Many Athenasian Trinitarians try to claim that their belief is not "modalism" by narrowly defining the modalist view as what is actually the more specific Sabellian Modalism as ’God represented through three identities at separate times’ in order to dissemble and weaken the claim. (This dissembling is not usually purposeful, but is the result of seminary indoctrination.) However, modalism does not actually require that he represents himself at 3 different times. Only Sabellian Modalism has that requirement. Just because the Sabellian form of modalism is the first does not make it the only form. Saying that God is 3 co-equal personages in one substance does nothing to distinguish the Trinity from modalism, but adds a tritheistic element that fogs up the issue.
What is rather clumsily labeled "non-modal non-tritheistic" is actually just a merging of modalism and tritheism into what has been dubbed "tri-modalism" by some. The tritheism aspect is to say that there are 3 personages, each called "God". But the so-called "non-modalism non-tritheism" merely adds the words "they are of the same substance". Thus, all you’re doing by adding "the three are the same substance" is creating a nonsensical tritheic modalism.
If I create 3 separate clay statues, then they are of the same substance, but the fact is that they remain to be 3 separate clay statues. (Triadic) Or if I shape 3 figures on a single base, they remain one piece of clay with 3 shapes. (Modalism) If I create 3 separate statues that link together, they remain to be 3 separate statues that are merely interlocking. (Triadic)
Likewise, 3 different humans are of the same substance and can even share the same DNA if they are triplets or clones, but they remain to be 3 different humans. If I say that the 3 are Siamese triplets, they are still 3 separate beings whose bodies are fused by a genetic defect. If I say that a being has two arms and a leg, those things remain to be the same being controlled by a central control node, usually a brain. If you say that three have some kind of mental bond, then it is either 3 persons (Triadic) with a psychic connection or one consciousness (Modal) controlling 3 bodies. It can only be one or the other, not both, and certainly not neither.
Consider the central control node. If the 3 are indeed the same being, then there is a central control node, thus modal. If there is no central control node, then either all 3 are separate control nodes (triadic) that work together equally or they act as 3 distinct central control nodes, thus triadic.
So to say that "the 3 are God" is a modalist statement no matter how you look at it. To say that the 3 are separate is a tritheistic statement no matter how you look at it. Merging them to say that the "3 are God and also separate" merely muddies the issue because they cannot be reconciled without recognizing that they are either modal or tritheistic, not both or neither. If modal, then the Scriptures contradict it. (Joh 14:28 [pa|in]) If tri-theistic, then the Scriptures contradict it. (1Ti 2:5 [pa|in]) If both, the scriptures contradict both simultaneously. (1Co 8:5, 6 [pa|in]) If neither, then there is no Trinity, but a single God who expresses himself only one way, which the Scriptures do support. (Joh 17:3 [pa|in])
Since Jesus is not God, but a representative of God, and holy spirit is merely a force controlled by God, then there is neither triad nor modal expression. This is the only non-modal non-pantheon that can be.
The Father and Son Question
Athenasian Trinitarians try to ask: "Do you believe that a human son is less human than his father?" The answer is obviously "No". Then, thinking that they can trap us, they ask, "Then how can Jesus as God’s Son be less God than His Father is God?" Since we do not believe that Jesus is "God", this question is completely meaningless. But in response to the first question, we can simply ask, "Is a human father the same as the Son?" Obviously not. But they are of the same race, but remain to be two distinct persons who can either share the same goals or not, but they are not the same human as Trinitarians try to claim that Jesus and the Father are the same God. Jesus is of the same substance of the Father in the sense that he is spirit, just like all the angels, but he is not the true God.A Hierarchy or "Co-equal"? — Choose
These same ones, in order to overcome Joh 14:28 [pa|in], developed the claim that the Trinity is presented as a "hierarchy" with the Father at the top and holy spirit at the bottom. But this presents a substantial problem to the claim that the 3 are one and that the three are "co-equal". This Trinity hierarchy claims that the Father has higher authority than the Son. The nature of a hierarchy is that the one in the ascension has greater authority, and NOT equal to the one over whom they have authority. If they are "co-equal", if they are 3 co-equal identities of one substance as the so-called "non-modal non-tritheistic" Trinitarians believe, then there is no room for there to be a hierarchy as if they are 3 separate and not co-equal personages.Thus, when Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I am," (Joh 14:28 [pa|in]) he was either stating a fundamental fact about his distinction from the Father as a separate personage, being truly non-modal and non-tritheistic, or he was lying. Which do you think we should believe? Either there is a hierarchy of separate beings or they are "co-equal". You can’t have it both ways.
The Non-Infinite God Pie
Athenasian Trinitarianism causes God to be less than infinite because 3 separate beings cannot all 3 be infinite even and especially if "of the same substance" without being modal expressions of the infinite. As explained under "Multiplying Errors" in Part 7: Failed Logic of the Trinity, there can be only one thing that is infinite. Anything produced from the infinite is by its nature of separation from the infinite both a finite and a created thing. Therefore, what is infinite cannot be divided into 3 parts, nor can 3 infinite things exist simultaneously.The modalist view is that 1 infinite thing expresses itself in 3 finite representations, which is not beyond the realm of possibility. The tritheistic view is that 3 finite things act in unison. This, of course, is also not impossible. But the so-called "non-modalist non-tritheistic" view is that 3 finite things are together infinite, which is indeed impossible by the math of it.
Can you add 3 numbers up to get an infinite number? Of course not. Thus, inversely, infinity also cannot be divided into 3 equal or "co-equal" parts. Either only one of the 3 is infinite or all 3 are finite. If you divide a pie into 3 parts, you have 3 different pieces of pie that were once a part of a whole, but are no longer such. Also, that pie was finite, not infinite.
Tri-modal Nodes
The best logical explanation for the Trinity, though fitting what modern Trinitarians describe is what they reject. What is most often described in the Trinity is not that the 1 is in 3 (tri-modal), but that the 3 are in 1. (Tri-theistic) This would indicate a hive mind, which is defined as a collective working together to produce a single consciousness. So let’s say that the Father, Son and holy spirit act with consensus. They each contribute their input and the group agrees on the final action. Or else each one acts independently in accord with the group dynamic. Or they each surrender their consciousnesses as nodes for the greater consciousness. The first two concepts are tri-theistic, and the third is both tri-theistic and modal, exactly the opposite of the description of the Trinity as “non-modal non-tritheism”, contradicting the common claim.The problem this creates, and likely the reason Trinitarians reject it, is that no individual in the hive is actually the hive. The individuals surrender to the consciousness of the hive, so that there remains to be one consciousness controlling 3 persons, thus becoming modal once again, but at the same time, the consciousness is being controlled by the 3 individuals acting in harmony. If the three decided to stop acting in harmony, the collective consciousness would cease to exist. Thus, it is simply an illusion generated by 3 gods acting in harmony and the hive consciousness is only an illusion reflected by the decisions agreed upon collectively or according to their respective organs.
Even still, this is exactly what is described by modern Trinitarians when they say "the 3 are in 1". If the Trinity were consistently described this way, it would make sense and there would be no question whether the 3 could be counted as a single entity. However, most Trinitarians reject this viewpoint, thus completing the view that the majority view about the Trinity is impossible, illogical and indefensible.
Not Logical
The only defense the Trinity seems to utilize is to not allow it to be clearly defined. Anytime someone comes up with a decent description, they add a rule that makes it elusive in an attempt to impede the ability to dismantle it by faithful monotheists. But the reality is that "Non-modalism non-tritheism" is a non-argument that follows no known rules of logic because it is an attempt to avoid clear definition. Logic requires clear definition without contradiction. A self-contradictory argument is identified in logic as "invalid", meaning that it is a false argument. In programming language, this would cause the program to loop or freeze. To get around this, some try to claim that God is beyond logic, but that is false. Logic exists because of existence itself. Logic is binary, merely distinguishing what exists ("1") from what does not exist. ("0") Thus, even God, who exists, is bound by logic.You decide: Is the "non-modal non-tritheistic" Trinity a sensible argument or is it merely trying to avoid being pinned down and properly evaluated? Consider: To say "non-modal non-tritheistic" does nothing to describe what the Trinity is, but states only what it is not. This is simply not committing to any argument at all; a non-argument.
Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series
Go back to: Part 5: They Are Neither Trinitarians Nor Binitarians
Go to Part 7: Failed Logic of the Trinity
Comments
Dismythed says: Since I am directly contradicting and pointing out the failures of your claims here, my reply can only be taken oppositionally, but I wish to assure you that I appreciate the attempt and understand your uncritical attachment to something that is so closely aligned with your identity. I also appreciate your non-oppositional tone and hope you can take mine the same. So please do not take this personally.
Anonymous said: “The argument suggests that the Trinity is a mix of modalism and tritheism, leading to a confusing and contradictory belief system.”
Dismythed says: It’s not merely a suggestion. It is the claim and is soundly supported by the reasoning and is further supported by your comment which I breakdown below.
Anonymous said: “However, this is a misunderstanding of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.”
Dismythed says: There is not one Trinitarian who does not say this about every argument against the Trinity. There is no misunderstanding and your comment only establishes my point further.
From here on, I am going to label your claims as either a: modalist God or b: definitional God (tritheist) or 0: denial of both (denial of definition is a lack of definition; contrary to your claim, you present no other option), and 0 < a ≠ b > 0; it’s not even in the same ballpark. (To be clear, the “modalism” I refer to does not mean the very specific kind called “Sabellian”.) So when you see “a:“, think “modal” (one person in three roles), when you see “b:”, think "definitional” (three persons sharing a single role), and when you see “0:”, think "denial” (denial of being either one person in three roles or three persons sharing one role). “Definitional” means that you are defining three beings as “God” by some arbitrary means of rank or possession, rather than being.
So let’s start:
a: “The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that God is one in essence (or substance) but exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
b: “Each person of the Trinity is fully and equally God, yet they are distinct in their relations and roles.”
0: This is neither tritheism (belief in three separate gods) nor modalism (the idea that God merely appears in different modes or forms).
Dismythed: So here, you were quick to set up all three contradictory statements one after the other (I wrote the paragraph about defining the distinctions before I even read those.) The symbols knock them down one after the other in the same order I wrote them.
b: “The persons of the Trinity are distinct,”
a: “The persons of the Trinity are ... not separate, and share the same divine essence without division.”
b: “The argument posits a dilemma between the hierarchical relationship between the Father and Son versus their co-equality.”
Dismythed says: This is reshaping my argument for easier deconstruction. The argument actually posits a dilemma between position and being. Three people can share the same authority and serve in different roles, but they cannot be the same in essence (being) unless they are acting modally (One person pretending to be three).
...
b: “Trinitarian theology explains this by distinguishing between the economic Trinity (how the three persons relate and operate within the world) and the immanent Trinity (the internal relations within the Godhead). In the economic Trinity, the Son submits to the Father’s will in the Incarnation, yet this does not imply an ontological inferiority but rather a functional role in the redemption plan. In their divine essence, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal.”
Dismythed says: “economic" here is a code word for acting in three distinct roles functioning separately. “Immanent” being a code word for the singleness of God. However, the definition of the word and the words “internal relations within” actually suggests a continued distinction of persons while functioning as God, but not as a person that is existentially God, so I included this under “b:”. No real attempt is made here at unifying them except in three beings acting in the role of God. “Co-equal“ and “co-eternal” is fine, but it does nothing to establish them as existing as the same infinite being.
0: “The analogy of dividing an infinite God into three parts as a way to argue that the Trinity is logically incoherent is flawed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not divide God's essence into parts;”
Dismythed: Your words: “God is one in essence (or substance) but exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. … the Trinity is fully and equally God, yet they are distinct in their relations and roles, … The persons of the Trinity are distinct, … three persons relate and operate within the world.”
That is just everything up to now that shows that God exists divided into three parts according to your own words. It is definitely your words, not my bias. It’s you, not me.
b: “rather, it teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each fully possess the one undivided divine essence.”
0: “The concept of infinity in the divine nature is not comparable to finite objects like clay or pies, which can be divided.”
Dismythed says: This right here renders your claim inconsistent, incompatible and therefore contradictory. If God is infinite and cannot be divided, then he can neither exist as three beings, nor be possessed by them. Besides this, by three beings “possessing” God, he is not only divided between them, you make the role of God subordinate to them. It does not matter what your intent is. This is the meaning of your words. One possesses spirit. One possesses a body. One possesses traits like strength. One possesses authority, even if shared. But who they are is the thing that does the possessing or is the one possessed by another. They are not what they possess. To take away that distinction renders the word “possess” meaningless.
b: “God's infinity means that each person of the Trinity fully embodies the infinite nature of God.”
Dismythed says: “Embodiment“ can be either figurative or literal. If figurative, it means three persons acting like an ideal. If literal, then it means God is a suit or body, separate from their own selves, that they physically put on, or the way a demon possesses a person. (I’m not saying that you are claiming something demonic, but just relating an image.) Besides this, if you are saying that the Father, the Son and tge holy spirit each possesses “the full infinite nature of God,” then you are creating three infinities, or else something Sabellian that moves between them (I do not argue this to be your claim at all). But the definition of “infinite” makes this impossible.
0: The argument references certain scriptures to claim contradictions within Trinitarian belief. However, these scriptures must be understood within the broader biblical context and the framework of Trinitarian theology.”
Dismythed says: This is pushing an assertion that you expect to be adopted without question, saying: “Your evidence supports 1, but your evidence must be understood as b.“
...
b: “For instance, John 14:28, where Jesus says, ‘The Father is greater than I,’ refers to Jesus’ role in his incarnate state, not a statement about his divine nature. The concept of co-equality within the Trinity does not negate the different roles that each person plays in the divine economy of salvation.”
Dismythed: This is not evidence. Just because you can make a claim does not make it true. If you make a claim about a writing, you must demonstrate it with that writing. Without evidence, a claim is so much wind.
0: “The claim that Trinitarians avoid clear definitions to escape logical scrutiny is incorrect.”
Dismythed says: Belied by all of your statements here failing to provide a clear definition.
Anonymous said: “Trinitarian theology is complex because it seeks to explain a profound mystery about God's nature that transcends human understanding.”
Dismythed says: Translation: Not even you understand the Trinity. If you claim you do understand it, then you both belie your statement here and dare to call me inferior to you for not understanding. So, based on your wording here, you must accept the claim that you do not understand the Trinity and there is no logical framework for it, or you become both dishonest and, forgive me for saying it, but arrogant for elevating yourself while still unable to define it. I choose to believe the former is true as I would not assume a dishonest intent.
Anonymous said: “However, it is not without clear and rigorous definitions, as seen in the historical creeds (e.g., the Nicene Creed), which carefully articulate the relationship between the persons of the Trinity.“
Dismythed says: Your statement here admits that you have not defined it here, but must point to documents that themselves do not have such clear definition or you would just quote it here, which you did not do. If the Creeds have the clear definition, then perhaps you should be quoting those instead of talking in circles.
Your proposition above that “The claim that Trinitarians avoid clear definitions to escape logical scrutiny is incorrect,“ has here proved incorrect, thereby proving the assertion true that you attempt to refute. You have avoided clear definition. Every a, b and 0 here is contradictory.
I establish the contradictions in your statements, not to establish some superiority, but to show you that the Trinity claim cannot ever bear fruit.
Dismythed: We covered that already. The high-sounding “Misinterprets the nuance” doesn’t somehow improve your claim. There is no nuance, nor have I misunderstood, misinterpreted or mischaracterized claims about the Trinity. A statement about the Trinity either is about or is against modalism and/or tritheism. There is no middle ground that you can label “nuance”. Please, go back through everything you have written and identify a single statement that establishes a nuanced middle ground that is neither modal nor tritheistic nor a rejection of these. You won’t find it.
a: “which is based on a relational distinction within a single, undivided essence.”
Dismythed: That statement makes no sense. What distinction is relational? If the essence is “undivided”, then that essence itself has no distinctions that can be related. Therefore, the “relational distinction“ must apply to a trait or role (You use the term “role“ throughout your discourse). Thus, this statement becomes modal. The very word “distinction” refers to a difference. Without that understanding, the word loses all meaning.
0(-a): “Modalism posits one person who manifests in different modes, whereas Trinitarian doctrine ...”
b: “... Trinitarian doctrine teaches three distinct persons who are each fully God, co-existing eternally, ...”
0(-a): “... not merely as different manifestations.”
0(-b): “Tritheism implies three separate gods, which is explicitly rejected in orthodox Trinitarianism.”
a: “The concept of "one essence" (homoousios) maintains unity, while the personal distinctions (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) uphold diversity within that unity.”
0(-b): “They are not separate beings ...”
a: “... but share the same divine nature.”
a: “The relational distinctions within the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—
0(-b): “do not imply a difference in substance or being ...
a: “... but are a reflection of their eternal relationships and roles.”
a: “Consider how a human can simultaneously be a parent, child, and sibling. The roles are distinct, but the person is one. The Trinity is infinitely more profound, yet this analogy helps to illustrate how relational distinctions do not necessitate separate beings.”
Dismythed: It helps nothing. Roles are actually and literally modal (it’s in the definition), not essential. Family roles are mere semantic designations to express relationships with others with the inverse relative designation, not to oneself as if father to oneself or son to oneself. The terms relate to others: one person who is father to one and son to another, because Jesus is the Son of the Father, therefore God is not Father of himself and Son of himself. That would directly contradict the proper usage of the terms “father” and “son”.
These designations say nothing about the fundamental nature of a being’s existence. If it did, you would not need to say anything. It would be easy to understand and it would be modal. But here those roles indicate relations to others, not to themselves.
...
Anonymous: “In conclusion, your characterization of the Trinity as a confusion of modalism and tritheism misses the profound and carefully articulated theological balance within Trinitarian doctrine.”
Dismythed: The words “theological balance” betrays that it is indeed blending modalism and tritheism. Every word you speak reveals this. I do not need to “characterize” it. Simply splitting up and labeling your claims makes clear the three, and only three, claims. Statements about the Trinity will always, without exception, include the contradictory claims: a: God is modal, b: God is tritheistic, and 0: God is neither modal nor Tritheistic. Nothing has been articulated and the care you put into it cannot be said to be effective because no nuanced middle ground has been established.
0: “This is not contradictory but rather a mystery that transcends human logic.”
Dismythed: Logic is not a human invention. It is evident in all of God’s acts. He is the one who gifted to us the ability to reason with it and asks us to use that reasoning ability. (Pr 2:11, 12; Ro 12:1) God is a “revealer of secrets”. (Da 2:28) If there was any correct understanding of his being a Trinity, he would have reveal it openly and correctly in his word.
To claim it as “a mystery that transcends” our understanding means that you cannot explain it, yet here you are trying to explain it. So which is it? It can or cannot be explained? If it cannot be explained, then why attempt an explanation that invariably ends up in contradictions?
It is simpler to understand the Bible as written than try to force this convoluted doctrine onto the text that never once appears in the text. The fact that the Church had to insert lying verses into the Bible to support the doctrine demonstrates its invention by men with no reverence for the Bible text, not by God. Jehovah never communicated a Trinity as this site demonstrates.
...
0: “It’s a mystery, not a contradiction, upheld by centuries of theological reflection.”
Dismythed: Repeating the words: “It’s a mystery, not a contradiction” does not magically improve your position. It merely highlights your inability to explain a doctrine that is actually and truly nonsense. There is nothing that upholds it. If there were, you would quote it. That it has taken centuries, millennia in fact, to explain it and you still cannot explain it, means that it cannot be explained. It is indeed a contradictory doctrine and you have done nothing to disabuse anyone of that notion. You only put a spotlight on your own inability to connect with reason on the subject and reveals that you are being duped by the church’s implication that “it’s a mystery“ is somehow a rational explanation.
I cannot convince you of the illegitimacy of the Trinity doctrine because of that one line that you accept as somehow rational. When you finally realize that “it’s a mystery” is not a rational statement and that every statement you make about the Trinity is either modal, tritheistic or a denial of both, then maybe you will understand that the Trinity doctrine is nonsense.
If you are here to try to convince me or my readers of the validity of the Trinity, you will not do it with obtuse assertions like “It’s a mystery, not a contradiction.” Unless you have an angle that is neither modal nor tritheistic without blatantly saying that “it is neither modal nor tritheistic,” you will not succeed. Because, if you have to say it, then you have already contradicted yourself.
A contradiction reveals that an assertion is either incomplete or it is false. That Trinitarians ALWAYS go around in circles with contradictions without any further clarity means that it is not simply incomplete and is therefore false by induction of countless samples over centuries. It will never be cleared up because it is not sound. It is not cognizable.
Just because you can hold three contradictory thoughts in mind does not mean they cooperate. Thoughts do not magically cooperate by their coexistence in our minds. Neither does the fact that we can articulate three contradictory ideas over and over somehow make them cooperate. Neither articulation nor repetition lends anything to connectivity.
You are not balancing on a line, but hobbling over it, stepping back and forth as it suits the point in the discussion. When I lean left, you lean right and vice versa. I say modal, you say tritheistic. I say tritheistic, you say modal. I say both, you deny both. Then you bookend it with all three.
But I do not accuse you as if you are doing something unique. This is exactly how every conversation with a Trinitarian I ever had has always gone, with the exception that most of the others actually quoted the creeds and the so-called “early church fathers”, making for deeper and more varied discussions.
Even if each statement is new, your replies are formulaic and self-contradictory. Pointing out your contradictory statements is the one and only thing I have done this entire time and all I would continue to do. At this point I see no point in continuing the discussion. I wish you well.
1. In conclusion,
2. your argument suggests
3. a contradiction between modal and tritheistic concepts within the Trinity by conflating distinct theological categories.
4. This is a misunderstanding of
5. the key theological concepts and terms of the nuanced distinctions within the orthodox Trinity.
6.It is an incomprehensibly complex mystery that transcends human understanding
7. that a few are given just a small understanding of,
8. not an incoherent contradiction.
9. The divine nature is a unified essence,
10. not separate,
11. presented in three distinct co-equal, co-eternal persons
12. with different relations and roles,
13. not modalism.
14. Co-equality does not negate relations and roles
15. and god’s infinity is qualitative, not quantitative.
16. It is incorrect that Trinitarians avoid clear definition.
17. Scripture must be interpreted through a Trinitarian lens
18. as presented in definitions articulated in the creeds.
“Your challenge implies (2) that any argument in favor of the Trinity can be reduced to a set of predetermined phrases, which you suggest are inherently flawed or circular (3). However, this approach oversimplifies (4) a deeply nuanced theological doctrine (5) that has been carefully developed and articulated over centuries by some of the greatest minds in Christian history. (18) Here are a few points that go beyond the phrases you’ve listed:
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not an arbitrary invention but is grounded in the consistent interpretation of Scripture. (17) The early church fathers, including figures like Augustine and Athanasius, engaged in rigorous exegesis of the Bible to articulate the Trinitarian understanding of God, (18) which they found to be the most faithful representation of the biblical revelation. (17)
“The Trinity, while mysterious, (6) is philosophically coherent. (8) The concept of one essence (ousia) (9) in three persons (hypostases) (11) is not a contradiction (8) but a sophisticated way to understand (6) the unity (9) and diversity (11) within God's nature. (9) This understanding avoids the extremes of modalism (one person acting in three roles) (13) and tritheism (three separate gods) (10), maintaining the monotheism central to Christianity. (9)
“The language used to describe the Trinity was developed over time as the church sought to clarify its understanding in response to various heresies. (18) The Nicene Creed, for example, was formulated to address specific misunderstandings about the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit, (4) and it remains a cornerstone of orthodox Christian belief. (18)
“The doctrine of the Trinity has profound implications for Christian worship, prayer, and life. (7) It shapes how Christians understand their relationship with God, (7) who is simultaneously transcendent (6) and immanent (9), Father, Son, and Spirit, engaging with the world in different (11) yet unified ways. (9)
“By suggesting that (2) all Trinitarian arguments fall into a set of predefined categories, (3) you overlook the richness and depth of this central Christian doctrine. (6) The Trinity is indeed a mystery, (6) but it is one that invites believers into a deeper understanding of God's nature, (7) rather than simply a set of logical contradictions. (8)”
Nincsnevem, while you tried hard to make your comments more complex-sounding, every comment you gave falls into one of the 18 statements I sampled above. Your words are a broken record because Trinitarianism is broken. But I appreciate that the simplicity of your arguments have given me an opportunity to break down Trinitarian arguments into an embarrassingly easy framework with which to deconstruct it, like pulling out all the screws and watching it fall apart. I will compare it to discussions I have had with other Trinitarians to find new points to add and then add the list to the Trinity/Binity series.
I can break every single one of your comments down this way, but my time is limited. Because your comments are so simplistically predictable, I will not be posting or addressing any more of your comments, especially not the 43 other comments you have attempted to post since I tried to end the discussion on August 14th, except in the unlikely event that any of your attempts at addressing specific Scriptures are not identical to the argument I am refuting on that page. Thank you.
Also I am sorry that you gave up citing the creeds and “church fathers” the way you used to. Research is important to finding truth. Perhaps it was too much for you to see them so roundly refuted.
Take care.