#29 Questions to ask
OOPS put it down to old age or dementia
Maybe even better is the quote from the "Reasoning" book!
Arguments about words aren't really arguments about facts.
There is a difference between a "potential" and an "actual", for example.
Without context, the words "potential" and "actual" are placeholders for meaning without application to specific.
1.My son is a potential President of the United States.
This is only refutable if he wasn't born in the U.S. and doesn't reach the age of 35.
2.My son is an actual President of the United States.
This is instantly refutable. Unless...my identity is Abraham Lincoln's father and I'm writing years before his presidency. Or some such.
You see? Such arguments are mere opportunities to play with words and slide contexts around.
Jehovah's Witnesses play with words constantly. They impute "meaning" and concoct interpretive importance from all sorts of venues.
But, they don't deal with factual issues as much as they pontificate from a sort of magisterium.
The Governing Body is the imputed Authority behind their magisterium. ONLY they have the authority and the right to interpret matters such as the understanding of THE TRINITY.
So, questions about God's identity or potential identity cannot penetrate the illustrious magisterium in the least.
Like the Catholic Church, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven as far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned.
You may as well try to talk a Rabbi out of the Sabbath for all the good it can do.
The only way to refute Jehovah's Witnesses simultaneously refutes any other Christian position!
The foundation of Christianity rests on Scripture.
Unfortunately for believers in the authority of scripture there is no way to compare the bible we have available with an "uncorrupt original".
God did not see fit to preserve an "uncorrupt original". All we have available are thousands of shreds of diverse transmissions of copies of copies of copies. Like scraps of trash pulled from ancient dumpsters, alas!
A man of faith shrugs this off as if it had little importance. But, they do so at their own intellectual honesty's peril.
Without uncorrupt originals to compare modern translations to we cannot HONESTLY assert anything authoritative in God's communication with humanity.
So, arguments over words are futile and rather extraneous.
That's my view. Your mileage may vary.
Nice presentation, though...
"...our minds can not comprehend it, but that is not sound reasoning for rejecting it" Reasoning From The Scriptures, p148.
However, part of the reasoning they give for rejecting the Trinity is it does not make any sense!
Talk about double standards :(
See here for example http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_05.htm
Should You Believe in the Trinity?
People often say they believe in the Trinity, yet they differ in their understanding of it.
What, exactly, is the Trinity?
Does the Bible teach it?
Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity?
How the "Only-Begotten Son"?
Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?
Premise: God is understandable.