Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

[Shermana]

I honestly have never found the concept of the Trinity to be that mind-boggling. Perhaps its because I was taught it from childhood, and so I have become immune to its strangeness.

The concept is just one super-God with 3 distinct aspects, called "persons". Why is that impossible? The analogy, though imperfect, I like best is of the 3 stages of H20: ice (solid), water (liquid), and steam (gas). All have the same chemical makeup-- two hydrogens joined to one oxygen-- but in different environments, it behaves differently. Three distinct aspects to one super molecule.

Because this concept of "persons" means separate beings, whether they are called "Aspects" or not, it's all wordplay to craft 3 separate equal gods as god, whether they are one or not, it is still 3 in one. What is this "one super molecule"? Is it like Voltron where they all combine to become a single super being or is this "One" some meaningless term that has no actuality beyond the individuality of these 3 persons? Can't you just accept that the Father is One and the Son is a separate soul? Why is that wrong?

 

[outhouse]

Why is that impossible?

how is it possible?

I like best is of the 3 stages of H20: ice (solid), water (liquid), and steam (gas).

except for the fact that is testable, known and non-mythical.

the other is a concept we see ancient men create 100% of the way through

 

[outhouse]

When you say "Mainstream scholarship", you should note that the Documentary Hypothesis is not as popular today now that the Israeli software kind of debunked it. Also, you apparently don't understand what the word "Elohim" means, nor are you aware that it used for angels as well. Moses was said to be "the elohim to Pharoah".

I don't debate that the Israelites often turned to idolatry, no Rabbi debates that. There is no proof whatsoever for the "E" source. At all. It is pure fantasy based on elementary linguistic misconceptions.

not correct

read please

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it hasnt been debunked, there may be one small group that thinks that but it is far from mainstream.

 

[Shermana]

I've read the Wikipedia on it, perhaps you can quote something where they have conclusive proof. It appears they have nothing but theories. "P" and "E" are completely spurious. There's only "J" (The original) and "D" (the post Ezra Deuteronomists). The idea of P and E is basically from a total misunderstanding of the language and culture itself without any actual evidence. None. Zip. Zero. If you can quote some actual hard evidence for the redaction in the face of the language issue that "Elohim" simply means "G-d" or "gods" (depending on whether its majestic plural or not). You also seem to ignore my point about knowing what the meaning of the Holy Name is.

 

[outhouse]

I've read the Wikipedia on it, perhaps you can quote something where they have conclusive proof. It appears they have nothing but theories. "P" and "E" are completely spurious. There's only "J" (The original) and "D" (the post Ezra Deuteronomists). The idea of P and E is basically from a total misunderstanding of the language and culture itself without any actual evidence. None. Zip. Zero. If you can quote some actual hard evidence for the redaction in the face of the language issue that "Elohim" simply means "G-d" or "gods" (depending on whether its majestic plural or not). You also seem to ignore my point about knowing what the meaning of the Holy Name is.

both elohim and yahwey come from previous religions in the levant. That is all the evidence we need to know they were seperate deities.

we also know early hebrews were polytheistic


despite the many ways to interpret contruction of the first five books, the 5 author's is still the most common followed by modern scholarship allthough not as strong a following as before.


now if you have links or evidence, please bring it

 

[outhouse]

The Straight Dope: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)

heres another good read

 

[Falvlun]

Because this concept of "persons" means separate beings, whether they are called "Aspects" or not, it's all wordplay to craft 3 separate equal gods as god, whether they are one or not, it is still 3 in one.

Why does it mean separate beings? Just because you say so? I honestly don't understand why one god can't be considered to have different aspects, different forms, that are distinct enough to consider 3 persons.

A person with multiple personality disorder can have many different personalities residing within one person. What if God has the same thing going on, except he can control it, and be more than one of them at a time? Why not? He's omnipotent and it's not like it's a logical impossibility.

What is this "one super molecule"? Is it like Voltron where they all combine to become a single super being or is this "One" some meaningless term that has no actuality beyond the individuality of these 3 persons? Can't you just accept that the Father is One and the Son is a separate soul? Why is that wrong?

Sorry. I didn't mean super in any sort of chemical sense; more in a "isn't H20 awesome" sense.

I am not saying it is wrong to believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely separate, 3 gods. I am merely saying that I don't see what's so impossible about the idea that they aren't, that they truly are one god.

how is it possible?

Use your imagination. It's not a logical impossibility for one omnimax god to have 3 distinct personalities which can go and act autonomously.

except for the fact that is testable, known and non-mythical.

the other is a concept we see ancient men create 100% of the way through

You misunderstand me. I am not claiming that god is triune or even that god exists. I am merely saying that a triune god is possible to exist, and using H20 as an example of how one unified thing can have 3 very distinct forms.

Unicorns are mythical beasts. But that doesn't mean that it was impossible for a one horned horse-shaped creature to have evolved.

 

[javajo]

I honestly have never found the concept of the Trinity to be that mind-boggling.

My personal belief is false teachers and cults do not accept the Deity of Christ so they cannot accept the Trinity. In so doing I believe they lower Christ closer to man, taking glory away from Christ, and raise themselves higher than they really are, giving themselves glory, which we are to glory in the cross and Christ gets all the glory so no man can boast. I believe it stems from pride, as they do not want to acknowledge themselves as the Bible truly portrays them, sinners without any hope of saving or helping save themselves, who need a Saviour. The truth, I believe, is God, the Word became man and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. That's my belief.

 

[outhouse]

Use your imagination

thats what i'm saying.

its required.


Man has always placed mythical deities in the gaps of his knowledge, this thought proccess to me is primitive and barbaric.

each deity is only worshipped and believed ONLY by the place you were born [generally speaking]

 

[Falvlun]

thats what i'm saying.

its required.

Man has always placed mythical deities in the gaps of his knowledge, this thought proccess to me is primitive and barbaric.

each deity is only worshipped and believed ONLY by the place you were born [generally speaking]

You do realize you ignored the rest of the post that put that in context and already answered what you wrote in reply, right?

 

[Mark2020]

Being very ill from a neck problem for the past few weeks, I have found it difficult to sit at the computer for more than a few minutes at a time, which has slowed me down quite a bit.

I hope you're OK now.

Mark, what "bad transliteration" are you referring to ...

You gave a bad translation which said "all but one thing" or something like that (which supported what you were claiming then) and I pointed that out. You can refer to your own post.

On the other hand, are we to think that when the writer of Hebrews said...

If you want to say "all things" doesn't mean "all things", but mean "all things on Earth", or "all living things on Earth", not only is this funny when trying to explain "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made", but it will also exclude the heaven and space..., which doesn't make any sense.
Check this:
The complete word study dictionary : New Testament
ἀρχή :
When it refers to time, it means the beginning, commencement, relative to an event or a situation such as in Matt. 24:8, “the beginnings of sorrows”; Mark 1:1, “beginning of the gospel”; Mark 13:8, “beginning of sorrows”; Heb. 7:3, “beginning of days”; Sept.: Job 40:14; Hos. 1:2. When it does not refer to a restrictive event, situation or time, it is used in an absolute sense as in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word.” It does not delineate what beginning. Here it means before there was any beginning whatsoever, the Word had been. There is no art. before the word arché̄. Before the creation of the world there had been the Creator, the Word (Lógos [3056], which primarily means intelligence and the expression of that intelligence in making the world, the creation). See also the use of arché̄ in an absolute manner (John 1:2 [without the art. as also in 1 John 1:1; 2:13, 14]; Rev. 21:6; 22:13). Other references with the use of arché̄ as a relative beginning: Phil. 4:15, “the beginning of the gospel”; 2 Pet. 3:4, “the beginning of the creation”; 1 John 2:7, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6; Jude 1:6. In Heb. 2:3, arché̄n laboúsa, “which at the first began [lambánō {2983}, to take],” having taken or made a beginning, means began. In John 2:11, “The beginning of signs” (a.t.) means the first miracle. In Heb. 3:14, “the beginning of our confidence [hupostáseōs {5287}],” the ground beneath or something on which one can base himself, hence “confidence” means our first confidence, our faith as at the beginning. In Heb. 5:12, “the first principles” or elements of faith as also in Heb. 6:1.

So we can see that here it means the origin. I find this translation very accurate: "In the origin The Word had been existing". We're speaking about the origin, before any time, which shows that "all things" here, mean all things created at any time.

πάς pás; fem. pása, neut. pán, masc. gen. pantós, fem. gen. pásēs, neut. gen. pantós. All.
(I) Includes the idea of oneness, a totality or the whole, the same as hólos (3650), the whole. In this sense, the sing. is used with the noun having the art. The pl. also stands with the art. when a def. number is implied, or without the art. when the number is indef.
(A) Sing. before a subst. with the art. (Matt. 6:29; 8:32; Mark 5:33; Luke 1:10; 4:25; John 8:2; Acts 1:8; Rom. 3:19; 4:16) Also used metonymically with the names of cities or countries to speak of the inhabitants (Matt. 3:5; Mark 1:5; Luke 2:1). With proper nouns, sometimes without the art. (Matt. 2:3; Rom. 11:26). After a subst. with the art. (John 5:22; Rev. 13:12). On rare occasions between the art. and the subst. where pás is then emphatic (Gal. 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:16).
(B) Pl. (1) Before a subst. or other word. (a) A subst.: With the art. implying a def. number (Matt. 1:17, “all the generations”; 4:8; Mark 3:28; Luke 1:6; Acts 5:20; Rom. 1:5). Without the art., where the idea of number is then indef. as pántes ánthrōpoi (ánthrōpoi [444], men, people) meaning all mankind indef. (Acts 22:15; Rom. 5:12, 18), pántes ággeloi (ággeloi [32], angels; Theoú [2316], of God) meaning all angels of God (Heb. 1:6); pánta éthnē (éthnē [1484], nations) meaning all nations (Rev. 14:8). (b) A part. with the art. as subst. (Matt. 4:24; 11:28; Luke 1:66, 71; John 18:4; Acts 2:44). (c) Before other words and periphrases with the art. in place of a subst., i.e, poss. pron. as pánta tá emá (emá [1700], mine), all things that are mine (Luke 15:31; John 17:10); with a prep. as pási toís en té̄ oikía ([3614], house), to all those in the house (Matt. 5:15); with an adv., pánta . . . tá hó̄de (hó̄de, [5602], in this spot), meaning all the things which are done on the spot or here (Col. 4:9). (2) After a subst. or other word. (a) A subst. with the art. as def. tás póleis pásas (tás póleis [4172], the cities) meaning all the cities of that region (Matt. 9:35). Without the art. with a proper noun as Athēnaíoi dé pántes (Athēnaíoi [117], Athenians) meaning all the Athenians (Acts 17:21). (b) After a part. with the art. of subst. as en toís hēgiasménois pásin (en [1722], in; toís hēgiasménois [37], the sanctified ones) meaning all the sanctified ones (Acts 20:32). (c) With a prep., hoi ún emoí pántes (hoi, they; sún [4862], with; emoí [1698], me), meaning all those with me (Gal. 1:2). (3) Between the art. and subst. as emphatic (Acts 19:7; 27:37). (4) Before or after a personal or demonstrative pron., as hēmeís pántes, we all (John 1:16); pántes hēmeís, all we (Acts 2:32); pántes humeís, all you (Matt. 23:8; Luke 9:48); hoútoi pántes, these all (Acts 1:14); pántas autoús, all of them (Acts 4:33); autó̄n pántōn, all of them (1 Cor. 15:10); taúta pánta, all these things (Matt. 4:9; Luke 12:30); pánta taúta, all these things (Mark 7:23). (5) Used in an absolute sense: (a) With the art., hoi pántes, they all, meaning all those definitely mentioned (Mark 14:64; Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor. 10:17; Eph. 4:13; Phil. 2:21. Neut. tá pánta, all things, meaning: (i) The universe or whole creation (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 4:11); metaphorically of the new spiritual creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17, 18); metonymically for all created rational beings, all men, hoi pántes (Gal. 3:22; Eph. 1:10, 23, all the followers of Christ; Col. 1:20; 1 Tim. 6:13). (ii) Generally, all things before mentioned or implied, such as the sum of one’s teaching (Mark 4:11); all the necessities and comforts of life (Acts 17:25; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 9:22; 12:6; 2 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 5:13; Phil. 3:8; Col. 3:8). (iii) As a predicate of a proper noun, ho Theós tá pánta en pásin (ho Theós [2316], the God; tá pánta en pásin, all in all), meaning above all, supreme (1 Cor. 15:28). (b) Without the art. pántes, all, meaning all men (Matt. 10:22, “be hated of all”; Mark 2:12; 10:44; Luke 2:3, “all went,” a hyperbole meaning many of the inhabitants of Judea; 3:15; John 2:15, 24). Neut., pánta, all things (Matt. 8:33; Mark 4:34; Luke 3:20; John 4:25, 45; Acts 10:39; 1 Cor. 16:14, pánta humó̄n, meaning all your actions, whatever you do; Heb. 2:8; James 5:12). Acc., pánta, as an adv. meaning as to or in all things, in all respects, wholly (Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 9:25; 10:33; 11:2); katá pánta (katá [2596], as, according) meaning as to all things, in all respects (Acts 3:22; Col. 3:20; Heb. 2:17); eis pánta (eis [1519], unto, in), in all things (2 Cor. 2:9); en pásin, in all things, all respects (2 Cor. 11:6; 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 2:7; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 4:11).
(II) Sing. pás, without the art. as including the idea of plurality meaning all or every, equivalent to hékastos (1538), each one.
(A) Without nouns (Mark 9:49).
(B) Before a relative pron. it is intens., pás hós, everyone who (Gal. 3:10); pán hó, whatsoever (Rom. 14:23); metonymically (John 6:37, 39; 17:2); pás hóstis (3748), meaning everyone who or whosoever, but stronger (Matt. 7:24; Col. 3:17, 23 [TR]); followed by the subjunctive, pás hós án, everyone who would call on or whosoever shall call (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13).
(C) Before a part. with the art., where it becomes a subst. expressing a class (Matt. 5:22, he who or everyone who is angry; Luke 6:47; John 6:45; Acts 10:43; Rom. 2:10). Before or after a part. with the art., tó̄ échonti pantí (Matt. 25:29, “for unto everyone that hath”); without the art. where the part. sense then remains (Matt. 13:19, pantós akoúontos [akoúō (191) to hear], everyone hearing; Luke 11:4, pantí opheílonti [opheílō (3784), owing], to everyone owing us).
(D) Used in an absolute sense (Mark 9:49, “every one shall be salted”; Heb. 2:9); diá pantós (diá [1223] for; pantós, implying chrónou [5550], time), continually (Heb. 13:15); en pantí (en [1722], in; pantí, everything), in every respect (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 4:8; 6:4; 7:5, 11, 16; 11:9; Eph. 5:24; Phil. 4:6, 12).
(III) All, meaning of all kinds, of every kind and sort including every possible variety.
(A) Generally (Matt. 4:23, “and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease” [pásan]; Acts 7:22, “all the wisdom” meaning all types of wisdom; Rom. 1:18, 29; 2 Cor. 1:4; Col. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:1).
(B) In the sense of all possible, the greatest, utmost, supreme (Matt. 28:18, “all possible authority in heaven and on earth” [a.t.], which means absolute authority; Acts 5:23; 17:11; 23:1; 2 Cor. 12:12; Phil. 1:20; 2:29; 1 Tim. 2:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; James 1:2; 1 Pet. 2:18; Jude 1:3).

 

[outhouse]

You do realize you ignored the rest of the post that put that in context and already answered what you wrote in reply, right?

I didnt ignore it at all

just put my spin in with it

 

[outhouse]

The Straight Dope: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)

heres another good read

add this one too


this stays in my favorites

Timeline of Old Testament History

 

[Falvlun]

I didnt ignore it at all

just put my spin in with it

Okay. As long as your argument isn't "God doesn't exist, therefore it's impossible for a Triune God to exist." Whether God exists or not is kinda besides the point in this thread, no? The question is more along the lines of "Assuming that the Abrahamic God exists, is it possible for him to be Triune?".

 

[outhouse]

Okay. As long as your argument isn't "God doesn't exist, therefore it's impossible for a Triune God to exist." Whether God exists or not is kinda besides the point in this thread, no? The question is more along the lines of "Assuming that the Abrahamic God exists, is it possible for him to be Triune?".

not where I was going unless someone throws something out i feel I need to address.


All i have seen is everyone that is pro-trinity generally iognores the real history involved and downplays Constantines role in defining the divinity of a deity.

you had twop groups of thought with a few in between and you can see a clear path of how ancient man created the trinity from start to end

 

[javajo]

not where I was going unless someone throws something out i feel I need to address.


All i have seen is everyone that is pro-trinity generally iognores the real history involved and downplays Constantines role in defining the divinity of a deity.

you had twop groups of thought with a few in between and you can see a clear path of how ancient man created the trinity from start to end

From The Trinity (Triunity) of God | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site (click the link for the full study)

Though the Bible taught truth of the Triunity of God implicitly in both Old and New Testaments, the development and delineation of this doctrine was brought about by the rise of heretical groups or teachers who either denied the deity of Christ or that of the Holy Spirit. This caused the early church to formally crystallize the doctrine of the Triunity. Actually, Tertullian in 215 A.D. was the first one to state this doctrine using the term, Trinity.9 Concerning the struggle the early church went through, Walter Martin writes:

As the New Testament was completed toward the close of the first century, the infant church was struggling for its life against old foes—persecution and doctrinal error. On the one hand were the Roman empire, orthodox Judaism, and hostile pagan religions, and on the other hand were heresies and divisive doctrines. Early Christianity was indeed a perilous experiment.
Probably no doctrine was the subject of more controversy in the early church than that of the Trinity. Certainly the teaching of “one God in three Person” was accepted in the early church, but only as this teaching was challenged did a systematic doctrine of the Trinity emerge.

The Gnostic heresy, for instance, (which permeated Christendom in the lifetime of the apostles) drew strong condemnation in Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and John’s First Epistle. Denying the deity of Christ, the Gnostics taught that he was inferior in nature to the Father, a type of super-angel of impersonal emanation from God.

Following the Gnostics came such speculative theologians as Origen, Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosota, Sabellius, and Arius of Alexandria. All of these propagated unbiblical views of the Trinity and of the divinity of our Lord.

But perhaps the most crucial test of Christian doctrine in the early church was the “Arian heresy.” It was this heresy which stimulated the crystallization of thought regarding both the Trinity and the deity of Christ …

Today there are still remnants of the Gnostic heresy (Christian Science), the Arian heresy (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the Socinian heresy (Unitarianism) circulating in Christendom. All of these errors have one thing in common—they give Christ every title except the one which entitles Him to all the rest—the title of God and Savior.
But the Christian doctrine of the Trinity did not “begin” at the Council of Nicea, nor was it derived from “pagan influences.” While Egyptian, Chaldean, Hindu, and other pagan religions do incorporate so-called “trinities,” these have no resemblance to the Christian doctrine, which is unique and free from any heathen cultural vagaries … 10

The point, then, is simply this: While the term Trinity is never specifically used nor the doctrine explicitly explained in Scripture, it is nevertheless implicitly stated. The church councils, in their fight against heresy, were forced to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Triunity, but let it be emphasized, the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

 

[ResLight]

Okay. As long as your argument isn't "God doesn't exist, therefore it's impossible for a Triune God to exist." Whether God exists or not is kinda besides the point in this thread, no? The question is more along the lines of "Assuming that the Abrahamic God exists, is it possible for him to be Triune?".

I would say that from the perspective of the Bible Students (and I assume also of the JWs), the question is not "is it possible for him to be Triune?", but rather: Is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob revealed in the Bible as being triune, as being three separate and distinct persons, all of whom are wholly the only true God at all times, and from eternity past?

In truth, from Genesis to Revelation, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), is presented as a unipersonal God who raised up the prophet like Moses from amongst the sons of Israel, and who raised that prophet from death. (Deutoernomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2) All through the New Testament, forms of the word transliterated as THEOS, when applied to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are always used to speak of one person, and not once as more than one person. Throughout the New Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- always presented as one person -- is distinguished from His son, as can be seen from Acts 3:13-26. In all of the scriptures claimed to present otherwise, the spirit of human imagination has to be consulted, and the resulting imaginations and assumptions have to be added to, and read into, each and every scripture to get added-on dogma appear to be supported by whatever scripture is being cited. No idea or concept of a triune God is ever, no not even once, presented in any scripture of the Bible.

 

[ResLight]

Though the Bible taught truth of the Triunity of God implicitly in both Old and New Testaments,

To actually express the truth, this should read,

Though one can conclude, by making assumptions and reading those assumptions into the scripture, that the Bible taught the triunity of God in both Old and New Testaments...

 

[outhouse]

. No idea or concept of a triune God is ever, no not even once, presented in any scripture of the Bible.

And there finally is the truth of the matter.



One can only imagine "in" the trinity.

 

[outhouse]

From The Trinity (Triunity) of God | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site (click the link for the full study)

Though the Bible taught truth of the Triunity of God implicitly in both Old and New Testaments, the development and delineation of this doctrine was brought about by the rise of heretical groups or teachers who either denied the deity of Christ or that of the Holy Spirit. This caused the early church to formally crystallize the doctrine of the Triunity. Actually, Tertullian in 215 A.D. was the first one to state this doctrine using the term, Trinity.9 Concerning the struggle the early church went through, Walter Martin writes:

As the New Testament was completed toward the close of the first century, the infant church was struggling for its life against old foes—persecution and doctrinal error. On the one hand were the Roman empire, orthodox Judaism, and hostile pagan religions, and on the other hand were heresies and divisive doctrines. Early Christianity was indeed a perilous experiment.
Probably no doctrine was the subject of more controversy in the early church than that of the Trinity. Certainly the teaching of “one God in three Person” was accepted in the early church, but only as this teaching was challenged did a systematic doctrine of the Trinity emerge.

The Gnostic heresy, for instance, (which permeated Christendom in the lifetime of the apostles) drew strong condemnation in Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and John’s First Epistle. Denying the deity of Christ, the Gnostics taught that he was inferior in nature to the Father, a type of super-angel of impersonal emanation from God.

Following the Gnostics came such speculative theologians as Origen, Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosota, Sabellius, and Arius of Alexandria. All of these propagated unbiblical views of the Trinity and of the divinity of our Lord.

But perhaps the most crucial test of Christian doctrine in the early church was the “Arian heresy.” It was this heresy which stimulated the crystallization of thought regarding both the Trinity and the deity of Christ …

Today there are still remnants of the Gnostic heresy (Christian Science), the Arian heresy (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the Socinian heresy (Unitarianism) circulating in Christendom. All of these errors have one thing in common—they give Christ every title except the one which entitles Him to all the rest—the title of God and Savior.
But the Christian doctrine of the Trinity did not “begin” at the Council of Nicea, nor was it derived from “pagan influences.” While Egyptian, Chaldean, Hindu, and other pagan religions do incorporate so-called “trinities,” these have no resemblance to the Christian doctrine, which is unique and free from any heathen cultural vagaries … 10

The point, then, is simply this: While the term Trinity is never specifically used nor the doctrine explicitly explained in Scripture, it is nevertheless implicitly stated. The church councils, in their fight against heresy, were forced to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Triunity, but let it be emphasized, the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

If you want to learn REAL history you do not use a biased source for your studies.

J. Hampton Keathley, III is very biased and your only getting the spin said persopn wants you to believe.




what you have done is cut and pasted someone elses work, this shows nothing other then a christian viewpoint. It surely doesnt show what you know