Search Members

[LodeRunner]

I simply used the information presented by Daniel to construct a logical hypothesis:

1. The book is claimed by some to have been written by Enoch, but it is aproxiamtely dated between the 2nd century BC and the first century AD. <–Conflicting times: Enoch lived very near to Adam, working from genologues in Genesis, we can guess that Enoch was born between 4004 and 3000 B.C. (generally accepted within most churches is that creation took place aproximately 4004 B.C. as worked out by one of the early church fathers, will provide name and date when I return from Europe.).

2. The book is written in Greek. The only Old Testament scriptures recorded in Greek (Aramaic <sp?>) are Ezra and the chapter in the Book of Daniel written by Nebuchadnezzar. <–Again, conflicting times/language anachronism: whereas all OT scriptures recovered and recorded pre-NT are in Hebrew, the Apocryphal books and this book of Enoch are in a somewhat contemporary language.

Therefore I conclude on these two reasons that it is correctly excluded from the accepted cannon of Scripture. Of course, I want to see the actual text (translated to English, please 😛 ) just to see. The syntax is usually the give away. The biggest differentiation between OT and NT is the change in Syntax, partly due to the change in language, but also partly due to time. If the book of Enoch uses phrases contemporary with the NT or with the Apocrypha, and phrases that are not found in the OT, then again, it is logical to conclude that it was written much later. And just as scholars can be wrong, so can documentaries (especially PBS and Discovery channel documentaries related to Biblical things, because they assume that evolution is correct and automatically assume that God doesn’t exist, so they treat all Biblical record as a fairy tale until they can prove it to their liking. Ah, the human mind, how it so wants to play God.)

[LodeRunner]

To t8,
  Some of (well most or all of really) the writings accessible through your main page are extremely similar (and dead on in many cases) to that of the Jehovah's witnesses.  In your attempts to use God's word alon and to think about it logically and reasonably (which is exactly what the Jehovah's Witness that interrupted my yardwork last Saturday tried to do), you commit many logical errors.

Quote

Also what do you mean by “excommunicated”. Kicked out of Jesus Christs Church (the Body of Christ) or the man-made church, or perhaps you have some other meaning. Sorry if I seem harsh about this, but I mean to be firm.

Funny that you speak of judging with little evidence.  You judge the King James Version of the Bible based on far less evidence than I have when I speak of Arius.  Of course, passages taken from your own website, you reiterate taht we should just use God's word.  In doing so you contradict EVERYTHING you have to say.  Everytime you comment on the Bible, you add your own perception to it.  How do you know that you are right?  You can't prove it, because your approach to this “let's just use the Bible” won't let you.  Do you know what a creed is?  And if you don't how can you be so opposed to them?  Everytime you make a judgment statement, you make a creed.  Creed is derived from Latin “Credo” which means, “I believe.”  Any time you make a judgment, you say “I believe this.”  You undermine your own position in doing so (which is fine be me, but you might want to rethink your position on creeds.)

As to historical evidence:  I was using histories that base their information on the church records of the era, which fared far better than the civil government records for the simple fact that during this period Rome as a civil power was rotting from the inside.  The Church however kept scrupulous records of these things, ESPECIALLY the  church council meatings.

You question my use of the word Excommunicate.  By definition, excommunicate is to exclude from (very summarized version).  In church contexts, we use the word excommunicate to mean that one who is excommunicated is forbidden from the church, and the sacraments (Lord's Supper, and Baptism).  if the excommunicated person admits to their wrong and repents (asks forgiveness of the church) then they are recieved with open arms.  Of course, excommunication is not undertaken lightly.  It is used in extreme cases, where the precepts set forth in Matthew 18 have been used to no avail.  First, the offended person confronts (speaks with, not challenges) the other person.  Failing a remedy at this stage, witnesses of the event (and extra people to witness the exchange) are brought in.  Failing this, the matter is taken to the church court.  If at this juncture, the accused refuses to ask forgiveness, excommunication ensues.  Of course, the church can make mistakes, after all, we are all merely human.  But understand this:  They were working much closer to the time and in the langauges that it was written, so they did not have to deal with translators playing with the words.

I did some checking, and I agree, I John 5:7 should be noted (actually in the margin of my KJV Bible, it is noted that it was added, taken from the Greek text reproduced c. AD 1215).  But, in my arguments, I wouldn't use that reference anyway, I have plenty of others that are untaouched by translation additions/subtractions.  Also, I do know that the translators added some words.  If you look in a good KJV Bible, you'll notice some parts of verses in italics.  This is because some passages grammatically in ENGLISH wouldn't make sense without the addition, and in fact, the translators of 1611 (the first year the KJV or Authorized Version {AV} was produced) noted that they made additions, and where.  Can you say the same of any newer Bible?  Many just take for granted certain things, and yet the Old (1611) translators (die hard trinitarians every one of them, given the year and church records) made careful note of their changes to the text, and left original passages intact for comparison with the changes.  Enough on that for now.

Quote

The two most famous of these men were Arius and Athanasius, both of Alexandria. Arius held that Christ is the Son of God, and that he was begotten (born) of the Father and therefore giving supremacy to the Father

^^^^
Taken from your own page on why you don't believe the Trinity.  Your summation of Arius' beliefs are incorrect.  He believed that Christ was purely human and had no part of God, and actively denied the Trinity.

Quote

There were many in the first few centuries of the Christian church who began to teach and preach “Another Gospel”, but few were as damaging to the church as the followers of Arius. They denied the true deity of Christ and said He was merely the first and greatest creature created by God. They also said that sometime after his creation he was made “a god” but never was considered equal with God. Arius was a learned teacher and presbyter of the Alexandrian church in Egypt. He began spreading his doctrine in 319 A.D. As his teachings began to divide the Christian church, this Arian heresy was confronted and condemned as false at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D. Arius of Alexandria was branded a heretic and along with a few followers was excommunicated from the church.

^^^^

Taken from http://www.christianlink.com/proclaim/radio/arius-tx.html

Quote

Let us go back to the Council of Nicea (325 AD).  The great controversy that occasioned the convening of the first General or Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church was centered around the true doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. Arius,  a presbyter in the church  at Alexandria, propounded the theory that our Lord was a created being. He denied the clear teachings of the Bible such as in Psalm 2, Psalm 110, John 1, Hebrews 1, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, and Revelation 1. Another Alexandrian presbyter, Athanasius (293-373,)defended the Biblical teaching about the Messiah, by stressing both the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. His position was accepted by the Council, and the Creed that was issued at Nicea, is known as the Nicene Creed. Since that time, it became the standard of Orthodoxy in Christianity. The teachings of Arius became known as Arianism, and his followers were called, Arians. They were considered as heretics. Arianism spread among the Barbarians who later on invaded Rome, Spain, and North Africa. It must be noted that delegates from of both the Western and Eastern parts of the Universal Church were at Nicea. The Council of Nicea dealt primarily with the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The discussions within the Church relevant to the relationship between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ, led to further divisions. These occurred within the  Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Several Ecumenical Councils took place after Nicea, Council of Constantinople (381,) Council of Ephesus (431,) and Council of Chalcedon (451.) At this meeting, Christian Orthodoxy was further defined as to declare that, since his incarnation, the Lord Jesus Christ possessed two natures, divine and human. That also meant that our Lord had two wills, divine and human, but he remained one Person. Later on, this belief was set forth in a creed known as the Athanasian Creed.  This creedal document is recognized only in the West, and is also known by its Latin name, Symbol Quicunque; (its opening words are: “Whosoever will be saved…” Rather than consolidating the unity of the Church, Chalcedon became the occasion for new divisions. Some church leaders, while strongly adhering to the deity of Jesus Christ, nevertheless defended the thesis that he possessed only a divine nature. They were known as the Monophysites. They were very prominent in Egypt and in Syria. Other church leaders, endeavoring to take full account of the Biblical teachings about Jesus Christ, went to the other extreme. They so described the two natures and wills of the Messiah as to make him almost two persons.  They were called the Nestorians, i.e., followers of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople,  who was the champion of this teaching. The Monophysite and Nestorian Churches were declared heretical by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

^^^^^^
Taken from http://www.safeplace.net/members/mer/MER_p004.htm

Quote

In John chapter 8, Jesus was in heated debate with the Pharisees. The discussion came to an abrupt end in verse 58, when “Jesus said unto them, `Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.'” This, to the Jews, was the straw that broke the camels back. Why? Because Jesus was referring to the phrase found in the common Greek scriptures of the day, the Septuagint. The verse found, in Exodus 3:14, where God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM: … Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” In the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower, they translate John 8:58, “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have Been.” The scholarly sounding footnote says, that this phrase is, ” after the a'orist infinitive clause … and, hence, properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.” This sounds very impressive, and Jehovah's Witnesses feel this is great truth coming down from the learned Bible scholars at the Watchtower. The truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as the “perfect indefinite tense” anywhere in the Greek language. When this fact was pointed out to the Watchtower and the world, shortly after this “translation” was published, they decided to go to “plan B”, which was to change the statement in the footnote from reading, the “perfect indefinite tense” to the “perfect tense.” This was done to cover up the lie, wherein the Watchtower invented a tense in the Greek language to avoid the fact that Jesus took the name applied to God in the Old Testament and applied it to Himself. This was the reason that in verse 59 the Jews tried to stone Him. The reason is expanded on in John 10:33 when the Jews said, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” And even “plan B” was wrong, because, EGO EIMI translated “I AM” is simply in the present tense.

^^^^^^^
Taken from http://www.christianlink.com/proclaim/radio/plan-b.html

This last quote was aimed at JW and t8.  I thought of not including it, but know how Watchtower cultists like to equivocate over little things like that, I though it best to include a somewhat scathing analysis of the issue in hand.

Well, it is very likely that I will not be able to post again for a couple weeks, I'm going to Europe soon and many things must be tended to before that.  If I don't add more to this in the next 4 days, then my next post, including examples of what I'm talking about (regarding your logical errors, t8) sometime around the 30th.  Also, I'll include some stuff from the Westminster Catechisms and the Hiedelberg Catechism.  Probably more stuff than that.

:::EDIT:::
Please forgive the minor errors, it seems the BB softare isn't reading all of the quote tags I used properly.
:::EDIT:::

(Edited by LodeRunner at 5:17 pm on June 6, 2002)

[LodeRunner]

I suppose my wording was not clear.  I sometimes forget not to run on assumptions I make when talking with others.

True, God the Father did NOT become flesh.  The Word, the only begotten Son, took on the flesh of man via the virgin birth.  Have you read the Apostle's Creed (yes, I know a misnomer, but oh well) or the Nicean Creed?  They are both on the same theme, just the Nicean creed has more words to reinforce certain things.  I hold to those.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, the three core creeds of the early church, and held on to by the Reformed Church in the United States (I am a member of an RCUS church).  One quicky note, the word 'catholic' refers to the universal church (ie the world wide body of the Christian Church).  The word was hijacked by the Roman Catholic sects and now in modern vernacular we mistakenly apply the label “Catholic” to “Roman Catholic.”

The Athanasian Creed
(early fifth century)

Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [apostolic/universal] faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally.

Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one
almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and
Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy Spirit
not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.

But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For
as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ.

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And
they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.

The Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.  

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

The Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father.  Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human.  He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried.  The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.  He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end.  And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.  He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.  He spoke through the prophets.  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.  We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen.

There are different versions of the Nicene Creed floatin around on the net, it took me some time to find the one that matches the historical texts I have.

Those three creeds comprise the summation of my faith.  There are a few finer points covered in certain other sources, but those describe the core.

[LodeRunner]

Oh Ok. No probs then: I believe the Trinity too.

As to forums, usually, if you’re aiming for one person, just address it like a letter:

"whateverperson’snameis,
yak-yak-yak."

[LodeRunner]

I think you may be drawing inferences from what I said, and if my choice of words led you to understand it like that, I apologize.

My core argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity is integral to any belief that salvation can come by believing on Christ.

Central to the argument is a chain of logic based on Biblical law regardin susbsitution and retitution for crimes. I’m at work right now, so I will post again later, using some material from the Heidelberg Catechism (c. 1520’s) regarding the legal chain of events. The Catechism was written by two men, one a lawyer and the other a theologian. Together they outline the prinipal logic, legality, and theological proof for Christ’s work, and also, as a cogent argument for the legality, they establish the Tinity. There is some very good material, and all (or at least very nearly all of it) is based on texts from the Book of Romans (Paul’s Eistle to the Romans, if you so desire the correct & full name), and each question and answer is accompanied by cross-referenced verses from othe parts of the Old and New Testaments.

Back to the original stateent. I did not mean to infer that if you remove Christ from God, that he loses power, that would have been self-defeating. In fact, the title God is pointless unless he is unlimited in every way. That doesn’t neccesarily mean that He won’t limit Himself for some reason or another.

And I suppose that your return statment is based on your own conception of the Trinity (or lack thereof). In the clearest terms available to me, here is my summation of the trinity:

God the Father, ruler of all, God Almighty, was neither begotten nor Created. He existed before time began.

God the Son is one with the Father, of the same likeness and substance, and yet a seperate person. He was not created, but begotten eternally of the Father. He took on His human body to come to earth as teh saviour.

The Holy Spirit was neither begotten nor created, but proceeding from the Father and the Son eternally.

That is a rapid summation, when I have time, I will post a complete copy of the Athanatian Creed, approximately 2 pages (8.5×11 pages) dedicated to logical statments relating the doctrine of the Trinity. It is in old English, but was written in Latin during the Early Church Age at one of the church councils.

[LodeRunner]

My condolences. As a death is an occasion for sadness, it is one for joy: your loved one is no longer suffering from a painful disease but is in the joyous presence of the Lord.

[LodeRunner]

First, God is not ‘magic.’ Magic is generally a term applied to unexplaneable, spurematural events. Of course, just because an event is labeled ‘supernatural’ does not make it an act of god, rather the prefix ‘super-‘ denotes that it is not normal occurence.

Generally, in history, the practice of ‘magic’ as such is generally applied to divining (commonly called fortune telling). Also, ‘magic’ or ‘black magic’ is a label applied to events affected or effected by deonic intervention. Yes, demons/devils/hellspawn/whatever-label-you-care-to-apply do exist. There are some people who have opened themselves to possession by demons by placing themselves far from God. Demons seem to usually be invisible to humans, just as angels are. In fact, in all of the recorded instances of demon possession in the Bible, there is not recorded physical sighting of the demon, just the manifestation of madness in the possessed person. Demons may be invisible, but is ver clear that they can act on physical matter. Therefore, things that may be ‘magic’ usually boil down to two catergories, that is 1) an illusion performed by a master illusionist, or 2) an act of some supernatural variety performed by one who associates with demonic powers.

Now, note that in the Scriptures, Christ’s miracles (casting out of demons in particular) was labeled as a demonic act, but Christ’s withering retorts lay that fallacy to rest. In general, in the Bible, when a miracle is performed it is usually preceeded by some calling on God, but when ‘magic’ is performed, note the usual use of the occult symbol penta- or hexa-gram (depends on which particular cult, I’m not sure of the actual distinciton).
I hope you find this a helpful explanation. If any one can say it better, please do, sometimes I ramble or use words or syntax that may not be clear to some people.

[LodeRunner]

The biggest argument against the "Book of Enoch" being actually true scripture is the language it is written in and the date it was located. Given that it was writtend in Aramaic, and found c. AD 200, when Enoch lived somewhere between 3000 and 4000 BC, the language it was written in testifies that it was not written by Enoch. Therefore the possiblity that it could be scripture was refuted in the face of the anacronism of the modern language used to write such an assumadely old book.

[LodeRunner]

Ok, now that all of your different opionions on the translation (most of which I disagree with, but I digress) are in the field, let's debate the logic, in terms of Biblical Law.

My Thesis:  Regardless of an actual text that says it, Jesus Christ must, not might be or can be, but must be fully man and fully God.

My logical proof, from Biblical laws regarding resitution and substitution:  Unless Christ was full man, he could not be sacrificed in our place.  Don't even think about pointing to the lamb on the altar in the Old Testament, because that, as is pointed more time than any reasonable person ever needs to see (principle being, “I come not to destroy the law, but to filfill it” a transliteration of a verse who's reference escapes me at the moment), is a type and a shadow of what Christ would do.  Restitution under Biblical law demands and EXACT AND EQUAL replacement.  Unless Christ was fully man, He COULD NOT EVER have died on the cross and have it count for anything.

But, even being a perfect man, being a man alone is not enough.  One man may die for another, but not one perfect mand for millions.  Therefore, Christ must have also been fully God.  This is so, because no man could descend into hell, fight the battle and win, then rise from the dead, and then ascend into heaven.  Only one who is equal to God in every respect could do that.  And as the Bible states there is only one God.  Therefore, Christ cannot be another God, He must be the God.

Oh but wait, there's only one God.  Logically, how does that work.  Enter the Doctrine of the Trinity.  I will admit, that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say trinity, triune, or any of hte other of the plethora of words used to describe it.  But the ONLY logical conclusion, unless you're a Mormon and therefore an idolitrous polytheist, is that Christ is one with God.  Of course, that only makes TWO Persons (because we all agree that God is not a thing or a force, but a person, because things and forces do not speak in normal language that complies with every rule of grammar).  Therefore, we extrapolate that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.  

This is logically so because despite people trying to point out that most references are in the neuter form, Older translations, made by peoepl who knew the languages far better than anyone today knows them (I speak of the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, from which the older translations were derived).  In fact, in the 16th and 17th centuries (1500-1600), the average person had a vocabulary far greater than the average person does today.  Add to that, that any reasonably educated person (about 8th grade level) had a command of the English language that exceeds what most COLLEGE English Majors have.  All that to say this:  they knew what they were doing and knew how to do it better than anyone alive today does.

Personally, I wouldn't trust any translation that is newer than the early 1700's.  Why?  Well, in the 1800's there was this thing called “The Age of Enlightenment.”  Loosly translated, people decided that man could become God, and most source texts for translation were altered to reflect doctrinal changes that were neccesary to affect this.  First, destroying the doctrine of the Trinity, and along with it the Unity of the Father and the Son.  Second, they had to alter the history of Christ.  They turned him into a person born as a mere mortal, and yet a perfect man, who by his goodness transcended to become God.  Therefore when you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you tacitly admit that man can become God.  Such is the doctrine of the religion of Evolution (evolution is not a science, but that is another debate).

Further, Historical evidence.  I assume that you all know about the “Dark Ages” of Medieval Europe.  What happened during those years?  Well, as most people would have you think, art, literature, history, and technology were all left by the wayside by barbarians.  In fact, the “Dark Ages” were a period were literature lost to the Islamic incursions in the Eastern areas was recovered because all the scholars fled north and west.  Mathematics and literature were recovered from the ashes and restored as part of standard learning.  The “Dark Ages” led to the Rennaissance (pardon if I mispell it, I hardly ever use this particular word).  How could barbarians start the Rennaissance?  Simple:  these “barbarians” were cultured, they could read and they were intelligent.

Also brought north during this period was something called the Recieved Text.  This was the Greek Septuigant New Testament and Hebrew transcriptians translated to Greek for the Old Testament.  These texts were compiled from various sources and these cources do not contradict one another.  Certainly there are minor differences, punctuation may have been slightly different, paragraphing, etc.  But in core doctrinal areas the texts used for doctrines such as the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the priesthood of the Believer, and so on, the core doctrines of many churches, the texts did NOT contradict one another at ANY point.  

Whereas, modern translations, the NIV, NWT, RSV, and any others you care to name (I define modern as any translation less than 250 years old), are based on the “Majority Texts.”  These texts are compiled from two primary sources, which in turn were compiled from fragmented pieces of many suindry documents.  One important consideration should be given to these documents:  at almost EVERY point related to a core doctrine of the early church (which I define as the church just after the saints, so aprx. AD 100 to AD 500) they contradict one another.  Words are different, sentence structire is reversed in some places, whole verses are dropped out, key references using JHVH, or YHWH, parts taht normally translate as “I AM”, words related to or around phrases using 'elohim' (or however it is spelled) are missing or have articles added to them that drastically change their context.  The most notable source found in the Majority text is Arius' translation of the Bible.  For those who may not know, Arius was an early heretic who denied the Godhood of Christ.  He was excommunicated and exiled.  His daughter pulled some strings with a later ruler (who publicly denounced God as being false, read as the current government head was an atheist) and got Arius unexiled.  Well, on his way through the city, he suddenly had stomahc pains and fell down dead in an open latrine, and his bowels burst (same thing happened to Judas Iscariot after the rope that he hung himself with broke, interesting coincidence, maybe God was saying something there….)

I realize that was long winded, but the short logical end is this:  If Christ was not fully man and fully God, then our faith is in vain because Christ died for nothing and we are still dead in our sins and trespasses and bound for hell.  Therefore, if you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you deny the Godhood of Christ and there is no point to debate Christianity, because at this point, Christ is just another false prophet.

(Edited by LodeRunner at 1:03 am on June 4, 2002)

[Author]

Posts