Your words exactly from post 485:
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.
You are insincere to tell me that this (which says nothing of the trinity being the same entity) is your definition of a Christian, and then later to deny it by requiring that a Christian believe that the trinity are the same entity.
My not accepting your wavering is not the same as spin. For that matter, just what in the world do you think my "spin" is? Do you even know what "spin" means? I merely presented historical facts, posited that a "Christian" need not believe the Nicene interpretation of the Trinity, and you go off into a boatload of repetitive irrlevencies about true and false doctrine, and how you know Jesus, and a plethora of other things not pertaining to my original point or any historical facts. You, sir, are clearly the spinmeister.
"You are insincere to tell me that this (which says nothing of the trinity being the same entity) is your definition of a Christian, and then later to deny it by requiring that a Christian believe that the trinity are the same entity."
You are a joke. How many times does one have to say Christians believe in the Trinity, as three equal beings? You debate for the sake of debating to win. I am finished trying to "educate" you, as your only goal is to spin, spin, spin, and by superbly spinning, you think you win. I feel sorry for you. Done.