[geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:05:43 -0800
Dear Jack,
For someone who stated that he was not going to discuss the trinity concept any further (to which I replied, "Okay"), you sure seem unable to let matters rest.
I am afraid, Jack, that just one fact that can be shown to contradict a whole load of assumptions is entirely sufficient to bring the whole deck of cards built with those assumptions down. This applies in science, logic, mathematics, law, theology, history, ...
Christ talks of his father and his God. Fact.
God does not have a "God."
Christ talks of the Father being greater than he. Fact.
There is no being greater than God.
Christ talks of God being good, but not himself being good. Fact.
Conclusion:
1. The two are separate.
2. The idea that Christ is God cannot be demonstrated to be proven.
Nowhere does Christ say that he is God. Nowhere!
Do you worship Mary as "Holy Mary, Mother of God"?
Does God have a mother?
Is God male?
Is God female?
Just a few questions for you to consider if you become interested in truth.
I have stated my position and I have defended it. Do not try and twist the clear meaning of 'proof'. You made the claim, not me. The burden of 'proof' was on you. All I did was demonstrate to you that you had certainly not 'proved' any such thing. You appear not to like to be corrected.
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:25:46 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
Dear Neville,
Come on, you know full well what I meant when I said 'prove'. Why don't you
just read all the scriptures in my original posting and 'prove' to me or show me
where I am wrong.
Regards
Jack
Free 3D Earth Screensaver - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
- Follow-Ups:
- [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- From: Jack Lewis
- References:
- [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- From: Jack Lewis
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- » [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
For someone who stated that he was not going to discuss the trinity concept any further (to which I replied, "Okay"), you sure seem unable to let matters rest.
I am afraid, Jack, that just one fact that can be shown to contradict a whole load of assumptions is entirely sufficient to bring the whole deck of cards built with those assumptions down. This applies in science, logic, mathematics, law, theology, history, ...
-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:25:46 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:25:46 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
Dear Neville,
Come on, you know full well what I meant when I said 'prove'. Why don't you
just read all the scriptures in my original posting and 'prove' to me or show me
where I am wrong.
Regards
Jack
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
- [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- From: Jack Lewis
- [geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- From: Jack Lewis