[beavus]

"Trinity of persons within the Godhead" IS an interpretation of the trinity, and in particular it is the NICENE interpretation and not the Arian interpretation. This of course has been my argument. I just assumed that you recognized the obvious and realized this as the Nicene interpretation, especially after I wrote extensively about it to you.

So, of course, I never "went to interpretation". I started there and never left.

Then, you misquote me as writing:

"the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities."

when in fact I wrote:

"In fact, they would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities."

They may have been sincere, but they were also sincerely wrong if they believed or interpreted in God as something other than there being co-equality amongst three beings Who are also one.

...and around and around in circles we go. You even requote the same passages from John. You needn't assume that b/c you don't read my posts to you that I don't, foolishly, read yours. Shall I requote the same passages I previously quoted from Mark?

And so you again repeat what you already made deafeningly clear--that you believe the Nicene interpretation of the Trinity. Unfortunately, your personal beliefs in the Trinity have nothing to do with the argument. I'm not now nor have I been questioning or trying your faith which you seem intent on defending nontheless. You also again make clear that you will turn a blind eye to trying to understand scriptural interpretations that led others to different views on the Trinity.

No; I have not changed any definition of "Christian."

You had posted the following definition:

The definition of a Christian, as found in Scripture: one who believes he is a sinner, that Christ died for his sin, who accepts Christ as his Savior, and believes in Him, who was sent by the Father, and who is then indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

It was a marvellous advance that you did so, and so it was a great surprise to me. Now you alter this by adding

A Christian believes that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, i.e., three co-equal beings yet one

Which was not in your original definition above and effectively eliminates all non-Nicenes from the label of "Christian". Shall I again attempt to argue from this point only to have you change it again later? Hopeless.

I won't mind reading up on the Arians

You undid the one useful part of this whole debate--first defining Christian, then changing your definition and thus making debate with you a hopelessly moving target. Now you suggest another positive note. I wonder if you'll do it.

[nicmarlo]

You can spin and twist my words about what a Christian is however you wish; this forum cannot keep up with however many times you need me to repeat myself, therefore I will not. For you to not spin, it is apparently necessary to post on every post, what Christ says a Christian is, what a person must do to become a Christian, and all the elements that belief process involves. I have listed what Christians believes in one post (the Trinity, 3 equal beings yet 1 God); another post: (what Christ says we must do to become a Christian [and then what God does once one is a Christian); another post: (believing the Trinity exists does not make one a Christian). These different posts do not change what a Christian is or how one becomes a Christian.

To understand how one gets dressed to go to work in the morning is similar: there are certain things one must do. Stating something simply like, "take a shower, get dressed, and drive" is simple. Being more specific and adding information about the shower, about the clothing, and then mentioning "putting on make up" or "putting on perfume," does not change the originally stated SIMPLE meaning. Nor would one have to continue to keep saying "get dressed," once it's already been stated---one assumes that the reader can follow along with the fact that that no longer needs to be reiterated.