Posts by herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

There is no evidence of a Trinity in Isaiah 44. The rendering you supplied is from the KJV. It should be obvious to the casual reader that something doesn't look right in the phrase "Thus saith the L ORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the L ORD of hosts." The natural inclination of a sincere Bible student is to try to make sense of this. First, he notes that the L ORD is the true King of Israel. But the redeemer - whose redeemer is he? Is he Israel's redeemer or the L ORD 's redeemer? He cannot be the L ORD 's redeemer since he is the L ORD himself. Thus we naturally conclude that he is Israel's redeemer. This makes sense, since Isaiah often in other places identifies the L ORD of Hosts as Israel's Redeemer. (41:14; 43:14; 44:24; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7, 26; 54:5, 8; 60:16; 63:16)

In fact, this phrase or something similar is very common in Isaiah:

"I will help thee, saith the L ORD , and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (41:14)
"Thus saith the L ORD , your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (43:14)
"As for our redeemer, the L ORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel." (47:4)
"Thus saith the L ORD , thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (48:17)
"Thus saith the L ORD , the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One." (49:7)
"The L ORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel." (54:5)

So, Trinitarians are in error when they try to make the case that Jehovah the King of Israel is a person different from Jehovah of hosts, Israel's Redeemer. Checking other translations, we get a better rendering. For example, the NASB says at Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the L ORD , the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the L ORD of hosts."

If they are two separate persons, why are both named Jehovah when the name of the Son of God is Jesus, not Jehovah which is the name of the Father? Furthermore, where is the Holy Spirit in this picture? If there were a suggestion of two different persons, the most this text would indicate is that God is a binitary, not a Trinity.

This One Person who is the God of Israel then proceeds to say, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." In other words, Jehovah the Father is the first God; before him there was no Almighty God. And there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.

Somehow, SC, you jumped from Isaiah to Zechariah 2:11 with the rest of your text in quotes:

"And many nations shall be joined to the Lord [Jehovah] in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts hath sent me unto thee."

I suppose you intended to show that Jehovah is Jesus since Jehovah says to Israel "I will dwell in the midst of thee" and that they would know Jehovah "hath sent" him.

Here, again, a serious Bible student is puzzled at first due to the language. There is no problem in understanding how God would "dwell in the midst of thee," for he often said that in connection with the tabernacle and the temple. (Leviticus 26:2; Deuteronomy 23:14; Psalms 46:5; Isaiah 12:6) But, how could "the L ORD " be "sent" by "the L ORD "? Our understanding opens up when we discover who is actually speaking, as the following breakdown will show.

Verse 1: Zechariah ["I lifted up mine eyes"]
Verse 2: Zechariah and "a man" ["Then said I ... and he said unto me"]
Verse 3: Zechariah ["behold, the angel that talked with me"]
Verse 4: Zechariah and an angel ["said unto him ... speak to this young man"]
Verse 5: An angel quoting Jehovah ["For I, saith the L ORD "]
Verse 6-8: An angel quoting Jehovah ["saith the L ORD "]
Verse 9: An angel who says "ye shall know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me."
Verse 10: And angel quoting Jehovah ["saith the L ORD "]
Verse 11-13: An angel ["and thou shalt know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee"]

So, it is an angel, not Jehovah himself, who says "ye shall know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me." Seven times in Zechariah, an angel says something like that. (1:10; 2:8, 9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; 7:12) This should also be noted: The angel was not predicting a future time when God would send someone. He was referring to a future realization that God had already sent his angels to Israel:

"Then said I, O my lord, what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will shew thee what these be. And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the L ORD hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth. And they answered the angel of the L ORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest." (1:9-11)

Isaiah 44:24 is self-explanatory. Yes, "there is one independant creator," and he is Israel's L ORD and Redeemer.

I hope this is helpful.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef and Undisfellowshipped,

I've been pretty tough on you, Undisfellowshipped, perhaps more so than I should have been. I'll explain why. In another thread, you commended SwedishChef and gave him your blessing on this topic, urging him on. I probably shouldn't have taken from that the idea that you are two peas in a pod, but I did. Re-examining all your posts, I see I was mistaken. While I feel you both distort the Scriptures without realizing it, you yourself haven't been as sarcastic as SC. Still, you have suggested that those of us who don't believe in the Trinity are nothing more than confused ex-JWs and that we really don't understand what the Trinity is all about. Both Dakota and I are probably much older than you in age and in dealing with this topic. We've had our experiences with seminary professors and other scholars. We're not lacking in experience on this topic by any means. I appreciate that you expressed an apology on that matter.

As for you SC, right from the beginning of your entry into this thread, you gave me the impression of being a smart alec wise guy. You frowned on reputable scholarship and sound reasoning with terms like bogus, corrupted, dorky, and narrow minded. You've pontificated that we non-Trinitarians are unsaved, that we don't trust the Bible and that we reject Jesus Christ, simply because we don't line up with your Fundamentalist mindset. You've stated that one or another of us has little regard for the Scriptures, that we view God as we wish, and that we are a law unto ourselves. You made other slams that were more subtle.

I don't think either of you are bad persons. I think you need to bear in mind that we who use the Bible to show why we disagree with you are also not bad persons. We are Christians with strong beliefs just as you appear to be.

I don't think the discussion has gotten out of hand. I'm making these comments simply to show where I've been coming from.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Undisfellowshipped,

Constantly you ignore the context. God is the first and the last with regard to godship and creatorship. The context in Isaiah makes that so plain. Why can't you see it?

Christ on the other hand is the beginning and the end of God's great plan of salvation. The context makes that so clear. Sadly, however, Trinitarians are blind to this clear distinction.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Undisfellowshipped,

You asked:

Also, I am curious, for all of you who do not believe that Jesus is God, who do you believe Jesus is?

Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?" The correct answer was given by Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." You say Jesus is God, and Peter said Jesus is "the Son" of God. Who should we believe? You? Or Peter? Jesus said to Peter "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 16:15-17)

Will you accept this plain explanation given in the Bible? In post after post, your answer has thus far been a deafeningly loud "NO! NO! NO! THE TRINITY IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!!"

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Undisfellowshipped,

You are probably going to be offended, but I want to bring something to your attention, and I just don't know how to say it in a way that will soften the blow. I mean this sincerely, not in any way to be mean and hurtful. This becomes especially difficult since you've already concluded that I'm unloving and unchristian in my attitude.

Have you ever been on drugs? I ask because there seems to be something very illogical about some of your thinking. At times you do so well, but at other times I wonder what happened with your sense of reason and balance.

For example, regarding Revelation 5:8, 10 you stated "I understand that perfectly." And well you should, since the context and wording leave you with no choice. But with verse 9 you started going off on a tangent that ordinary thinking people would find a bit odd. For a moment, your mind switched from the context to bring into the picture something totally unrelated.

With verse 9 you veered away from the context and introduced Titus 2:14, as if it had anything to do with an explanation of the context. It really doesn't, and I was relieved when you wrote "I do agree that Revelation 5:9 is saying that He purchased them for the Father." But why did you feel it necessary to bring in something that would tend to confuse rather than clarify?

What is interesting here is that verse 9 says "for God" and you acknowledged that it means "for the Father," a clear admission that in the deep recesses of your mind it is the Father who is God, after all is said and done.

Then you make a statement that is guesswork at the least but a deliberate falsehood at the worst:

In the Scriptures, most of the time, whenever The Father and Jesus are mentioned in the same Verses, The Father is called God, and Jesus is distinguished because they are SEPARATE PERSONS.

"Most of the time" - How many times is that? There are 201 verses where "God" and "Jesus" are mentioned together. In not even one of those verses is there a hint that Jesus is God. There are 186 verses that contrast "God" and "Christ." In not one of them is Christ shown to be God. So, of a total of 387 instances, you say "most of the time," yet the facts reveal it is "none of the time." But in trinitarian fashion, you grasp at straws in a desperate yearning for something - anything - that will bolster your credulous faith that has no foundation.

Revelation 5:11 says many angels are "around the throne." The context shows clearly that God alone is sitting upon that throne. A normal Bible student is easily able to draw that conclusion from verses 1 and 13. But you felt a need to disprove what the context clearly states. You went outside the context to show that the Lamb is "in the midst of the throne." "In the midst" means "in front of," according to other translations. Revelation 4:6 mentions others who are also "in the midst of the throne." It doesn't matter to you that within the context the Lamb is said to be off the throne, as in verses 1, 6, and 7. Because you so desperately need to see the Trinity in the Scriptures, you falsified the picture, hoping I would see what you see - something that really isn't there at all. Then you wrote,

There are other Verses in Revelation that say that the Lamb sits with the Father on His Father's Throne.

Really? Can you show us where they are? Those few verses that speak of "the throne of God and of the Lamb" can be understood in the light of Revelation 9:17 where "color" is singular but really has a plural meaning. However, Jesus did say, "He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." (Revelation 3:21) That raises the question: Are the overcomers also part of the Godhead since they sit upon the same throne as Christ who sits on the same throne as his Father? Using your method of reasoning, one would be forced to conclude Yes! Regarding Revelation 5:12 you wrote:

Correction -- The Only One who could grant Jesus such things is THE FATHER.

Nevertheless, the context says "God" three times and doesn't use the term "Father" at all. You asked regarding Revelation 4:11:

So, using your reasoning, who "granted" those blessings to the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY?

The context gives an easy answer. Verse 10 says "the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne." Casting down their crowns is a relinquishing of their own power and authority as kings. They hand such over to God similar to what Christ will do: "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when he puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. ... then the Son himself will also be subject to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Note that it was "God the Father" who gave "the Son" rulership, authority and power. Note also that "the Son" returns these to "God the Father" so that "God [the Father]," not the Son "may be all in all." You wrote,

In Hebrews Chapter 1, the Father calls Jesus God, the Father commands all angels to worship Jesus, and the Father says Jesus created everything.

Please note that Hebrews 1:6 is a quotation from Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint: "Let all the angels of God worship him." The angels were to worship God at the time when he would cause the nations to be glad with his people. That time is related to the coming of Christ, as stated, when God "again brings the firstborn [Christ] into the world." So, is the writer of Hebrews telling the angels to worship Christ at that time? Not really. The angels in Hebrews 1 belong to God. The angels of God are instructed to worship "him," meaning God the Father. Please be careful how you read.

Note also that Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6. That is a psalm addressed to Israel's king. Fittingly, the writer of Hebrews applies it also to Israel's greatest king, the Messiah. But think: If the verse in Hebrews means that Christ is God, then the verse in the Psalms means that David and the other kings of Israel were also God! Think! And, in fact, the kings of Israel were "God" for all intents and purposes. They were ruling for him, speaking for him, and sitting upon his throne in Jerusalem. In similar fashion, all through the Old Testament, the angel of God is often called "Lord [Jehovah]" and "God."

Furthermore, Hebrews 1:9 tells the Son as well as Israel's kings: "God, your God, has anointed you." They could not actually be God if God was the One who anointed them!

Next you make a truly absurd observation:

Also, Revelation 5:13 shows that the Lamb is NOT a creature! (Either that, or the Lamb is talking to Himself)

The verse states: "And every creature ... I heard saying: 'Blessing and honor and glory and power be to him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." So, according to your logic (or lack of it), the following sentence means that a certain woman who did the speaking is not actually a woman: "The woman (creature) said all women (creatures) should be respected." Then, another absurd statement:

So, there is no way that you can claim that the Father is the only One receiving worship in Revelation 5:14.

That would be true if I ignored the context just as you generally do. The verse says plainly that they worshipped "him," not "them." If the choice is between "God" and "the Lamb," the obvious reference is to "God."

Here is a summary, then, of all your errors in just one of your posts - errors that are either plainly stated or are the only possible conclusions that can be drawn from your logic:

Titus 2:14 that says "for himself" could have some bearing on Revelation 5:9 which says "for God."
Most of the time where the Father and Jesus are mentioned together, the Father is called God because they are separate persons.
In Revelation 5, the Lamb is sitting on God's throne.
In Revelation 7:17 the expression "in the midst of the throne" means "on the throne."
In Revelation, there are other verses that specifically say the Lamb sits on the Father's throne.
The only one who could hand over to God glory, honor and power is God himself.
When God addresses the Son and Israel's kings as "God," it means the Son and Israel's kings are Almighty God.
God commands the angels to worship, not himself, but the Son.
Revelation 5:13 proves that the Lamb is not a creature.
There is no way that one can properly conclude that the Father is the only one receiving worship in Revelation 5:14.

I've shown clearly that each of the above assertions is completely wrong. Will you correct your thinking? I doubt it. You will continue to move on to other texts that you equally misunderstand and misinterpret. I feel this way, not because I am unchristian and unkind, but because this is what you have been doing. You are the perfect representation of nearly every ardent Trinitarian I've ever met, and I've met hundreds in my lifetime.

All things considered, Undisfellowshipped, you have your mind made up that the Trinity is true regardless of what the Scriptures actually say. As shown by the above examples, you don't hesitate to ignore the context and you try to find support for your theory outside of the context, even if what you find has nothing to do with that immediate context. If you would simply let the Bible speak to you just as it is, you would find no support whatever for your theory.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

I as well as others have already answered every one of your arguments and questions in previous posts. If I answer them again, what assurance do I have that you will read them this time?

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Meadow77,

Again you're showing yourself to be inconsistent. As I mentioned earlier, you opened this thread with both barrels loaded and blazing away. You set the tone for the discussion. If I call anyone a liar, it is because they actually lied, not for any other reason. But you and other Trinitarians have made accusations without any basis. Did you or did you not lie when you accused me of ignoring your questions? That's one of the worst lies I've heard in ages! That it is a lie is plain from all the many posts I've written in this thread, addressed mainly to you! Instead of apologizing, you want me to feel guilty for the wrong you've done. And you feel that you are the respectful one!!!

You asked,

(1) Why was Jesus crucified? (2) What were the Jews laws for putting someone to death according to your studies?

(1) In the parable of the ten minas, Jesus spoke of himself as a man of noble birth who would travel to a distant country to seek a kingdom for himself. Jesus said, "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'" (Luke 19:14) So, it was over the issue of kingdom rulership that Jesus was executed. This is borne out by what the Jews cried out when Jesus was being tried: "Crucify him! We have no king but Caesar."

Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; John 18:33) The Roman soldiers mocked him, saying "Hail! The King of the Jews!" (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:18; Luke 23:3; John 19:3) "And above his head they put up the charge against him which read, 'THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.'" (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) The Jews mocked him "saying, 'If You are the King of the Jews, save yourself!'" (Luke 23:37)

Jesus was also hated because he exposed the world and many of its people as evil: "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." (John 3:19-21) "The world ... hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil." (John 7:7)

Of course, none of the reasons people hated Jesus were valid: "But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" (John 15:25)

Jesus' execution had nothing to do with any imagined claim that he was God, for he never claimed to be God.

Jesus' true followers are also hated and persecuted, and it is for the same reason. Jesus prayed: "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (John 17:14)

(2) Under the Law, the death penalty was prescribed for (1) blasphemy, (2) worship of any god other than Jehovah (or Yahweh, if you prefer) and idolatry in any form, (3) witchcraft and spiritism, (4) false prophecy, (5) Sabbath breaking, (6) murder, (7) adultery, (8) a woman marrying with the false claim of being a virgin, (9) intercourse with an engaged girl, (10) incest, (11) sodomy, (12) bestiality, (13) kidnapping, (14) striking or reviling a parent, (15) bearing false witness, in a case where the penalty for the one testified against would be death, and (16) coming near to the tabernacle if not authorized.

Jesus was not guilty of any of the above. When he was charged with blasphemy, it was not because he claimed to be God. Rather, it was because with authorization from God he forgave sins. (Matthew 9:2-4) That he did not claim to be God is made clear in the context, "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men." (Verse 8)

Also, Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he said he was the Son of Man as well as God's Son. (Matthew 9:2-4; 26:64-66; Mark 14:61-64) The Jews on one occasion accused Jesus of pretending to be God, but he showed them that he merely claimed to be God's Son, not God himself. (John 10:36)

Did they really believe deep down in their heart of hearts that Jesus was claiming to be God? If they did, the following expressions within the context should seem very strange and puzzling: "The Pharisees were saying, 'This man is not from God.' ... The Jews had agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ [Messiah, not GOD], he should be put out of the synagogue." (John 9:16, 22)

I hope this is helpful.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

You're the one playing games. Of course I know what Meadow77 meant. I didn't say that I didn't. I was merely pointing out how his (probably her) mind thinks, as well as yours. In one breath you say God and mean the Father alone, and in the next breath you say God and mean more than the Father. You never say the Father and God. Ever wonder why your mind plays such tricks on you? To non-trinitarians it's obvious why you think as you do, but you can't explain it yourselves. I know. For years I've seen Trinitarians try to worm their way out of that one.

I know you also will try. And you will be dishonest in your answer, as Trinitarians generally are. You just can't face up to the fact that your Trinitarian's mind is in a fantasy world rather than in the world of reality.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Meadow77,

You wrote,

why do you not remember God referring to himself as I Am to Moses. Please tell me if you still do not think this ever took place and I will locate the passage for you.

Why do you feel you have to be such a smart-alec? This is what you wrote regarding "I am":

This was Known to the Jews as the true name of God. As precious to them as the Jehovah of the Witnesses.

I wasn't disputing with you about God's mention of the term to Moses. You know that very well. What I questioned was your dogmatic statement that "I am" was known to the Jews "as the true name of God." There is no evidence for that claim, as I pointed out, either in history or among modern day Jews. That is merely something you desperately want to believe, not something based in fact.

You wrote,

Again you didn't really deal with what I was saying

The problem is not a failure on my part. Apparently you are ignoring what I do write because you're spending all your thinking moments on defending the Trinity. You're not really paying attention, and you want me to feel the blame for it. Now, do you have a better idea why discussions like this one you started go on and on endlessly?

You don't even listen to yourself. Note: You said,

Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit

Shouldn't you have said, "Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit"? What you say subconsciously reveals that even your own mind cannot accept the silliness of the Trinity. In the back recesses of your mind, God is the Father and the Father alone. But to defend the doctrine, you outwardly make the claim that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also Almighty God.

In your latest explanation of how a man and wife become one, you said nothing you hadn't said before. You still claim that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in the same sense that a man and a woman are one. That shows you have no idea what the Trinity is all about. Your explanation falls flat on its face because the Trinity means there is one individual Godhead composed of three separate Persons. That doesn't mean that God is like a corporation where three humans run the show. It means there is One God running the show, but that he is not One Person - he is three Persons! There is no logical illustration you can use to explain such a nonsensical view of God.

A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. They each have a separate body. Those bodies do not become one body when they get married. For the Trinity to be similar, there would necessarily have to be three God bodies to accomodate the three Persons who have those bodies. A Person is not a Person unless there is something tangible to represent that Person. This is why God and Christ are always seen in visions as having separate places. God is often sitting upon his throne while Christ is either seated or standing at his right hand. It's amazing to me that you seem incapable of noting such clear distinctions that are so often made within the Bible.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Meadow77,

You wrote,

Herk- you seem to be under the false impression that I don't read my bible and recieve instruction from the holy spirit.

I believe you probably read the Bible, but I have serious doubts that you are depending upon the holy spirit for your teaching. Your arguments in behalf of the Trinity have all been exposed for centuries, yet Trinitarians keep bringing them up. This shows they get their beliefs from one another instead of from the holy spirit. The spirit would not teach what is weak and easily exposed.

You wrote,

I understand it must be strange for some to understand and accept the trinity.

Of course you do. And the reason is that the teaching most certainly is "strange." It is so distant from what the Scriptures teach about God that it is puzzling why people aren't ashamed to say they believe it.

Should we believe things that are unscientific? You say yes, while the Bible says no. God himself is the greatest scientist in the universe. And he doesn't ask us to believe what is unreasonable. Job correctly said, "Would He contend with me by the greatness of His power? No, surely He would pay attention to me. There the upright would reason with Him." (Job 23:6, 7) God gives the invitation, "Come now, and let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18) There can be no solid reasoning based simply upon mere speculation, feelings and theories. If Christians are ever going to persuade others that the Bible is true, they have to use reason, not blind credulity, just as Jesus and the apostles set the example: "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. ... Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews." (Acts 18:4, 19) "And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them ... reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus." (Acts 19:8, 9) It is scientifically foolish to deny God's existence, and it's just as foolish to believe things about him that cannot be established by facts and reason, as well as by the Scriptures.

It seems only reasonable that if God wanted us to believe as weird a teaching as the Trinity, he would have said so. He would have made it so plain that there would be no reason to doubt, especially if it pertained to receiving salvation. How would a poor farmer in lower Slobovia ever have an opportunity for salvation if, despite his love for the Bible, he never saw the Trinity there? It requires the mental gymnastics of biased scholars to interpret the doctrine. As Will Penwell has shown in several posts above, huge councils of clergymen have been brought together to decipher exactly how it's to be expressed. Even today the average pastor and priest stammers and fumbles as he tries on the spur of the moment to make the doctrine clear to someone who inquires. Yet most ardent Trinitarians sincerely believe that there is no salvation for non-trinitarians.

It is far more difficult to believe in the Trinity than it is to believe that Jesus walked on water, raised the dead and turned water into wine. These are statements of fact, clearly expressed. We with our own eyes see huge aircraft weighing several tons flying through the air. Surely if God arranged for that possibility, he made it possible for a man to walk on water. We've never seen the dead raised to life, but who can clearly explain the process of a person's life sparking into existence within a mother's womb in the first place? It happens millions of times every day, and thus we have no reason to doubt that God has the power to bring someone back to life. God is the greatest chemist, so when we see modern chemists changing the structure of genes and gases, we need have no doubts that God enabled Jesus to change water into wine.

You are correct about this debate probably having no end. There is an explanation for that. Trinitarians have their minds made up regardless of what the Scriptures say. No matter how many arguments they present, they are all demolished with a little reasoning and the clarification of other scriptures. But Trinitarians find that unacceptable. Constantly they are digging and straining, trying to find something somewhere that will make them feel good because it seems to be evidence for what they believe. That is no way to study the Bible. We should accept what it says rather than try finding within its pages what we personally believe or have been taught.

You asked,

How can there be 2 Alphas and Omegas?

What would be the basis for such a question? God is called "Lord," but Paul said there are many "lords." What you need to point out for support of your theory is that God said somewhere that he alone is the Alpha and Omega.

You wrote,

You seem to be passing all my arguments off without even truly addressing them.

Don't you have that backwards? Please name even one of your arguments that I've ignored - even one! The real problem is that you are ignoring every answer I've given to all your points and questions. Closing your eyes to things doesn't mean they don't exist. Please reread what I've written, and you should see clearly that I haven't ignored a single point you've tried to make. I ask you to be fair. I ask you to be truthful. It is a blatant lie to say that I haven't been "truly addressing" your arguments.

Herk