Myreader.co.uk  
uk news, chat and community
   home   |   control panel login   |   archive   |  
 
media.tv
angel
brookside
buffy-v-slayer
cable
childrens
dawsons-creek
er
friends
hollyoaks
misc
robot-wars
sf.babylon5
sf.drwho
sf.farscape
sf.misc
sf.startrek
sf.x-files
simpsons
sky
smallville
time-team
twenty-four
us-sitcoms
west-wing
xena
  
 
date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:29:02 -0500,    group: uk.media.tv.sf.drwho        back       
Re: Yads is Very Quiet.....WILL WE BE GUILTY...............   
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_
date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:29:02 -0500   author:   Andy Leighton

Google
 
Web myreader.co.uk


    COPYRIGHT 2007, YARDI TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, ALL RIGHT RESERVE  |   contact us