On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:51:46 +0000 (UTC), 
   	      The Doctor  wrote:
> In article ,
> Andy Leighton   wrote:
>>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:27:25 +0000 (UTC), 
>>   	      	   The Doctor  wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Andy Leighton   wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:44:08 +0000 (UTC), 
>>>>   	       The Doctor  wrote:
>>>>> In article <4Pcak.103196$P83.101761@newsfe20.ams2>,
>>>>> Stephen Wilson  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where did this idea of the trinity come from anyway? Certainly not the 
>>>>>>Bible. That teaches that there is one God. No verse in the Bible
>>claims that 
>>>>>>God is three persons. No verse claims he's a trinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Three in one and one in three as mentioned in the 4 Gospels.
>>>>
>>>>I know this is pointless as I won't get a sensible answer.
>>>>
>>>>Trinitarianism was only cemented as the Christian church's position in
>>>>the late 4th century CE pretty much by imperial fiat.  There is no
>>>>explicit evidence in the Bible of trinitarianism although there are some
>>>>passages that could be read as implicit evidence.  There is also
>>>>implicit evidence in other passages of almost any other interpretation
>>>>you want to put on things.
>>>
>>> REread the 4 gospels, preferably NIV.
>>
>>Why don't you.  Surely you can quote me some explicit evidence?  Or is
>>this like every other one of your other attempts going to lead to
>>pathetic blustering and circular arguments?
>
> I prefer modern English.

What the fuck?  How can "I prefer modern English" be a reply to
anything I wrote above?  Are you actually reading the replies or
just making up your own?

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

In article ,
Andy Leighton   wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:13:59 +0000 (UTC), The Doctor
> wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Andy Leighton   wrote:
>>>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:51:46 +0000 (UTC), 
>>>   	      The Doctor  wrote:
>>>> In article ,
>>>> Andy Leighton   wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:27:25 +0000 (UTC), 
>>>>>   	      	   The Doctor  wrote:
>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>> Andy Leighton   wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:44:08 +0000 (UTC), 
>>>>>>>   	       The Doctor  wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <4Pcak.103196$P83.101761@newsfe20.ams2>,
>>>>>>>> Stephen Wilson  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Where did this idea of the trinity come from anyway? Certainly not the 
>>>>>>>>>Bible. That teaches that there is one God. No verse in the Bible
>>>>>claims that 
>>>>>>>>>God is three persons. No verse claims he's a trinity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Three in one and one in three as mentioned in the 4 Gospels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I know this is pointless as I won't get a sensible answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Trinitarianism was only cemented as the Christian church's position in
>>>>>>>the late 4th century CE pretty much by imperial fiat.  There is no
>>>>>>>explicit evidence in the Bible of trinitarianism although there are some
>>>>>>>passages that could be read as implicit evidence.  There is also
>>>>>>>implicit evidence in other passages of almost any other interpretation
>>>>>>>you want to put on things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> REread the 4 gospels, preferably NIV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you.  Surely you can quote me some explicit evidence?  Or is
>>>>>this like every other one of your other attempts going to lead to
>>>>>pathetic blustering and circular arguments?
>>>>
>>>> I prefer modern English.
>>>
>>>What the ?  How can "I prefer modern English" be a reply to
>>>anything I wrote above?  Are you actually reading the replies or
>>>just making up your own?
>>
>> IS KJV and NKJV 'comprehensible'?
>
>Don't edit the quoted bit.  I have asked you this before.  If I am
>to be quoted I want to be quoted precisely.
>
>Secondly, your question (and even explanation) does not make sense.  No
>where did I mention KJV.  I asked you to quote your explicit evidence.
>
>So I just can't be bothered if you aren't even going to try and converse
>like nearly every other person in the world.  All I can assume is that
>you are mentally ill or a troll as you show all the signs.  
>
>Into the killfile with you.
>
>-- 
>Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
>"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
>   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

You cannot accept reality.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca	Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!  
USA petition for dissolution of your nation!

Your stupidity

-- 
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous


"The Doctor"  wrote in message
news:g4g72d$4cn$5@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article ,
> Andy Leighton   wrote:
> >On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:13:59 +0000 (UTC), The Doctor
> > wrote:
> >> In article ,
> >> Andy Leighton   wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:51:46 +0000 (UTC),
> >>>         The Doctor  wrote:
> >>>> In article ,
> >>>> Andy Leighton   wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:27:25 +0000 (UTC),
> >>>>>            The Doctor  wrote:
> >>>>>> In article ,
> >>>>>> Andy Leighton   wrote:
> >>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:44:08 +0000 (UTC),
> >>>>>>>          The Doctor  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <4Pcak.103196$P83.101761@newsfe20.ams2>,
> >>>>>>>> Stephen Wilson  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Where did this idea of the trinity come from anyway? Certainly
not the
> >>>>>>>>>Bible. That teaches that there is one God. No verse in the Bible
> >>>>>claims that
> >>>>>>>>>God is three persons. No verse claims he's a trinity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Three in one and one in three as mentioned in the 4 Gospels.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I know this is pointless as I won't get a sensible answer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Trinitarianism was only cemented as the Christian church's position
in
> >>>>>>>the late 4th century CE pretty much by imperial fiat.  There is no
> >>>>>>>explicit evidence in the Bible of trinitarianism although there are
some
> >>>>>>>passages that could be read as implicit evidence.  There is also
> >>>>>>>implicit evidence in other passages of almost any other
interpretation
> >>>>>>>you want to put on things.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> REread the 4 gospels, preferably NIV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why don't you.  Surely you can quote me some explicit evidence?  Or
is
> >>>>>this like every other one of your other attempts going to lead to
> >>>>>pathetic blustering and circular arguments?
> >>>>
> >>>> I prefer modern English.
> >>>
> >>>What the ?  How can "I prefer modern English" be a reply to
> >>>anything I wrote above?  Are you actually reading the replies or
> >>>just making up your own?
> >>
> >> IS KJV and NKJV 'comprehensible'?
> >
> >Don't edit the quoted bit.  I have asked you this before.  If I am
> >to be quoted I want to be quoted precisely.
> >
> >Secondly, your question (and even explanation) does not make sense.  No
> >where did I mention KJV.  I asked you to quote your explicit evidence.
> >
> >So I just can't be bothered if you aren't even going to try and converse
> >like nearly every other person in the world.  All I can assume is that
> >you are mentally ill or a troll as you show all the signs.
> >
> >Into the killfile with you.
> >
> >-- 
> >Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
> >"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
> >   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
>
> You cannot accept reality.
> -- 
> Member - Liberal International
> This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
> God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
> USA petition for dissolution of your nation!