that Christ's ROLE as "the Word become flesh" will revert to "the glory" which Christ had with the Father "before the world was." (Jn. 17) Since Christ Himself, the Word, is Yahweh, is the self-existent God, the servant role which He took upon Himself in coming to this world, will be subordinated to His original glory before the foundation of the world.

Regards, Dave

[wicklunds]

Can I humbly ask you what all this proves? To me I only see smoke and mirrors friend. You obscure the truth when you make the baseless claims like Christ is the same as YHWH. You cannot verify this with 100% accuracy. It is not explicitly, or even tacitly written!!!

After studying these things in college I have found that language professors like to use their translation loopholes to get around the established testimony of Jesus Christ, given through Ellen White, and a plain reading of the Bible. Can you understand this?

Dennis

[Clio]

Archierius -

Quote:

---

Her work was more than pastoral friend!! We need to understand that she was more than prophetic.

---

This is a direct quote from Dennis in his post #165220 made on April 1 of this year in another part of the forum.

It may help some in understanding why he doesn't believe the Bible to be the sole highest authority for Christians, particularly SDA Christians, and his continued resistance to supporting his contentions from Biblical sources rather than secondary sources.

This, in direct conflict with the instructions and exhortations of the one whom he claims to venerate so highly.

He cannot have it both ways. Either everything she wrote was inspired, and her statements that all she writes is subordinate to the Bible are also inspired, or only part of what she wrote is inspired, and her statements that her writings are subordinate to the Bible falls into the uninspired portion of her writings, but only Dennis can tell us which of her writings are inspired or uninspired.

Conversations with him can be confusing.

Clio

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

I had expected a better defense of his anti-Trinitarian beliefs.

---

Quite honestly, I was anticipating a challenging discussion. And, that would have been helpful to me, as well, because I deal with these issues on the front lines, and the more I learn, the better equipped I am to deal with such things.

I have a proposal. In view of the value as a learning experience, would you, Gregory, be willing to pick up the anti-Trinitarian standard, and carry forward a serious Scriptural discussion on this thread--or start a new thread? I think it could be of real benefit to a lot of people. I would like to know what Scriptural support is asserted. Yes, I have dealt with the issue, successfully, but I'm always wondering, there must be more to it than that!

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Just an add-on. Looking back over this thread, I am reminded of the war games put on by the Japanese naval staff in preparation for the battle of Midway. The referees scored an overwhelming Japanese victory. Hmmm. This discussion was just too easy. It would be nice to have a reality check.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I have a proposal. In view of the value as a learning experience, would you, Gregory, be willing to pick up the anti-Trinitarian standard, and carry forward a serious Scriptural discussion on this thread--or start a new thread? I think it could be of real benefit to a lot of people."

I am not comfortable doing that. I really do not consider me to be a Theologian. I really do not have the time that it would take to get more involved in many ofthese theolgical discussions.

I really do not want to defend a false doctrine on a subject so imporant as that one.

My comment that I had expected better was multi-focused:

I expected a greater willingness to deal with Scripture. Whenever people attempted to pin Dennis down from the Bible, he resorted to EGW, sweeping generalizations that attacked people for their belief in Roman Catholic doctrine, claims of great apostacy, and other such that exxentially attempted to change the focus from the Bible.

I had hoped for a better understanding of SDA history. It is clear that many of our early leaders did not believe in the Trinity. Yet, Dennis mostly again made sweeping generalizations that virtually all rejected the Trinity. He never supportred such generalizations.

I had expectd that Dennis would have a better understanding to a docrine that he has rejected. But, it became clear that she is erecting "straw-people" and really does not undestand it.

I had hoped that Dennis would be able to say at some points: "I understandyour position, and why you think that your cited verse should be understood as you do. But, I beleive that this alternative explaination is the correct view for the following reasons." An example of this would be the passage in Genesis. Is the Hebrew in that passage a plural of majesty, or a representation of God in plural form? That might be one point where honest people might differ. Yet, I do not see Dennis recognizing such.

There were simply many ways in which I had wished for more, and it did not happen.

[archierieus]

I understand your reticence to defend a false doctrine--and unquestionably, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. At the same time, classroom learning does not, alone, prepare a person to deal with real-life situations. I can think of no better way to become a skillful advocate for truth, than to do so on the firing line.

Regards, Dave

[wicklunds]

All of you claim that I have not defended my position clearly, nor used scripture in a capacity to your expectation. It is clear to me that you neither attempted to read the 100 and more mysteries of the trinity, nor answer any of those said claims. You will not listen to the Holy Spirit because the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible writers, inspired Ellen White. I do not see how you can claim to be Seventh-day Adventists not believing and following the SOP. How can you say to your Adventist brothers and sisters that you will be a guiding light to the lost by bearing the testimony of Jesus? You are liars and theives incapable of leading souls to Jesus, because you have rejected His prophet. Go and have your sorcerous incantation on why the trinity makes you better than our pioneers who deprived themselves of food, comfort, and sleep in order to understand critical passages of scripture through the seeking of the Holy Spirit. How could you harbor such unbelieving sentiments against your own church? How will you minister to those who insist that our early foundation is the one that will see us through until Jesus comes? The truth is, you could never hold fellowship with them because you simply refuse to believe. Good bye!!

Dennis

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

All of you claim that I have not defended my position clearly, nor used scripture in a capacity to your expectation. It is clear to me that you neither attempted to read the 100 and more mysteries of the trinity, nor answer any of those said claims.

---

No, we listen.......

You're just pig headed, that's all....

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "You are liars and theives incapable of leading souls to Jesus, because you have rejected His prophet. Go and have your sorcerous incantation on why the trinity makes you better than our pioneers. . ."

Dennis, Neil, and all others, Don't continue down this road that includes resonding to Dennis. If you do, I will delete you. I do not generally allow such personal attacks, and I am not going to do so.

Why am I allowing this to remain? I invited Dennis and Dave to come here and discuss this subject. I stated that I would give Dennis considerable freedom to post his convictions. I have kept my word, and he has reached his limit. He has clearly revealed himself in a manner that should be evident to all. There is no need to allow him to continue to make these kind of personal attacks.

[Gerr]

Now I know for sure why I stopped responding to your posts two pages back, and why any discussion with you is a waste of time.

Gerry

[Raphael]

There will be always lots to question about but the problem is that there are things which was never designed to be publicly proven. Soo there will be never enough to satisfyingly refute disbelief in things like the Trinity or others. One could openly disbelieve God and there will never be enough proof to contest that, because it was never designed to be. It's very good to be extremely analytical but in the end when it points to nowhere common sensible sense tells to go with whats sensible, though it may ever remain unproven (as in evidence versus proof). But I'm not saying what Wicklunds is pursuing now is worthless (this post). No, on the other hand it may produce nice unexpected results. Just keep on going to the very end of the pursuit, don't stop halfway.

God is Love,

Raphael