Trinitarian Arguments

[firedragon]

@firedragon

I can see why they'd say same essence. If jesus wasn't aligned with his father's motives, he wouldn't be worthy of his father to be a savior. If love and grace wasn't in christian faith, there's be no spirit to which many Christians devote their lives to experience.

Since the Athanasian creed, they believe as what I said. Anyway, I think its irrelevant now so I can just leave it.

If you're looking for: "trinity is jesus, god, and spirit as one person" word for word verbatim in scripture, it's not there. That's what Christians say not scripture.

If you're looking for context: god, spirit, savior relationship (tri- prefix) it's the whole NT.

Is there a verse in the bible NT that does not rate Christ with his father?

You asked for a NT verse that does not rate Christ with his father? You mean to say that Jesus and father are equal right?

Do you believe that Jesus was the biological son of God? Was he created by God or did he exist with God all along? What about the Holy Spirit? Please include him in this equation.

Let me understand your position.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's the language use of evangelist Christians

You asked for a NT verse that does not rate Christ with his father? You mean to say that Jesus and father are equal right?

They feel because he is equal and one cannot exist without the other in regards to salvation,it would make sense they would use "Is". Context.

Do you believe that Jesus was the biological son of God? Was he created by God or did he exist with God all along? What about the Holy Spirit? Please include him in this equation.

Biological son? That would make jesus a creator. Not sure how this fits since most Christians can separate the two in regards to the Trinity.

Holy spirit or just spirit (excluding the holy adjective) is gods love and grace from Christ. The pentecost I believe.

Let me ask, how does my belief weigh in what Christians believe and what they don't? Unless it's something completely off, all Christians I spoke with I can find their "context" in scripture.

But literalism?

No spiritual book I know of is verbatim. That's all evangelical view.

 

[firedragon]

Biological son? That would make jesus a creator. Not sure how this fits since most Christians can separate the two in regards to the Trinity.

Holy spirit or just spirit (excluding the holy adjective) is gods love and grace from Christ. The pentecost I believe.

Let me ask, how does my belief weigh in what Christians believe and what they don't? Unless it's something completely off, all Christians I spoke with I can find their "context" in scripture.

But literalism?

No spiritual book I know of is verbatim. That's all evangelical view.

Completely irrelevant brother. So, cheers.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Completely irrelevant brother. So, cheers.

Why have a conversation if you dont to work out confusion and clarification?

Unless you just want someone to agree with you to talk and cut it if they don't?

It's a huge pet peeve. Parience.

 

[firedragon]

Why have a conversation if you dont to work out confusion and clarification?

Unless you just want someone to agree with you to talk and cut it if they don't?

It's a huge pet peeve. Parience.

I didnt make any claim for anyone to agree. So I think you should check yourself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I didnt make any claim for anyone to agree. So I think you should check yourself.

Now you're insulting. How did you get to discussing the Trinity to this?

 

[firedragon]

Now you're insulting. How did you get to discussing the Trinity to this?

Cheers.

 

[nPeace]

A lot of christians say they get what they are saying from god and scripture.

So, you say scripture A is true. Another says scripture B is true.

Then both of you say each other is wrong. I'm wondering if they are wrong because you have the correct view over the other person? (If it's god's view, than how can you judge someone else on their knowledge of scripture when it's between them and god).


When you (people) say they are right and the other is wrong, and they point reasons why the other is wrong it discredits the other person's opinions and beliefs.

For example, with the trinity. Christians group A say trinitarians wrong and likewise visa versa. And they "both" said their scripture interpretation comes from god.

But if you guys say each other is wrong, you (all) are basically discrediting each other's point of view in favor of your own (I know it's god, but your view of what god says to you). Some christians say that's just "tough love" and others are passive aggressive about it.

I'm wondering what you really think of scripture, because I find myself incapable of seeing how someone going by scripture, cannot see how there is truth and error, or falsehood, and how truth must be known, and is known, in order to point out error.

(1 Timothy 4:1, 2) 1 However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.

(2 Peter 3:16) . . .speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

(John 8:31, 32) 31 Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

(John 4:23, 24) 23 . . . the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

You probably will disagree when I suggest that people who don't know, or can't tell the difference between truth and error, thinks that everyone must be like them.
Is that how you feel about it?

Of course it would be different today. Different time. Different environment. Different language. Different culture. I wouldn't expect biblical laws and ethics from before the common era to be applicable to people in Utah United States.

Ah thanks, for clarifying what I thought.

What do "you" personally thing we should do that other christians are not doing; and, since all of you say it's from god, how do you personally know others are wrong when they are getting their message and interpretations from god (as they say) and not themselves?

No. I asked if some christians I talk with and who belittle other denominations with the justification of their faith if they have the real interpretation (message, so have you) from god and others do not. They don't answer. They can talk against other christians but not say they are right and the other is wrong-a direct statement based on their judgement.

They can say what they like Artist. We can say anything we like.
I told you before how we know truth from error. You are paying attention, correct?

As an outsider, how do you show me that what you say is true and someone else, say a trinitarian, is false? (and vis versa)

I explained this in detail Artist. Sigh

I recall you said your memory is bad, but please understand how frustrating it can be when it appears people are not paying attention to what another is saying.
I will repeat one scripture, and hope that it jogs your memory.
(Acts 17:2, 3) 2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references. . .

If it does not, search the scripture in the thread, or go back through my posts. Sigh
I hate this. I really do.

Is there another approach than both parties giving scripture verses (the same ones mind you) to justify their view comes from god?
Sometimes people are unreasonable, and they demonstrate their unreasonableness.

After trying to reason, and realizing that people are not doing so...
Jesus replied to them: “Why am I even speaking to you at all? (John 8:25)
Paul and Barʹna·bas boldly said to them: “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are rejecting it and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. (Acts 13:46)

Lest they respond as they did with Stephen.
Well, at hearing these things, they were infuriated in their hearts and began to grind their teeth at him. . .
At this they cried out at the top of their voices and put their hands over their ears and rushed at him all together. 58 After throwing him outside the city, they began stoning him.. . .
(Acts 7:54-58)

Not sure how this came in the picture. Jehovah witnesses, the one's I speak with, are more direct than other christians I had spoken with. I did ask one on RF if he was right and others are wrong, he never answered.

What do you mean by more direct?
Do you mean like this...
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error. (1 John 4:6)
We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)

I can assume that you guys say you're right and the others are wrong based on how you both talk against each other's denomination and theology, but if I asked directly, there's no answer.

You did not get an answer?
You seem to be asking two questions... one you got an answer to, and this one here.
Are you asking if JWs say they are right, and the others wrong?
That has been answered so many times on these forums.
Take a look here.

You've never heard of christ being the head of the body of believers?

Okay.

That's what denominations are, bodies of believers. (Scripture, a church)

No. They are bodies of unbelievers, and anti-Christ.
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15) 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.
(2 Corinthians 4:3, 4) 3 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
(Matthew 7:21-23) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

But, my question is which denominations don't consider christ the head of the church?

I don't know what any people of various denominations consider. I only know what they claim.
However, what one claims, and what one considers, can be two completely different things.
Matthew 7:13, 14
You should really have joined me on this thread, since we seem to be going away from the topic of Trinitarian arguments.

 

[nPeace]

According to orthodox Nicene Trinitarianism as it is understood in the Latin tradition of the Catholic Church, there is but one single supreme, ineffable and inexpressible reality which is the 'essence', substance or being of God. That which is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is that one self-same reality - there is no other.

Since “the act of God’s intellect is His substance (essence)” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa), His self-consciousness as an object in Himself is common to the Persons as one 'being' - He has a single intellect and will - rather than individuated severally. "God is not three consciousnesses but One Consciousness who subsists in a threefold relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit", to quote the great divine Robert South (1634 – 1716) in his Animadversions against the tritheistic heresy of William Sherlocke (who, inspired by Descartes, preached a "unity of shared consciousness between three infinite divine minds").

However, while God in Himself is that one single 'essence'; God as He relates to Himself subsists in or as three co-eternal and co-equal hypostases ('persons' or distinct subsisting relations of the one essence and substance) which are not apart from the essence but a threefold subsistence of it. The Council of Florence tells us that "everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this.” (Council of Florence Session 11 ) i.e. the distinct relations of origin are the only way in which the Persons are truly differentiated through the personal properties of Paternity, Filiation and Spiration. There are no other distinctions in God.

The Three Persons are thus only distinct in their eternal relations of origin - begetting of the Son and procession of the Spirit - but everything else one might say about them (will, power, intellect, goodness, consciousness etc.) is spoken indivisibly of the Divine Life they are as one essence and being. In that sense the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) tells us: “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature… Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial .”

And the Council of Florence: “These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this.” (Council of Florence Session 11).

If you understand that, can you please explain it... and how you use John 10:30 in relation to the explanation.

 

[nPeace]

Yes my memory is bad.

Sorry to hear that.
May I suggest you seriously consider some of these. Especially important imo, are 1, 5, 7, and 11.
It's true the future paradise will repair memory loss, but we can still do what we can now, to improve our health.

 

[nPeace]

I don't have to use the same language you use to agree or disagree on the same context of what we are "discussing."



You're creating a fight that doesn't exist.

I would use the word spirit. You use force. Force sounds star wars to me and very new age. It's a preference in word choice. Why make something more of it than discussion?



If you ask someone who has not heard of christianity what the term holy spirit is, they would not know. They would need to know what the word spirit is in order to understand why a christian would consider it holy.

The same thing with force. If you ask someone who does not know metaphysics, new age, and never saw star wars what force is they would look at you the same because, like spirit, these are jargon words appropriate for topics like religion or so have you. They're not everyday words we use when discussing topics outside the metaphysics and religious realm. Unless you're talking more about astronomy and physics? Then force may come to play.

I think you're making an argument with yourself. I was just discussing how I see the word and what would I would use based on the context of the discussion and the word you use to describe what that life-force is.

Discussion and "learning from each other" not an argument.



Well, it's not an error since it's how I see it and use the word to describe what brings life. It's not a statement of fact, so what are you correcting?



Because in "my opinion" the word force sounds new age and very science fiction. So, that isn't a word I "would choose" to use when discussing what you are describing in context.

Holy spirit=active force-dynamic energy=spirt

I cut to the chase and just use spirit. The other word's aren't needed unless having a discussion like this where we learn something from each other not devalue each other's opinions.



I don't use "holy spirit" because it's christian jargon. I prefer to use the term spirit. Have all my life. I never understood what christians meant by it until later in adult life. They use it differently than I am accustomed to.

I'm not a "dictionary scripture" person but that definition is the closest I can find when looking for a direct definition of spirit (and force) we can agree on per the same resource (dictionary). Best to have the same resource if we're discussing the same topic and going back and forth with our opinions and learning from each other, etc.

What's wrong with that?

Yes. I know spirit can mean many different things, such as you said:

"Spirit can be many different things. Wind; breath; energy; force in motion; non physical beings; disposition; etc."

What are you trying to say, if you agree with me that spirit can mean different things?

If one is discussing the Bible, one should stick with what's in the Bible,,, not choose to use whatever one prefers.
Holy spirit is not "Christian jargon".
If one prefers not to take what is written in scripture seriously, then it's best they leave the Bible out of their discussion, because then we'd be saying it's okay to be saying whatever we like, where scripture is concerned.

 

[Vouthon]

Trinity is as you probably know three different persons of the same essence.

If I may ask, how do you understand the use of the word "person" in this creedal Trinitarian formula?

I hope you are aware that the Patristic usages of the Latin persona and the Greek hypostasis don't refer to what modern English means by the term "person" (i.e. autonomous, independent centres of consciousness and willing).

 

[Vouthon]

If you understand that, can you please explain it... and how you use John 10:30 in relation to the explanation.

Happy to do so!

The three divine Persons are not distinct personalities (that is "three distinct minds in God", which would mean three distinct substances, because 'mind' in Patristic usage means 'intelligent substance' and there is only one ousia or divine intelligent substance in God).

Thus, Jesus can say in John 10:30: "I and my Father are one" which is to say a single essence, substance, supreme reality or 'mind/conciousness' depending on the terminology one uses to express the same basic idea in different languages and contexts. The Gospel of John also states: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does’ (John 5:19).

What 'person' - in modern human, psychological terms - lacks any agency whatsoever, such that he can only do what another person is doing? The divine 'persons' - language not used in scripture but first by Tertullian in the early third century to try and express the same underlying idea described in John in Latin - are not like 'human persons' with independent wills, intellects or centres of consciousness. They are distinct only by 'relation' and perfectly 'one' in every other respect.

So, the orthodox Trinitarian understanding is that the 'persons' are Three Distinct Subsistences of one and the same Infinite Eternal Mind, included in, or belonging to all and each of them.

God considered in Himself is thus one single ‘essence’, 'mind' or ‘supreme reality’. On the other hand, God as He relates to Himself subsists in three co-eternal and co-equal 'relations' of the one essence and substance to Itself: which we call Paternity (Father), Filiation (Son) and Spiration (Holy Spirit). The Three Persons.

I hope that helps.

 

[firedragon]

If I may ask, how do you understand the use of the word "person" in this creedal Trinitarian formula?

I hope you are aware that the Patristic usages of the Latin persona and the Greek hypostasis don't refer to what modern English means by the term "person" (i.e. autonomous, independent centres of consciousness and willing).

God is one in three persons or hypostases, each person expressing the whole fullness of the Godhead, with all his attributes. The term "persona" is taken neither in the old sense of a mere personation or form of manifestation (Prosopon in Greek), nor in the modern sense of an independent, separate being or individual, but in a sense which lies between these two conceptions. "Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti"

Cheers.

 

[Vouthon]

God is one in three persons or hypostases, each person expressing the whole fullness of the Godhead, with all his attributes. The term "persona" is taken neither in the old sense of a mere personation or form of manifestation (Prosopon in Greek), nor in the modern sense of an independent, separate being or individual, but in a sense which lies between these two conceptions. "Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti"

Cheers.

Excellent description, thank you.

I had to ask, due to the fact that when people are not working from the same underlying definition and understanding, these discussions can become incredibly unwieldy, with folks talking past one another.

I'm so pleased to see that you are using the orthodox Nicene framework and so I have confidence that we are in fact discussing the same "thing" (which cannot always be assumed whenever the Trinity is raised, from my past experience).

 

[firedragon]

Excellent description, thank you.

I had to ask, due to the fact that when people are not working from the same underlying definition and understanding, these discussions can become incredibly unwieldy, with folks talking past one another.

I'm so pleased to see that you are using the orthodox Nicene framework and so I have confidence that we are in fact discussing the same "thing" (which cannot always be assumed whenever the Trinity is raised, from my past experience).

I perfectly understand why you asked Vouthon. I agree with you that even if people don't believe in each others faiths or creeds (of course) they must have the right understanding of them. And as you put it, they will not be discussing the same thing.

Cheers.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm wondering what you really think of scripture, because I find myself incapable of seeing how someone going by scripture, cannot see how there is truth and error, or falsehood, and how truth must be known, and is known, in order to point out error.

(1 Timothy 4:1, 2) 1 However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.

(2 Peter 3:16) . . .speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

(John 8:31, 32) 31 Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

(John 4:23, 24) 23 . . . the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

You probably will disagree when I suggest that people who don't know, or can't tell the difference between truth and error, thinks that everyone must be like them.
Is that how you feel about it?



Ah thanks, for clarifying what I thought.


They can say what they like Artist. We can say anything we like.
I told you before how we know truth from error. You are paying attention, correct?


I explained this in detail Artist. Sigh

I recall you said your memory is bad, but please understand how frustrating it can be when it appears people are not paying attention to what another is saying.
I will repeat one scripture, and hope that it jogs your memory.
(Acts 17:2, 3) 2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references. . .

If it does not, search the scripture in the thread, or go back through my posts. Sigh
I hate this. I really do.


After trying to reason, and realizing that people are not doing so...
Jesus replied to them: “Why am I even speaking to you at all? (John 8:25)
Paul and Barʹna·bas boldly said to them: “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are rejecting it and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. (Acts 13:46)

Lest they respond as they did with Stephen.
Well, at hearing these things, they were infuriated in their hearts and began to grind their teeth at him. . .
At this they cried out at the top of their voices and put their hands over their ears and rushed at him all together. 58 After throwing him outside the city, they began stoning him.. . .
(Acts 7:54-58)


What do you mean by more direct?
Do you mean like this...
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error. (1 John 4:6)
We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)


You did not get an answer?
You seem to be asking two questions... one you got an answer to, and this one here.
Are you asking if JWs say they are right, and the others wrong?
That has been answered so many times on these forums.
Take a look here.


Okay.


No. They are bodies of unbelievers, and anti-Christ.
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15) 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.
(2 Corinthians 4:3, 4) 3 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
(Matthew 7:21-23) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’


I don't know what any people of various denominations consider. I only know what they claim.
However, what one claims, and what one considers, can be two completely different things.
Matthew 7:13, 14
You should really have joined me on this thread, since we seem to be going away from the topic of Trinitarian arguments.

Real quick. I see things (least I try) in multiple perspectives. They don't need to be a life and death, black and white, situation. That's all politics. Instead, reading books about people, theology, etc I can see why one group believes X and why another believes Y. How they justify it is logical -regardless- if I disagree with it.

Disagreeing with it doesn't mean it's not logical. I've never been an "you're wrong, I'm right" type a person. Makes me seem indecisive but it prevents me from being fixed in a world were we change even our beliefs.

Anyhow, right/wrong and agree/disagree are two separate things. I've shown you logically how both sides are in scripture. That doesn't mean you need to agree with it. Call it wrong if you will. I just find it different views from the same book.

So that leads me to you, and every, other, christian says they got their view from god and it is not their view but god's.

How can you demonstrate what god told you through scripture is right and all else are wrong?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm wondering what you really think of scripture, because I find myself incapable of seeing how someone going by scripture, cannot see how there is truth and error, or falsehood, and how truth must be known, and is known, in order to point out error.

I "understand" both sides and I can see how they got their conclusion from scripture. Right or wrong, bad or good, etc, it's not my place to say. I don't believe spirituality should be debated in that manner. Many christians do not agree, as per experience and RF observation. Using the bible as a weapon.

I can't remember where I explained it to you and a couple others many times. You may disagree but that doesn't mean it's not logical in how both trinitarian and non-trinitarian came across their conclusions.

You probably will disagree when I suggest that people who don't know, or can't tell the difference between truth and error, thinks that everyone must be like them.

Is that how you feel about it?

Inherently, no. I do not think that.

I think it's human condition or something to think just because we say an opinion or belief, the other must agree with us in order for us to understand them.

Ah thanks, for clarifying what I thought.

To tell you honestly, I think it's rather odd. If we should apply B.C. lessons and even medical ethics on today's time period, we wouldn't have all the medical advances we have now. And law! People still be stoning others unless they become christian.

They can say what they like Artist. We can say anything we like. I told you before how we know truth from error. You are paying attention, correct?

Doesn't mean I agree with you. Big difference. (Note above: I think.... )

Also, I believe you are christian... if so, you're part of that boat.

I remember you mentioned that it was not your interpretation of scripture but it comes from god (that was your answer to the question I repeated last time). So, I added to that and said every other christian says that, so? Can you explain how "that is different" than what they say.

What makes you unique. (Period not question mark)

I recall you said your memory is bad, but please understand how frustrating it can be when it appears people are not paying attention to what another is saying

Thank you for remembering. No pun.

I guess there's a catch-22 there. IF I did not remember some of what you said, then it would seem like I didn't pay attention but in reality, I just forgot.

It's better to just ignore the question than make something out of it. We don't need to answer everyone's question and point online. I hear a lot of negative things about my memory, so if I repeat a question I can't tell if you (guys) actually read it, read it and decide to debate it, making an argument, or what.

What do you mean by more direct?
Do you mean like this...
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error. (1 John 4:6)
We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)

JW quote scripture after scripture. For some reason, to be blunt, I don't know if they can have a full conversation about god without some quoting scripture involved.

But yes, they are more direct. It's nice sometimes when they're just talking about their religion. When they talk about other people and how they see other people "like they are wicked etc" then that's when I shut my ears.

You did not get an answer?
You seem to be asking two questions... one you got an answer to, and this one here.
Are you asking if JWs say they are right, and the others wrong?
That has been answered so many times on these forums.
Take a look here.

If it's repetitive-ignore it.

No need to comment and make an argument over it.

No. They are bodies of unbelievers, and anti-Christ.

Who are you talking about?

All christians are body of believers. I never heard of any group of christians called unbelievers. Denominations aside. Just talking about all those who have a relationship with christ.

I don't know what any people of various denominations consider. I only know what they claim.
However, what one claims, and what one considers, can be two completely different things.
Matthew 7:13, 14
You should really have joined me on this thread, since we seem to be going away from the topic of Trinitarian arguments.

After reading your last comment, I'm sure you know something of what they believe in to talk against them.

You don't have to agree with me. I was also wondering if you understand what I am saying when I said I see both views in scripture-do you understand and disagree or don't understand it?

Right/wrong, error/truth, wicked or not, just wanted to know if you understand what I'm saying first.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If one is discussing the Bible, one should stick with what's in the Bible,,, not choose to use whatever one prefers.
Holy spirit is not "Christian jargon".
If one prefers not to take what is written in scripture seriously, then it's best they leave the Bible out of their discussion, because then we'd be saying it's okay to be saying whatever we like, where scripture is concerned.

Christian jargon or words specific to the christian faith like jesus christ, NT scripture (some overlaps of other abrahamic religions), angels is one, satan, adam and eve, sin, etc.

They're words specific to the christian faith. "Holy Spirit" used together as a noun is part of the trinity and is specific to the christian faith.

There's nothing with it.

It's not the fact of not using scripture. Of course you can use scripture. It's taking it and only it as if there is no other source that compliments scripture as means of discussion. "They look to scripture as if it has eternal life" type of thing. Idolism.

 

[nPeace]

Happy to do so!

The three divine Persons are not distinct personalities (that is "three distinct minds in God", which would mean three distinct substances, because 'mind' in Patristic usage means 'intelligent substance' and there is only one ousia or divine intelligent substance in God).

Thus, Jesus can say in John 10:30: "I and my Father are one" which is to say a single essence, substance, supreme reality or 'mind/conciousness' depending on the terminology one uses to express the same basic idea in different languages and contexts. The Gospel of John also states: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does’ (John 5:19).

What 'person' - in modern human, psychological terms - lacks any agency whatsoever, such that he can only do what another person is doing? The divine 'persons' - language not used in scripture but first by Tertullian in the early third century to try and express the same underlying idea described in John in Latin - are not like 'human persons' with independent wills, intellects or centres of consciousness. They are distinct only by 'relation' and perfectly 'one' in every other respect.

So, the orthodox Trinitarian understanding is that the 'persons' are Three Distinct Subsistences of one and the same Infinite Eternal Mind, included in, or belonging to all and each of them.

God considered in Himself is thus one single ‘essence’, 'mind' or ‘supreme reality’. On the other hand, God as He relates to Himself subsists in three co-eternal and co-equal 'relations' of the one essence and substance to Itself: which we call Paternity (Father), Filiation (Son) and Spiration (Holy Spirit). The Three Persons.

I hope that helps.

Thanks.
Let me see if I get the basics of what you believe.
God is three persons - father, son, and holy spirit. Correct?
These three persons are one mind - not distinct. Your basis for believing that is, for one thing, John 5:19. Correct?
These three persons are distinct only by 'relation' - that is, the father is not the son, and the holy spirit is neither. Correct?

If all the above are correct, I have a few questions.
Can you explain?
1) How are they related?
2) How was the son begotten?
3) What did Jesus mean by the words at John 12:49, 50?
...and 4) How does Acts 2:32, 33 describe one God as three persons?