trinity, godhead, or neither (Jesus Christ, translation, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, bible)

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Katz, look. I admit. This IS very frustrating. I find it very hard to believe you're so curious about what "substance" God is made of. I think it obvious that we don't know. I know what you're doing, though. You're using me as a channel to espouse Mormon doctrine, and it's not going to work. This Adam and Eve stuff coming to Earth from another planet isn't going to cut it with me. And the Mormon church today having living apostles and prophets fools only others, but not the true followers of Sola Scriptura. That's why you don't like that doctrine (Sola Scriptura), it cuts off three of your major books you hold to be sacred.

Again, I'm not here to bash the Mormons; and if your next post has ONE question mark in it, I'm going to ignore it.

I don't mean to be rude. Just assertive.

So essentially you're refusing to debate a person who uses extra books, even though she is getting most of what she is arguing only from the Bible? Weird. I don't she has ever even mentioned our other three books once.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I don't she has ever even mentioned our other three books once.

She didn't. I brought it up because I knew where she was headed. Once the subject of what God is made up of came into play, and became the primary focus of the line of questioning, it's time to shut down. I only like to debate what IS in the AV, not what ISN'T.

Once pulled "outside the Book" --- a KJV debater gets what he deserves.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by AV1611

She didn't. I brought it up because I knew where she was headed. Once the subject of what God is made up of came into play, and became the primary focus of the line of questioning, it's time to shut down. I only like to debate what IS in the AV, not what ISN'T.

Once pulled "outside the Book" --- a KJV debater gets what he deserves.

Well, I still don't see why you're having such a problem. If you debate, and she thinks up good, Biblical evidence of what he is made of, and you do the same, don't you think it would be a good debate?

If you know where she is headed, why not take her on and show her why she is wrong?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Katz, look. I admit. This IS very frustrating. I find it very hard to believe you're so curious about what "substance" God is made of. I think it obvious that we don't know.

AV,

I must admit you had me fooled. I had assumed you actually wanted to debate and could do so without getting flustered. When I nominated you for the "Kindness Award," it was because I genuinely believed you to be the kind of person I could discuss differences in doctrine with and maybe actually learn something from. I have had more discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity over the years than you can imagine. None of them has gone anywhere but around in circles. Somehow I thought that a discussion with you might be different. I based my assumption on how well you conducted yourself when your beliefs on the creation were ridiculed by so many other posters. I thought that if anyone could continue to be as patient as you were with people who were downright rude to you, you would probably be at least as patient with someone who wanted to be able to understand what is obviously a very complex doctrine. Apparently I was wrong.

By the way, I know perfectly well what "substance" God is made of. And it's not ectoplasm! We are created in His image, after His likeness. His Son, Jesus Christ, is also in His image. (In case you weren't aware, His Son was in the image of a human being, which would be an important clue as to what the Father's image was.) Adam had a son, Seth, who was in his image and likeness, as well. You see, both willing and able to argue my position. If you can't do the same, it's hardly anything to lose patience with me over.

I know what you're doing, though. You're using me as a channel to espouse Mormon doctrine, and it's not going to work.

Oh, get real! There's not one person on this forum who isn't trying to do the same thing -- including you. That's what debate is all about -- declaring a position and then providing evidence to substantiate it. I don't need you as a channel for anything, my friend. I am simply pointing out the problems inherent in the doctrine of the Trinity (which is derived from the creeds and not from the Bible). You have been unable to argue your position as well as I have been able to argue mine, and have consequently decided to make unfounded accusations as to my motives.

This Adam and Eve stuff coming to Earth from another planet isn't going to cut it with me.

Nor with me. I never said anything about believing that Adam and Eve coming to Earth from another planet. Neither did DeepShadow or Aqualung or jonny or emmaleebee or SoyLeche. We never said anything like that because we don't believe anything like that. That is purely anti-Mormon propoganda. I thought you were above that, AV.

And the Mormon church today having living apostles and prophets fools only others, but not the true followers of Sola Scriptura. That's why you don't like that doctrine (Sola Scriptura), it cuts off three of your major books you hold to be sacred.

You haven't even given me any evidence that the Bible is the sole record of God's word. You provided one verse that was supposedly supposed to convince me, and from it, claimed that "scripture," being "perfect" was to replace everything else.

Again, I'm not here to bash the Mormons

Really. Well, you could fool me. (Actually, for awhile you did.)

and if your next post has ONE question mark in it, I'm going to ignore it.

Hey, not one question mark. (I re-read my post twice, just to make sure.) But, as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference anyway. You don't answer my questions when I do ask them.

I don't mean to be rude. Just assertive.

No problem. I know where you're coming from now. Believe me, I know how hard it must be for someone like you to debate a Latter-day Saint. I'm sorry you felt threatened. I'll back off.

Kathryn

P.S. I never used any evidence from any source other than the KJV. I don't know why you accused me of having done so.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Well, I still don't see why you're having such a problem. If you debate, and she thinks up good, Biblical evidence of what he is made of, and you do the same, don't you think it would be a good debate?

First of all, I have NO problems with my Bible. I'm not sure you've read all of our posts. I simply said that 1 John 5:17 supports the Godhead, and she disagrees. Then she wants ME to show HER how 1 John 5:17 doesn't support the Godhead (after I said it does) by, of all things, bringing up some kind of substance that isn't even on the Periodic Table.

I would have given her much more debate if she would have just started out by saying something like:

AV, the Bible says they are made up of [...], and here are the verses to support that: yada, yada.

But I suspect she wasn't, as she can't give me verses in the AV, thus the use of leading questions.

If you know where she is headed, why not take her on and show her why she is wrong?

Absolutely not. I'm used to Mormon subterfuge - cloaked as leading questions. If you want to spout Mormon doctrine ... say it clearly. I hate lengthy, chatty, debates; as the margin of error in quotation increases as the number of posts increase. As does the potential to veer off onto side issues.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

By the way, I know perfectly well what "substance" God is made of.

Name it then, please --- from the Periodic Table.

I say Adam and Eve are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.

Are you saying God is the same thing???

[Feathers in Hair]

Please do not refer to anyone's debating as 'subterfuge'. Everyone has just as much right to discuss things as the other person.

[michel]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

Please do not refer to anyone's debating as 'subterfuge'. Everyone has just as much right to discuss things as the other person.

Okay, thank you. I withdraw the comment then.