These are just two of many that seem to make a distinction between the two so not a trinity.
Hmm... are you telling me that that's the reasoning? Otherwise, I'm not clear on the statement. The Trinity does not deny a distinction between the Father and Son.
I had a heck of a time in a discussion about the Sodom and Gomorrah story some time ago. In order to explain the story, my jw friends were adamant that the passage meant for me to understand that the "Lord" depicted in the passage was actually "a representative of the Lord." I asked if there was a way to understand this passage without adding this "intended meaning" and was told "of course not!"
Then I asked why God's inspired messenger repeatedly missed opportunities to include that in chapters 18 and 19... The response was because the answer should be obvious since no one has ever seen God.
*sigh* ok
My goal is not to argue the existence or non-existence of a Trinity. When I read the Bible leveraging the Trinitarian lense, the Bible in it's entirety makes sense. Without it, it seems like there are these hanging chads. It's okay to have a perspective that's different. In the interest of understanding the perspective, I just want to know what one does with the chad.
I've gotten used to this site, but I will definitely check out the other site.
Hi, Mr. Freeze! :)