>
>Yeah, I know about him being called the light (that's the
>translation of my last name actually).

Response: Oh yeah that is interesting.
>
>OK, didn't know the Word was referred to specifically as the
>light as well. What does that verse 9 say exactly?

John 1:9
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

And everytime John refers to the Logos he uses the imperfect tense, to illustrate his eternality. Imperfect tense means a continuous action in the past, i.e I was eating. It is past tense but is continious, evertime John refers to the Logos he uses this tense, and for everything else he uses the aorist tense, which has completion all the way up to verse 18.
>
>By the definition of being vs. person you gave, it would
>seem to fit. Certainly the Hindu concept of Brahman is quite
>different from the Christian concept of God, but Brahman
>does have being/essence/substance according to your
>definition (Everything that exists has being, but not
>everything has person). And Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva do have
>person. Granted, the being/essence/substance of Brahman is
>quite different from that of the Christian God, but that
>doesn't mean that it doesn't have being at all, just that
>it's being/essence/substance is different. Same for the
>persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva vs. Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Response; Let me ask, how can they have person if they are not personal? Unless my qoute was wrong.
>
>You said that "God however is infinite and can exist in
>three persons. Person's refer to personal distintions within
>the one being that is God." - well, that basic framework
>also works in Hinduism: Brahman is infinite, and can exist
>in the three persons of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, which refer to
>personal distinctions within the one being/essence/substance
>that is Bhraman. Note that I am not saying that Brahman is
>the same as God, or that Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are the same as
>Father/Son/Holy Spirit; what I am saying is that the being
>vs. person framework you gave works the same.

Response; Well I would have to take your word on that one. I am not super in depth with the Hindu gods.

>No, the modalism thing doesn't work in Hinduism either.
>Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva all exist at the same time,
>they're not like a triple-changer transformer like Blitzwing
>or Astrotrain (if you remember them) that transforms into
>one form or the other, but does not co-exist as all 3
>simultaneously. I think your conception of Hinduism in that
>regard is off.

Response:Well then again, I am not a hindu scholar. Just know alot bout Christian doctrine and know when I hear something different.
>
>(BTW, the solid/liquid/gas illustration could work at the
>triple point, which is the temp & pressure point at which
>all 3 phases coexist in equilibrium. But I doubt that T.D.
>Jakes guy knows about that.)

Response; Yeah that is true, I forgot about that.
>
>OK, makes sense. I was just wondering about that.

Response; Sure.
>