a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
Discussing the Trinity with a JW (or really anyone) is of course a complete waste of time anyways
It really is. You can see how pointless it is by the bluster and obfuscation that you get when you ask for a very simple explanation.
The trinity is self-contradictory and trinitarians know it. That is why they hide behind esoteric Greek phrases that they don't even understand.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
putting the burden of proof on me to defend an alternative reading which has not been disclosed.
I am doing no such thing. I am not asking you to defend any reading of any NT text.
I am objecting to you avoiding the challenge I raised pages ago by wanting to debate a proof-text that does nothing to establish support for the trinity - THREE persons. I know all the proof texts that seem to support the deity of Jesus and the personhood of the holy spirit and I know how to explain them away in context - every single one. I also know how to use the NT to argue compellingly for and against the trinity. I have no interest in rehashing all of that.
As you are well aware my challenge is to explain and illustrate the trinity simply and succinctly in your own words. The challenge remains unanswered.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
Of course I want to get into it that is why I joined the conversation.
By focussing on a "proof text" you are hiding from the far more important challenge. I have dealt with the Isaiah text as a JW when speaking to an evangelical pastor. If we go down that route this thread will run to dozens of pages and at the end all we will have is a JWesque proof-texting competition. I know all the relevant texts in context very well - on both sides of the debate - and I will pay you the respect of assuming you do too.
Your work is still ahead of you.
By the way there are three persons in the trinity not two
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
From my earlier thread...
The apostles described themselves as witnesses of Jesus, they called him their only owner and Lord, and the one to whom they belonged. They were baptised in his name, led by his Spirit, rejoiced in his blessing and overflowed with praise for him.
But this is still a very long way from a trinity.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
The answer to your Isaiah quote is blindingly obvious but I'm not going to get into JWesque proof-texting with you, we have all been there and done that. I know all the texts on both sides of the debate as well as anybody.
By the way there are three persons in the trinity not two.
My challenge remains. All your work is ahead of you.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
that does not assume the CONCEPT underlying the word was not understood by Christians
Your JWesque proof-texting notwithstanding there is no description of anything approaching the concept of a trinity anywhere in Paul's writings.
Are you really asserting that the earliest illiterate Hebrew christians described their god in esoteric Greek terms like homoousios?
No ordinary christians today even begin to understand the nuances of person, essence and substance. Almost without exception they worship a committee of three gods or a single god with three hats. Already in this thread we have had every heresy offered by self-proclaimed christians.
It is evident you cannot explain it in simple terms. No christian who believes in the trinity should have the cheek to criticise the cult's "overlapping generation".
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
Paul speaks at the aeropagus
Paul had no concept like the trinity. But I'm not talking about trained Pharisees like Paul I mean the thousands of the earliest illiterate Hebrew christians.
the entire NT was written in Greek
I'm talking about before the NT was written. The first generation of illiterate Hebrew christians did not speak Greek. You said that it is impossible to explain the trinity without "the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language". Therefore these earliest christians could not have understood the trinity.
It follows that either belief in the trinity is of little importance or early christians were not christian.
the earliest Christians had a very high view of Jesus
I know they did... But that is a long way from the self-contradictory dogma of the trinity.
Your challenge still stands.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
impossible to do without the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language - Saved_JW
The earliest christians did not speak Greek let alone understand esoteric Greek theological terms. Therefore by your own admission they did not understand the trinity. Therefore according to you the earliest christians were not christian.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
Very nice...well played... So in order for me to explain a theological concept, I have to do so based on YOUR naturalistic/humanistic terms, a framework for which is impossible to do without the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language - Saved_JW
Yes your challenge is to explain the central dogma of the christian religion accurately in way that can easily be understood by a normal person who has no knowledge of esoteric terms like Homoousios.
Why would that be a problem?
No thanks I wont take the bait.
It's not bait it's a perfectly reasonable question. No surprise you refuse to answer it.
a man can be a father .
a man can be a son.
a man can be a husband.
redvip - Whoever explained that to you just described every heresy all mashed up together. Like 99% of christians they know absolutely nothing about their central dogma.
