The soul of man

[OzSpen]

Mary is referred to as Theokos.
Of course this means " mother of God".
So we have to accept that "theos, in Christian circles, means God.
Why?
Because WE do not decide the Christian faith. It was decided for us by the Apostles and those who came after them.

Christianity affirms that there are 3 persons in 1 God.
You must believe this to consider yourself a Christian.
Those who do not believe this cannot consider themselves Christian.

Wondering,

Throughout Christianity, this has been a battle ground and a decider of what makes one a biblical Christian. To believe in Jesus as in John 3:16 (ESV), caused us to ask, 'Which Jesus?' The answer to that question divides orthodoxy from unorthodox belief.

If Jesus is not God and the second person of the Trinity, my understanding is that he is another jesus and not the one who died for our sins on the cross.

This 'other' Jesus was being promoted in the early church. Paul knew of it when he wrote to the Corinthians a second time: 'For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough' (2 Cor 11:4 ESV).

That's why pursuit of biblical doctrine is so important in the precarious age in which we live. That's why we need more Bereans in the church (Acts 17:11 ESV).

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Mary is referred to as Theokos.
Of course this means " mother of God".
So we have to accept that "theos, in Christian circles, means God.
Why?
Because WE do not decide the Christian faith. It was decided for us by the Apostles and those who came after them.

That's interesting because those who were taught by the apostles didn't believe that there was a being called God who consisted of three persons. What that means is that somewhere between the apostles and today someone changed things. One of the primary culprits was Augaistne.

Christianity affirms that there are 3 persons in 1 God.

No, it doesn't. Where do you see any such thing in Scripture? I showed you that the very one credited with applying the term to God originally didn't even believe that.

You must believe this to consider yourself a Christian.
Those who do not believe this cannot consider themselves Christian.

That's a rather bold statement since there were Christians long before the Trinity doctrine came about. Not only that but this idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons is a Western idea. Eastern Christians do not hold this doctrine. So, according to your statement there are literally millions of Christians who cannot consider themselves Christians.

Some food for thought, what if you're the one who wrong? Where does that leave you?

 

[Jim Parker]

And as to Jim Parker, just a heads up:
The Father
Yahweh

Could you put that into a sentence so that the average English speaker can make sense of it rather than having to guess at what you might have in mind?
Thanks.

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

Could you put that into a sentence so that the average English speaker can make sense of it rather than having to guess at what you might have in mind?
Thanks.

iakov the fool

I'm sorry Jim, I had misunderstood.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm sorry Jim, I had misunderstood.

Was that yours?
I thought it was Butch's.
Oh well.
Either way, I didn't get it.

 

[OzSpen]

Below I have posted a description of "Begging the Question." I have done so to show that the line of argumentation you guys are using is a fallacy. Your premise is that God is a being that consists of three persons. The evidence is Scripture refers to Jesus as God. Conclusion God is a being that consists of three persons. Your conclusion just a restatement of your premise. There is nothing in your evidence that shows that God is a being that consists of three persons.

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. 
   
2. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
3. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

1. 
   
2. Bill: "God must exist."
   Jill: "How do you know."
   Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
   Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
   Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Butch,

Using that same Nizkor Project's description of a begging the question fallacy, let's see how Butch uses it:

The essence of it is that Butch (or anyone else) has a presupposition/premise and the conclusion he reaches agrees with the presupposition he begins with. He assumes that the conclusion is true, but it's based on the content of his presuppositions.

It works out like this:

1. Butch's presupposition (directly or indirectly) is that the one true God cannot have three persons in the one Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Butch's conclusion is built into this premise. Therefore,
   
2. The claim is true: 'I believe that theos means deity. The Father is Deity, and the Son is Deity. They are both of the same essence or nature, but are not the same being'.

This kind of reasoning is erroneous because of its circular nature. If you assume the conclusion as your starting point, you do not provide evidence to support your conclusion. Incorporating the premise into your conclusions does not provide evidence. Assuming a view, provides no evidence for your claim.

As the Nizkor Project demonstrates in its description of this fallacy, 'simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true'.

Which is a better approach?

Go to the Scriptures and search out the evidence for the nature and attributes of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This will involve exegesis of the text. Then, by deductive reasoning, you reach a conclusion concerning the nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

However, the conclusion emerges from Scripture and is not supposed before we start. I can assure you that I do/did not begin with the presupposition that the Trinity is the correct doctrine. I wanted biblical evidence for the nature and attributes of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A problem on a forum like this is that I give some of my conclusions, with biblical evidence for them, but I haven't shown you how I obtained that material from Scripture and through deductive reasoning reached a conclusion. The nature of forums like this, is that it's difficult to demonstrate how deductions are made - in detail. Several courses in systematic theology are needed to tease out the biblical material.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

That's interesting because those who were taught by the apostles didn't believe that there was a being called God who consisted of three persons. What that means is that somewhere between the apostles and today someone changed things. One of the primary culprits was Augaistne.



No, it doesn't. Where do you see any such thing in Scripture? I showed you that the very one credited with applying the term to God originally didn't even believe that.



That's a rather bold statement since there were Christians long before the Trinity doctrine came about. Not only that but this idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons is a Western idea. Eastern Christians do not hold this doctrine. So, according to your statement there are literally millions of Christians who cannot consider themselves Christians.

Some food for thought, what if you're the one who wrong? Where does that leave you?

You mean Augustine. I'm not a fan of Augustine.
I'm sorry I don't have access to a bible right now, although I understand it won't interest you since you're not denying that Jesus is God.

How do you explain that the apostles understood Jesus to be God if they did not believe in polytheism?
The Jews believed in only one God. Why would Thomas have referred to Jesus as God?
Can you show me why you believe Thomas meant "deity"?

Thanks Butch.

Oh, as to your last question -- I believe I've already stated that one has to believe that Jesus is God, that He died for our sins, and that He was resurrected on the third day.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Was that yours?
I thought it was Butch's.
Oh well.
Either way, I didn't get it.

Some believe Jesus is the Father, Yahweh.
This is not the case.

W

 

[Butch5]

You don't seem to get the contradiction between your view of God and the verse you quote here. You can't even get the verse correct, calling it 1 Cor 6:8 in the first paragraph and then quoting 1 Cor 8:6 in the citation. The latter verse is the one you quote.

What does 1 Cor 8:6 (KJV) teach?

1. 'One God, the Father, of whom are all things';
2. 'One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things'.

So both the Father and the Son created all things. How about that? This is confirmed in other Scriptures, along with the Holy Spirit's involvement in creation:

1. God the Father as creator (Isa 45:18 ESV; 1 Cor 8:6 ESV):
2. Jesus the Son as creator: John 1:3, 10 (ESV); 1 Cor 8:6 (ESV);
3. The Holy Spirit was involved in creation (Gen 1:1-2 ESV; Ps 33:6 ESV).

Oz

I really expected more from you Oz. You try to come across as well educated and well informed. Yet, you make arguments that are illogical. I'm sure you've read that all things were created by God through Christ. Notice what you posted, "of" and "by".

Yeah, I got the numbers reversed. Sorry, I'm not infallible like you.

Now, instead of the smoke screen why not show where the Bible teaches that one being consists of three persons.

Let me ask you another question Oz. If Jesus is God almighty, how can He have a God?

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (Jn. 20:17 KJV)

I read you article. In it you make a point about the Holy Spirit and you emphasize the word "He". Below is a quote from your article.

• ‘You have not been reading scripture …have you?…scripture sats (sic) nothing about a triune nature….it says God is ONE……what are the three natures you are talking about??? show scripture saying there are three natures… Jesus said I and my Father are one….Jesus and the Father makes their abode with us….One Spirit’. [7]
• ‘OK here is the person…..: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” who was HE that the disciples Knew???….who was he that dwelleth with the disciples???…and who was the HE that shall be in us????’

Are you aware that in the Greek text the Spirit is in the neuter gender? The only place where the Holy Spirit is referred to as "He" in the Greek text is where Jesus uses the word Comforter. That's because, If you know Greek, the pronoun has to match the noun in gender and the word translated comforter is a masculine noun. So the passage you quoted in the article, John 14:17, should read it and not He. That the translators translated it He instead of it shows their bias.

 

[Jim Parker]

If use the word Deity we can see how the Father and the Son can both be Deity (God) without being the same being.

And that would be pagan polytheism, not Christianity.
The Christian understanding of God is that He has revealed himself to us as One God in three hypostases. The word "hypostasis" is translated into English as "person" but that word is inadequate and misleading. Unfortunately, we do not have an English direct equivalent fro the ancient, Greek "hypostasis."
According to the Old and New Testaments (God's self-revelation to man) there is only one true deity Who, in the NT, has been revealed in three hypostases as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Please clarify, do you accept the Chruch's teaching of the trinity or not?

iakov the fool

 

[JohnDB]

I really expected more from you Oz. You try to come across as well educated and well informed. Yet, you make arguments that are illogical. I'm sure you've read that all things were created by God through Christ. Notice what you posted, "of" and "by".

Yeah, I got the numbers reversed. Sorry, I'm not infallible like you.

Now, instead of the smoke screen why not show where the Bible teaches that one being consists of three persons.

Let me ask you another question Oz. If Jesus is God almighty, how can He have a God?

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (Jn. 20:17 KJV)

I read you article. In it you make a point about the Holy Spirit and you emphasize the word "He". Below is a quote from your article.

• ‘You have not been reading scripture …have you?…scripture sats (sic) nothing about a triune nature….it says God is ONE……what are the three natures you are talking about??? show scripture saying there are three natures… Jesus said I and my Father are one….Jesus and the Father makes their abode with us….One Spirit’. [7]
• ‘OK here is the person…..: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” who was HE that the disciples Knew???….who was he that dwelleth with the disciples???…and who was the HE that shall be in us????’

Are you aware that in the Greek text the Spirit is in the neuter gender? The only place where the Holy Spirit is referred to as "He" in the Greek text is where Jesus uses the word Comforter. That's because, If you know Greek, the pronoun has to match the noun in gender and the word translated comforter is a masculine noun. So the passage you quoted in the article, John 14:17, should read it and not He. That the translators translated it He instead of it shows their bias.

Often neuter in pronouns are masculine in Greek...unless unfamiliar with the language and just using "helps" and trying to eisogete scripture to find what a person wishes to be true.

 

[Butch5]

You mean Augustine. I'm not a fan of Augustine.
I'm sorry I don't have access to a bible right now, although I understand it won't interest you since you're not denying that Jesus is God.

How do you explain that the apostles understood Jesus to be God if they did not believe in polytheism?
The Jews believed in only one God. Why would Thomas have referred to Jesus as God?
Can you show me why you believe Thomas meant "deity"?

Thanks Butch.

Oh, as to your last question -- I believe I've already stated that one has to believe that Jesus is God, that He died for our sins, and that He was resurrected on the third day.

Wondering

The early Christians understood that the Father and the Son were of the same essence. This is born out in the Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

The creed says He is god of God or Deity of Deity. He was of one substance with the Father. Whatever the Father is the Son is too. It's because He came out of the Father. There's one Deity, substance, nature. The Father and the Son are both of this same substance or nature, thus since the Father is Deity the Son too is Deity. This is the teaching of the earliest Christians. They used an example of the sun. Supposed the sun is the Father and the light emanating from the Father is the Son. The light comes out from the sun but it is of the same essence and nature as the sun.

 

[Jim Parker]

I really expected more from you Oz. You try to come across as well educated and well informed. Yet, you make arguments that are illogical.

He doesn't try to come across as well educated, he is, in fact, well educated.
He can legitimately be addressed as "doctor".
Can you?

 

[GodsGrace]

The early Christians understood that the Father and the Son were of the same essence. This is born out in the Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

The creed says He is god of God or Deity of Deity. He was of one substance with the Father. Whatever the Father is the Son is too. It's because He came out of the Father. There's one Deity, substance, nature. The Father and the Son are both of this same substance or nature, thus since the Father is Deity the Son too is Deity. This is the teaching of the earliest Christians. They used an example of the sun. Supposed the sun is the Father and the light emanating from the Father is the Son. The light comes out from the sun but it is of the same essence and nature as the sun.

Butch,
It's not like the sun.
The word "begotten" caused problems and it still does.
Jesus did not come out of the Father like rays of light come out of the sun.
The second person of the Trinity always existed and was from the beginning.

John 1:1... Uses the Word. The Word was not separate from God but was a part of God.
We could say that God is the creator, Jesus is the thought of God and the Holy Ghost I'd the breath that comes from God when He speaks .

You're trying to understand God by using both the bible and common sense.
There cannot be two Gods - there can only be one God, creator of all.
Within Him can be different persons. We don't have a word for this .
Hypostesis is the best we can do.

God is the power that created all. There cannot be two distinct and different powers, or three .

Christianity developed from Judaism. ONE God.

 

[Butch5]

And that would be pagan polytheism, not Christianity.
The Christian understanding of God is that He has revealed himself to us as One God in three hypostases. The word "hypostasis" is translated into English as "person" but that word is inadequate and misleading. Unfortunately, we do not have an English direct equivalent fro the ancient, Greek "hypostasis."
According to the Old and New Testaments (God's self-revelation to man) there is only one true deity Who, in the NT, has been revealed in three hypostases as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Please clarify, do you accept the Chruch's teaching of the trinity or not?

iakov the fool

It's not polytheism. if you study the early understanding of the Trinity as opposed to the Athanasian Creed version you'll see what they believe and that what I've said is the original teaching of the Trinity. The problem is that you guys just keep repeating the same contradiction as if repeating it enough times it won't be contradiction anymore.

Instead of just repeating the argument why don't you guys start addressing some of the problems I've presented to you?

Butch,

Using that same Nizkor Project's description of a begging the question fallacy, let's see how Butch uses it:

The essence of it is that Butch (or anyone else) has a presupposition/premise and the conclusion he reaches agrees with the presupposition he begins with. He assumes that the conclusion is true, but it's based on the content of his presuppositions.

It works out like this:

1. Butch's presupposition (directly or indirectly) is that the one true God cannot have three persons in the one Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Butch's conclusion is built into this premise. Therefore,
   
2. The claim is true: 'I believe that theos means deity. The Father is Deity, and the Son is Deity. They are both of the same essence or nature, but are not the same being'.

This kind of reasoning is erroneous because of its circular nature. If you assume the conclusion as your starting point, you do not provide evidence to support your conclusion. Incorporating the premise into your conclusions does not provide evidence. Assuming a view, provides no evidence for your claim.

As the Nizkor Project demonstrates in its description of this fallacy, 'simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true'.

Which is a better approach?

Go to the Scriptures and search out the evidence for the nature and attributes of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This will involve exegesis of the text. Then, by deductive reasoning, you reach a conclusion concerning the nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

However, the conclusion emerges from Scripture and is not supposed before we start. I can assure you that I do/did not begin with the presupposition that the Trinity is the correct doctrine. I wanted biblical evidence for the nature and attributes of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A problem on a forum like this is that I give some of my conclusions, with biblical evidence for them, but I haven't shown you how I obtained that material from Scripture and through deductive reasoning reached a conclusion. The nature of forums like this, is that it's difficult to demonstrate how deductions are made - in detail. Several courses in systematic theology are needed to tease out the biblical material.

Oz

Nice try Oz. However, we could put your name there instead. As I've shown, you approach the passages you posted with the idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons. How do I know that you approach the Scriptures with that presupposition? It's simple, your attempt to prove me wrong. To prove me wrong you present Scripture that shows us that Jesus is referred to as God. In your mind it proves you argument because you already believe that God is a being that consists of three persons. In reality the passage proves that Jesus is Deity, something that I have not questioned. The passage doesn't say anything about God and Jesus being a single being or the Father and Jesus being a single. They say nothing of the sort. But since you already believe that God is a being that consists of three persons it the passages appear to prove your point. So, you see, your argument is Circular or begging the Question. My argument is that there is one God the Father, just as Paul said. Remember it was Jesus not me who said,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
(Jn. 17:3 KJV)




Tell me Oz, what deductive reasoning and exegesis lead you to the conclusion that God is a being that consists of three persons? I suspect you were taught that at some point rather than drawing it from the text. However, I serious am asking what deductive reasoning and exegesis brought you to this conclusion.

 

[OzSpen]

That's interesting because those who were taught by the apostles didn't believe that there was a being called God who consisted of three persons. What that means is that somewhere between the apostles and today someone changed things. One of the primary culprits was Augaistne.

No, it doesn't. Where do you see any such thing in Scripture? I showed you that the very one credited with applying the term to God originally didn't even believe that.

That's a rather bold statement since there were Christians long before the Trinity doctrine came about. Not only that but this idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons is a Western idea. Eastern Christians do not hold this doctrine. So, according to your statement there are literally millions of Christians who cannot consider themselves Christians.

Some food for thought, what if you're the one who wrong? Where does that leave you?

Butch,

I think it's time for you to read some more of the early church fathers. Mr Google would have helped you to find church fathers who promoted the Trinity, contrary to your view, well before Augustine of Hippo (ca 354-430).

Here are a couple of examples:

Irenaeus (ca 120/140- 200/203) listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John, when Irenaeus was a boy. He became Bishop of Lyons. This is an especially early confirmation of the Trinity. He wrote:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [she believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all ." (Against Heresies X.l)

Another ECF, Tertullian had some telling things to say about the Godhead, unity in trinity, and he was much earlier than Augustine:

Tertullian (ca 155/160-220), who was an active apologist for the Christian faith in northern Africa, wrote:

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, [John 10:30] in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. (Against Praxeas. ch 25).

I'm learning that your affirmation here short on evidence - thus making it a personal opinion.

Oz

 

[Free]

Instead of just repeating the argument why don't you guys start addressing some of the problems I've presented to you?

So why are you not addressing problems presented to you?

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering,

Throughout Christianity, this has been a battle ground and a decider of what makes one a biblical Christian. To believe in Jesus as in John 3:16 (ESV), caused us to ask, 'Which Jesus?' The answer to that question divides orthodoxy from unorthodox belief.

If Jesus is not God and the second person of the Trinity, my understanding is that he is another jesus and not the one who died for our sins on the cross.

This 'other' Jesus was being promoted in the early church. Paul knew of it when he wrote to the Corinthians a second time: 'For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough' (2 Cor 11:4 ESV).

That's why pursuit of biblical doctrine is so important in the precarious age in which we live. That's why we need more Bereans in the church (Acts 17:11 ESV).

Oz

Amen Oz
I think the problem is that we try to rationalize Christian concepts.
We try to understand God. An impossible task and I repeat, we can only accept and trust the Apostle's and the original Fathers who were close in time to the events.

Wondering

 

[Butch5]

Butch,
It's not like the sun.
The word "begotten" caused problems and it still does.
Jesus did not come out of the Father like rays of light come out of the sun.
The second person of the Trinity always existed and was from the beginning.

John 1:1... Uses the Word. The Word was not separate from God but was a part of God.
We could say that God is the creator, Jesus is the thought of God and the Holy Ghost I'd the breath that comes from God when He speaks .

You're trying to understand God by using both the bible and common sense.
There cannot be two Gods - there can only be one God, creator of all.
Within Him can be different persons. We don't have a word for this .
Hypostesis is the best we can do.

God is the power that created all. There cannot be two distinct and different powers, or three .

Christianity developed from Judaism. ONE God.

The word begotten isn't causing problems. The Scriptures say that Jesus was begotten. Jesus Himself said that He came out of God. What I told is what the early Christians taught and believed. I guess you can argue with them if you want to. However, these men were either taught by the apostles or were close in time to them. Either way what they taught was what Christian believed before this idea of a being called God consisting of three persons. It was the teaching for about 400 years. The first we see of this one being consisting of three persons idea in around 450 with the Athanasian Creed. It's not really know who wrote the creed, but it does have an
Augustinain flair to it

 

[OzSpen]

Nice try Oz. However, we could put your name there instead. As I've shown, you approach the passages you posted with the idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons. How do I know that you approach the Scriptures with that presupposition? It's simple, your attempt to prove me wrong. To prove me wrong you present Scripture that shows us that Jesus is referred to as God. In your mind it proves you argument because you already believe that God is a being that consists of three persons. In reality the passage proves that Jesus is Deity, something that I have not questioned. The passage doesn't say anything about God and Jesus being a single being or the Father and Jesus being a single. They say nothing of the sort. But since you already believe that God is a being that consists of three persons it the passages appear to prove your point. So, you see, your argument is Circular or begging the Question. My argument is that there is one God the Father, just as Paul said. Remember it was Jesus not me who said,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
(Jn. 17:3 KJV)

That's a false claim about how I deduce from Scripture the Trinity. I provided my evidence in #195. I will not repeat.

Tell me Oz, what deductive reasoning and exegesis lead you to the conclusion that God is a being that consists of three persons? I suspect you were taught that at some point rather than drawing it from the text. However, I serious am asking what deductive reasoning and exegesis brought you to this conclusion.

See #195 for the evidence. Your 'I suspect' is nothing more than your presupposition about my theology and learning. It is WRONG because it comes with no factual basis. I've refuted your claims over and over and I'll not do it any more.

Oz