Mindia wrote: You can find examples of trinitarian concepts in many different books of the New Testament...
Matt. 28:18, blahblah
The book of matthew was not added to the popular Bible until the council of Carthage, in 397.
2 Cor. 13:14, blahblah
The letters to the Corinthians were NEVER accepted until the greeks finally got around to the voting block... sometime around - the 9th century.
Eph. 4:4-7, blahblah
Not accepted until the Laodicea (I think). But that's still mid 4th century...
Jude 20-21, blahblah
Don't know off the top of my head, but... you get the theme that I'm going with, no? Using passages from the Bible as 'proof' of trinitarian concept doesn't make any sense. I'm saying that the Bible - in itself - is in error 'because' of the various corrupt translations. If it's my opinion that your 'proof' is flawed, you can't keep pointing to it for additional 'proof'. Right?
Mindia wrote:
Vonk, I don't think that you're a bad guy, or an unholy person. I know you're very analytical, very skeptical, and very cynical. You are also very educated in biblical matters and I respect you for that. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to what you said in your long-winded, yet tastefully prepared, post of 2004... Faith. We can debate points of reference all day long, but Faith is not debatable. I have Faith that trinitarian concepts were part of the Bible long before it was labeled "the holy trinity" by anybody or culture, and therefore, it does not matter to me what people say about it. Nor can it be proven to me that the trinitarian concept was "added" by anybody hundreds of years later. It just ain't happenin.
However...
bravo to your last post, I
you for that. I would man kiss you for it. No, I can't 'prove' anything. You can't prove that God exists, I can't disprove it... you are totally right. I'm going on 'popular history' which might be totally rewritten in 200 years if the crazy republicans have their way =p. (After all, the grand canyon was created in 7 days... 
)
