<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Islam-inspired Modalism &#8211; Part 4</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61</link>
	<description>theories about the father, son, and holy spirit</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:44:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-93387</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-93387</guid>
		<description>Nowhere that I can find - must have been a numbering error or my part?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nowhere that I can find &#8211; must have been a numbering error or my part?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R. Rao</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-93385</link>
		<dc:creator>R. Rao</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-93385</guid>
		<description>Where is Islam Inspired Modalism - Part 3? Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where is Islam Inspired Modalism &#8211; Part 3? Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manuel Culwell</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-88147</link>
		<dc:creator>Manuel Culwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-88147</guid>
		<description>The trinitarain view of Jesus incarantion denies the humanity of our Lord and relegates his humanity to a mere nature (which is not a person)this totally denies his real humanity, this is a built in contradiction of the trinity doctrine.


 I cannot seem to post my web address so I will give the title on yahoogroups. To discuss the manifold contradictions of the doctrine of the  trinity.

Trinity_Vs_Oneness@yahoogroups

I cannot seem to find Trinitarains willing to come out from thier comfort zones of hit and run tactics, in posting of failed apologetics to discuss these thier contradictions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trinitarain view of Jesus incarantion denies the humanity of our Lord and relegates his humanity to a mere nature (which is not a person)this totally denies his real humanity, this is a built in contradiction of the trinity doctrine.</p>
<p> I cannot seem to post my web address so I will give the title on yahoogroups. To discuss the manifold contradictions of the doctrine of the  trinity.</p>
<p>Trinity_Vs_Oneness@yahoogroups</p>
<p>I cannot seem to find Trinitarains willing to come out from thier comfort zones of hit and run tactics, in posting of failed apologetics to discuss these thier contradictions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnO</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-804</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-804</guid>
		<description>Dale,

I&#039;m just saying the logical extension of these lines of thinking (Where Jesus is God, YHWH is God - yet YHWH and Jesus are not the same) creates two separate beings who are God - add   holy spirit - and you have three: your trinity.

You must admit that they are separate beings - Jesus died, YHWH did not.  Just because all three fall under the classification of God does not mean there is one God.  I am a human, you are a human.  There is not one human - there are 6 billion humans.  We all fall under the classification of human - yet there is not one human.  These are simple terms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dale,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m just saying the logical extension of these lines of thinking (Where Jesus is God, YHWH is God &#8211; yet YHWH and Jesus are not the same) creates two separate beings who are God &#8211; add   holy spirit &#8211; and you have three: your trinity.</p>
<p>You must admit that they are separate beings &#8211; Jesus died, YHWH did not.  Just because all three fall under the classification of God does not mean there is one God.  I am a human, you are a human.  There is not one human &#8211; there are 6 billion humans.  We all fall under the classification of human &#8211; yet there is not one human.  These are simple terms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-739</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-739</guid>
		<description>Hi JohnO,

Not supposed to be three &lt;i&gt;beings&lt;/i&gt;, of course (unless we&#039;re talking about what you might call an extreme form of Social Trinitarianism). But they gotta be three &lt;i&gt;somethings&lt;/i&gt;, as some things are true of each, which aren&#039;t true of the other two. Problem is, the obvious move is to make them three modes of God - roles, ways of appearing, centers of consciousness, ways of relating to himself. But as I&#039;ve argued, that seems a theological... dead end, to put it nicely.

AnonMoos - I think Geisler counts as theologically trained, no? He&#039;s dean of a seminary...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi JohnO,</p>
<p>Not supposed to be three <i>beings</i>, of course (unless we&#8217;re talking about what you might call an extreme form of Social Trinitarianism). But they gotta be three <i>somethings</i>, as some things are true of each, which aren&#8217;t true of the other two. Problem is, the obvious move is to make them three modes of God &#8211; roles, ways of appearing, centers of consciousness, ways of relating to himself. But as I&#8217;ve argued, that seems a theological&#8230; dead end, to put it nicely.</p>
<p>AnonMoos &#8211; I think Geisler counts as theologically trained, no? He&#8217;s dean of a seminary&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnO</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-735</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-735</guid>
		<description>But then when the Father does something - isn&#039;t the husband doing it also? (physically yes, metaphorically no)  These three roles do not cause three separate beings to emerge do they?  Yet Trinitarians claim that there are three beings who are equally God.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But then when the Father does something &#8211; isn&#8217;t the husband doing it also? (physically yes, metaphorically no)  These three roles do not cause three separate beings to emerge do they?  Yet Trinitarians claim that there are three beings who are equally God.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AnonMoos</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-734</link>
		<dc:creator>AnonMoos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-734</guid>
		<description>P.S.  What happened to Part 3?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P.S.  What happened to Part 3?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AnonMoos</title>
		<link>http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-733</link>
		<dc:creator>AnonMoos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trinities.org/blog/archives/61#comment-733</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure that much illumination emerges from considering apologistic discourses directed at Muslims, but the bit about analogizing the Trinity to a man who is simultaneously a son, husband, and father seems to be surprisingly popular among certain circles of non-theologically-trained Protestants (without reference to Muhammad, however)...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure that much illumination emerges from considering apologistic discourses directed at Muslims, but the bit about analogizing the Trinity to a man who is simultaneously a son, husband, and father seems to be surprisingly popular among certain circles of non-theologically-trained Protestants (without reference to Muhammad, however)&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

