Ok, well I am more then happy to entertain another possible exposition of John 12:41 and other possible meanings of what John was trying to convey by quoting Isaiah, it would seem if you can offer a contextual alternative reading to that passage your point would be made. But if you don't want to get into it, I completely understand.
The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words
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
Again, im more than happy to entertain an alternative reading..at this point your only accusing me of proof texting, claiming to have wrestled with this very passage with a pastor, knowing the text very well, and putting the burden of proof on me to defend an alternative reading which has not been disclosed. I don't think its a matter of you respecting me by assuming I should know what you are thinking, its a matter of dialogue.
Simply purpose what you are thinking, that way I can respond accordingly.
Yeah I think it was brought out, but that is Modalism. It strikes me that very often Trinitarians have no clue how to explain this belief.
Its ridiculous of course, that God would leave his very nature such a mystery, but decide to explain it as "father and son" which we can easily relate to. Well......father and son are separate individuals, not copies of one another, and can act independently. So if thats the illustration God himself chose to use......seems pretty easy to get.
Discussing the Trinity with a JW (or really anyone) is of course a complete waste of time anyways.
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.
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.
I am late to the thread, but let me give it a shot:
Once upon a time people were confused about existence. Some nut jobs made up myths to help. Other nut jobs claimed to be God. Still other nut jobs believed.
It really seems to be that they start with the conclusion, and craft an understanding to then bring them there.....and THEN work on fitting scriptures that can be understood several different ways.....into the equation.
The trinity is nonsense. The idea of God having a son, who he eventually requires be murdered in order to fulfill his warped sense of "balance" is also nonsense. Its really something i believe human beings will study a millennium from now with awe, the same way we study Greek mythology today. As in......its kind of fun to know about....and it makes for the occasional blockbuster......but nobody thinks Zeus is coming to put a lightning bolt up your ass if you don't want him to sleep with your mom.
I think the trinity arose as a result of "facts on the ground". Early christians found themselves adoring Jesus who attained godlike status after his death and supposed resurrection. You can see the developing status of Jesus as you read the NT chronologically. That is why you can find proof texts on both sides. None of them even get close to an actual statement of the trinity.
Thus the evolution of an esoteric form of words that are blatantly self-contradictory but allowed christians to worship Jesus and still pretend to be monotheists. The HS was late to the party.
Wow, this is surely a long discussion. Let me join in. The Trinity never was accepted by Polycarp one of the early Church Leaders. He was closely associated with John the Apostle. Later on, Tertullion tried to make a case for introducing the Greek Trinity concept, but it never was accepted until the 3rd century. It even had some resistance then at that Council meeting with Constantine. Would you accept any decision that Constantine introduced. If you celebrate Christmas and believe that Jesus was born on Dec 25th you can say that you are a believer of Contantine.