Sorry to disappoint you, Ron. I decided to pull the plug BEFORE it got any nastier. I'm not much into those kind of Christian "chats"...
Part one of two:
What is a MOD? And why would MOD'S descend?? Please explain what you mean.
Mods are "Moderators". And they USUALLY descend upon groups that end up insulting each other rather than discussing topics.
I have found that among certain individuals, when a conversation doesn't 'go their way', they will often become SO insulting that the Moderators will "SHUT DOWN" a thread. So, if they can't have it 'their way', they raise a stink in order to have a topic closed.
And this thread has basically become that. Instead of actually discussing 'trinity', Katrinah and others decided to hijack it into a variety of personal attacks in order to have it 'their way'. Instead of staying on TOPIC, it became more desirable to make false accusations and attack individuals.
I have a friend who once married a woman who claimed to be a 'Catholic witch'. She said she was a 'good witch', but I don't know that the Bible offers such distinction. When I tried to discuss the issue with her, as soon as it wasn't going HER way, she resorted to insults and turned it into a FIGHT instead of a discussion. As soon as this happened, no more discussion took place. Only heated insults and her trying to tell ME that I had NO IDEA what I was talking about. And since I didn't understand, I was ENVIOUS or JEALOUS of her 'abilities' and THAT'S why I tried to make it SOUND like there was something EVIL or WRONG about her professed 'witching abilities'. Sound familiar?
Often no different here on the forums. When someone tries to use logic or the Bible to point out that what someone has stated is askew, some won't accept it and will do whatever they are able to try and CHANGE the subject. Especially when they KNOW the other person is RIGHT.
But isn't it absolutely AMAZING that SO MANY profess a belief in 'trinity', yet deny the very DEFINITION of it according to those that 'created' it?
Or how HARD it is for those that profess to believe in 'trinity' to ADMIT that it was NOT something taught by Christ or the apostles. But rather something that wasn't even DEFINED according to Christianity until HUNDREDS of years AFTER the death of Christ AND the apostles.
And this is a pretty clear sign that it's IMPOSSIBLE to actually BELIEVE in something that CANNOT be comprehended. While one can SAY anything, the TRUTH is it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually BELIEVE in something that cannot be comprehended. You can SAY you do, but in truth, you can't believe in something that you have no comprehension of.
Why do you THINK Christ performed the miracles that He did? Because He and GOD knew that without them, what He said would have little actual POWER as compared to SHOWING it. Christ didn't raise Lazarus simply because He loved Lazarus. He raised Lazarus to SHOW those that were aware of his death that He was 'the Christ': The Son of the Living God.
When He told the woman at the well that He knew all about her LIFE, He did this for ONE reason: to SHOW the woman that He possessed the POWER to KNOW her even though they were strangers.
Therefore it's pretty OBVIOUS that actions often speak louder than words. Since it's SO EASY for men's mouths to utter whatever they desire, the 'proof is in the pudding'. It's not about what one SAYS, it's about what one DOES. And not SO MUCH what they DO, as it is: WHY they DO IT.
God CANNOT die. So, isn't it OBVIOUS that no matter what one SAYS they BELIEVE, if they believe that Jesus was God and DIED, then they are believing in a DIFFERENT God and DIFFERENT Christ than the one revealed in the Bible?
If someone SAYS that the God that they follow can DO things that are against His 'character', then isn't it OBVIOUS that they have placed their faith in a DIFFERENT God than the one revealed in the Bible? If someone SAYS that God can do ANYTHING, isn't it obvious from the Bible itself, (God's Word), that they are following a DIFFERENT God than the one we are instructed CANNOT do 'everything'?
And this is NOT 'rocket science'. It is what I would call 'common sense'. But often what I CALL 'common sense', isn't really THAT common when it comes to what people SAY they believe.
God CANNOT lie. So there's ONE thing He CANNOT DO. He cannot tempt a man to EVIL. There's TWO things that He CANNOT DO. He cannot DIE. For if He can DIE, He is NOT immortal. And being IMMORTAL is one of the Characteristics of GOD. So if you BELIEVE that God DIED on a cross, you are SAYING that YOU believe in a DIFFERENT God than the one revealed in the Bible. If you SAY that "your god" can DO ANYTHING, then you are outright ADMITTING that your god is not THE God revealed in the Bible.
And not surprising. Satan's desire is to BE the 'god of this world'. And he is well versed in mimicking the TRUE God. He is quite subtle and very influential when it comes to giving people what it is that they desire. And he is capable of making people FEEL good when they accept HIM as God. Quite a temptation to worship HIM as God instead of God Himself.
It is MY opinion, (and I believe totally backed by scripture), that any and ALL gods other than the ONE true God are Satan or his minions. When Israel stumbled the MOST throughout the entire OT, it was in their 'spiritual adultery', (placing their faith in and offering their devotion to FALSE gods: (Satan). Molech being one they often followed which actually required them to sacrifice their own children by BURNING them alive. And when prophets sent by God tried to warn them of their folly, they were IGNORED. Only when God PUNISHED them did they turn away from their 'false gods'.
Do you REALLY think that things are any different TODAY? That all that profess to follow God are following the ONE true God? If that were so, ALL would have the SAME beliefs. Yet just about anyone that you ask to explain their god to you, you get a DIFFERENT explanation. How is that? How does an UNCHANGING God reveal Himself to ten different people as TEN DIFFERENT gods?
And if one didn't KNOW the difference between God and Satan, how could they TELL the difference?
One way is to READ the scriptures. If the GOD you profess to believe in has characteristics that CONTRADICT what we are given in scripture, then it is a pretty CLEAR sign that THAT god isn't THE God.
So, if you ignore who Christ STATED He was/is according to scripture, it is MORE likely you are professing to follow a DIFFERENT Christ. I can call a planet Christ, or a car, or ANYTHING. It's when I accept the TRUE Christ that I am then able to follow in TRUTH. There are 'Christs MANY' just as their are 'gods MANY'. Doesn't the Bible TELL US that MANY 'false Christs' would arise? How do we KNOW the TRUE Christ? We START by accepting WHO He said He was/IS: The Son of the Living God. And if scripture STATES that Christ was 'created' by God, then if you believe in a Christ that wasn't created, you obviously are placing your faith in a DIFFERENT Christ.
Revelation 3:
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God
Here is Christ REVEALING Himself through scripture. And it is CLEAR that He is using descriptions of Himself: The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the BEGINNING of the 'creation of GOD'. Here Christ is SAYING that HE IS THE BEGINNING of the 'creation of God'. Isn't that CLEAR ENOUGH? And He also states over and over that these words are for them that can HEAR what He is saying. A plain and clear indication that there would be MANY that would be unable to HEAR what He is saying. Not LITERALLY 'hear', but understand and ACCEPT what He is saying.
The 'beginning of the 'creation of God' would be that which was created IN THE BEGINNING. That which was 'created FIRST'. And as 'creation' as it is offered is that which pertains to MAN, then it is obvious that BEFORE God created MAN through CHRIST, Christ was 'created FIRST'. He is the 'firstborn' of EVERY 'creature'. He is the ONLY begotten Son of God. Regardless of the inane explanation offered by the RCC concerning begotten, ALL uses of the word throughout the Bible are in reference to PROGENY. There is NOTHING offered in scripture concerning ETERNAL GENERATION. Heck, there is nothing OTHER THAN the RCCs creation of this concept that exists PERIOD. If you believe differently, then I challenge you to SHOW me through SCRIPTURE where it offers this 'eternal generation' of the Son. The Son was 'created by God' according to scripture. The very use of the word SON is indicative of progeny. A Father is FIRST, and FROM the Father COMES a Son. The Son is a PRODUCT of the Father. A king and his prince are a part of the same Kingdom, but they are NOT the SAME entity. One is the SON of the OTHER. The King came FIRST and then his SON. While they may well share attributes and the King is able to bestow upon his son whatever POWER he chooses, ultimately, the power STILL belongs to the King who chooses to SHARE it. Ultimately he can TAKE IT BACK if he so chooses.
Christ did NOT 'send himself' IN THE FLESH. He was SENT by God, His Father. At least according to His OWN words. When Christ prayed, He was not praying to ONE part of HIMSELF. He was praying to His Father: GOD. When Christ directed US how we should pray, He did NOT direct our prayers to HIMSELF, but to GOD: His Father.