Where is the gospel and when they meet in whose name are they meeting.
Given that they're meeting as people alienated from each other, they have little or no common ground with which to start.
I replied that it is within the context of the gospels.
Notwithstanding, you're still using the word incorrectly.
Ah, you see, these Gentiles were already Christian converts and were compared to those who are Judaizers observing the law. So the comparison is made only because they had recieved the Spirit of truth, after they had accepted Jesus and not before.
Um, the passage explicitly says
those Gentiles did not have the Law. They were not God-fearing Gentiles. And yet they intuitively followed some aspects of the Law anyway because the Moral Law is a real thing.
Paul was using sarcasm to ridicule them by saying you worship the myriad of gods including the kitchen sink, but now let me introduce you to the God that you do not know.
And yet he still converted several people. His method of finding common ground with non-believers and then giving them Our Lord worked.
No thankyou, I will have no part in that foley.
I hardly think evangelism is folley.
The universal one world religion advocates want us to believe that they can go to convert people in their name or the name of their church.
Oy...
I find it interesting that on two occassions your church leader addressed the UN and a Mexican conference by saying IN MY NAME AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
I'm not familiar with the exact quotation or what precisely was said so I will not comment.
It has nothing to do with what I think, rather it is according to Christ's instructions to preach him in every town and city.
That's more or less impossible to do considering the terms and limitations you've set up.
What tipped me off is the following statement.
What was said was not a very complicated statement. In fact, literally nobody else who replied had any trouble understanding my meaning. Nobody. Zero.
But, since you do not seem to grasp my meaning, I will clarify.
The purpose of this thread is discussing the rejection of the Trinity and how unjustified that brand of theology is. I very honestly don't know how an uninformed outsider could read sacred scripture and not believe in the Trinity. An uninformed outsider may not know to call it the Trinity. But the three persons of the Trinity are clear in sacred scripture.
Hence my comment that you cannot have less than three persons. The minimum is the Trinity. And since you don't seem able or willing to infer, I believe three to be the correct number.
However, I've read interesting commentary from various people, primarily Messianic Jews, who argue that God manifests Himself in more than just three ways in sacred scripture. The instances which spring readily to mind were the burning bush in Exodus, the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire also in Exodus and the individual whom Jacob wrestled. This MJ commentator therefore posited that sacred scripture reveals more than just three methods for God to become involved in the world.
In the post that you seem to have trouble getting past, I rhetorically said that the MJ commentator, a non-Trinitarian, has a stronger argument in his favor for wanting a higher number of manifestations than other non-Trinitarians who want less than three manifestations.
Now, everybody else understood that I was not endorsing any kind of non-Trinitarian argument; I was simply making the point that three is the minimum (and, I believe, the maximum) number. Nothing I've said implicitly or explicitly suggests I am non-Trinitarian or that I in any way subscribe to non-Trinitarian theology. Elliptically everyone else seemed to understand that much, even one member with whom I normally do not agree on much of anything.
Now you should understand as well.
Even so, I grow weary of your invective so my promise to you is this: Having clarified my views on the Trinity (eg, I believe in it), if you accuse me one more time of being a non-Trinitarian or pantheistic or whatever this silly "universal one world religion" nonsense is supposed to mean, I will contact a mod and let him sort you out.
I ask you to not put me in that position as I do not enjoy ratting anybody out. But you're not leaving me with very many other options. I've asked you at least twice now to be reasonable and fair. It looks to me like you're more interested in making accusations and being mean.
Ain't nobody got time for that... except a mod.
Don't push me anymore. Okay?