@SeanOConnor "Hang on, go back a step. I get that you don't believe in the Trinity. Can you explain how the HS at the baptism of Jesus disproves the Trinity? You seem to either be arguing that any distinguishable action of the three persons contradicts the Trinity, correct?" Why do you say that?

@SeanOConnor Disproves the Trinity for whom? Different people have different background beliefs, where pointing out one thing might count as a 'disproof' for one person but not another.

For you, does it disprove the Trinity as usually defined, e.g. in the Athanasian Creed.

@SeanOConnor Well, first you have to say what the 'Trinity' is. What is it that is going to be disproved?

As envisaged by the Athanasian Creed or a typical Christian formulation. One God, 3 consubstantial persons.

Can you answer my question now, please? You said yes, the HS at Jesus' baptism disproves the Trinity. How?

You had the confidence to give a simple yes before, now tell me, why/how?

@SeanOConnor What does it mean for 1 God, 3 'consubstantial persons'? These are just words. What do you mean by them?

@SeanOConnor For example, you're a person, I'm a person. What does it mean for multiple 'persons' to be in one 'substance'? What are we talking about disproving here?

@SeanOConnor But yes, I consider it a disproof of the HS being the same being as the Father, because it's clearly talked about as a distinct being, coming from the Father.

You're being obtuse.

You've got an entire post dealing with consubstantiality.

OK, so it looks like you don't understand what the Trinity means

Trinitarians maintain that one being does not imply only one person.

God can have three persons in one being

Thus allowing distinguishable action

Now, you're free to reject that (wrong, but free).

@SeanOConnor I don't claim to actually understand what 'the Trinity' means. The more I study it, the more it appears no one does.

But arguing that a concept that has distinguishable persons of God has problems with distinguishable actions of God is silly

You posted assertions about the Trinity several times

Are you in the habit of confidently asserting specific problems and even disproofs on concepts that you don't know the definition of?

The Athanasian Creed is pretty ckear

@SeanOConnor Yes, this is the verbal formulation. What is a 'person' here?

@SeanOConnor Similarly, what does 'one being' mean?

Why are you asserting that there are disproofs of concepts that you both you and all mankind can't define?

@SeanOConnor To the extent I think it has any semantic content, I think it's disproven for someone like me who has various other background beliefs.

@SeanOConnor I'm well acquainted with various definitions related to Trinitarianism. But at the same time I know many people simply use words, and those that look more deeply into the matter still often end up with mysteries which 'must be so' because of their interpretation of John 1:14 (say).

But you argued a specific instance - the HS at Jesus' baptism disproved it. Surely you understand how?

@SeanOConnor Yes, I told you how above. It's clearly a distinct being from the Father.

@SeanOConnor The Athanasian Creed is about as far from semantic clarity as one can get.

@SeanOConnor "My cat, dog, and budgie are 3 persons in 1 being. I know this by how I interpreted my tea leaves this morning. How can this be so? Well, the ultimate basis of physical reality is not something we can expect to understand in our human logical categories. Mystery of mysteries." <<< Basically how I view Trinitarianism when stripped of the big words.

@SeanOConnor Again, what's a 'person', since the theory is so clear?

@SeanOConnor Surely a clear theory, especially if assent to it is required for salvation (!) as the early formulation of the Athanasian Creed insisted, can be easily explained in a way that it can be grasped.

That's circular

You won't tell me how

Tell me how.

Within the framework of the Trinity - I know you disagree with it - how separate personhood is a problem.

Or concede that your argument is circular and that the only problem you can find is actually with the basic categories asserted by the doctrine of the Trinity themselves.

@SeanOConnor Anyone working with new evidence has background beliefs. So my background beliefs are such that, if I were anew to be presented with Mark 1:10-11, it would 'prove' that the spirit descending on Jesus 'like a dove' was not the same as the Father who is in Heaven and is the one saying "You are my Son".

@SeanOConnor There you go again. What do you mean by 'person' (and now 'personhood')?

Right, so your 'proof' is actually circular. You haven't actually found a problem with the categories that specifically manifests as a result of the baptism, you just have preexisting problems with the basic concepts underlying the Trinity

Agreed?

As in, your 'disproof' actually rests upon your preexisting categorical rejection of the Trinity

@SeanOConnor No, I just think it's a common-sensical result of reading that passage. "Oh ya, here we don't have the same being acting. Rather, there are 2 distinct things."

Why didn't you just say yes when I asked you if any distinguishable action disproved the Trinity?

@SeanOConnor But it's hard to debate a theory when its proponents refuse to define basic terms they have like 'person'. Again, what do you mean by 'person'?

Yes, so circular. You're asserting common sense disproves the Trinity, therefore it proves the baptism is a problem, therefore it disproves the Trinity

Do you concede the circularity?

@SeanOConnor No, I'm saying common-sense shows we're dealing with 2 distinct things in Mark 1:10-11.

@SeanOConnor Do you concede you don't know what 'person' means in your very important theory that's crucial for salvation (if you hold to the original Athanasian creed)?

You don't know what a proof is

A proof has to be non circular

@SeanOConnor Great, define that for me first, then what you mean by 'person'.

@SeanOConnor Mr. Smartypants. ;)

Your 'disproof' is circular

A proof is a logical argument arising from a given set of premises that shows that something is necessarily true or false. The premises in this case being the HS at the baptism and the basic assertions of Trinitarian theory, you would need to show that there's a contradiction.

You aren't able to demonstrate that, you just assert that the Trinity is a problem and can't cite any specific reason why the baptism is contradictory

@SeanOConnor If by proof you mean showing something is 'necessarily' true or false, that's almost never capable of being done. For example, within Trinitarianism itself, basic elements of logic we take for granted in everyday life are thrown out. If we can't rely on basic logic, how can we prove anything?

@SeanOConnor But sure. The baptism shows there are 2 distinct beings. Trinitarianism asserts there's 1 being. Therefore, Trinitarianism is false.

Right, I'm dragging your horse to the water. You concede that you can't actually dind

A problem specific to the baptism

But that the categories underlying the Trinity are wrong/illogical/whatever

@SeanOConnor No one can prove (in the sense you've given above) almost anything to anyone else. One can always doubt a conclusion, and kick up all sorts of reasons why if one wants to.

@SeanOConnor I just told you what the specific problem is. There are 2 distinct beings depicted at the baptism (HS and Father). T holds there's 1 being.

Sure, that's true. People can always mount desperate defenses of premises. But you've conceded a much bigger problem, namely that you know you can't actually find a specific logical problem i n this instance.

"within Trinitarianism itself, basic elements of logic we take for granted in everyday life are thrown out. If we can't rely on basic logic, how can we prove anything?"

Your problem's entirely with the basic category

@SeanOConnor I just told you the specific problem, repeatedly. I'll ask one more time, but if you don't give an answer, I'll assume you don't actually know. What is a 'person' in your theory?

Which means that you aren't actually arguing from scripture.

Go on, tell me it one more time. Let me guess, you'll assert a relationship (that personhood = being) that the Trinity rejects, or maybe wave a magical common sense wand. Which is it?

@SeanOConnor I love you brother, but I don't think you even know what the basic term 'person' in your theory means!

I'm not going to argue the basic categories until you admit that that is entirely where your problem lies in this instance, and that the problem specific to this example arises from your general problem

@SeanOConnor How would I know unless you said what something as basic as 'person' means in your theory?

Not biting. At least I can distinguish between a specific problem with a concept and a general problem with a concept's underlying categories.

You've even spontaneously offered that you can't find a problem once the categories underlying tje Trinity are accepted, and that the problem is with the categories themselves

But then you try to deny it

I'm trying to decide if its non understanding, self deception, or simple not wanting to concede even a non necessary premise to the other gut

Guy*

Btw, trying to switch to a discussion about an underlying category like personhood proves my point further

@SeanOConnor Not sure what you're referring to here. OK, I accept that you don't know what 'person' means. That's fine - no one actually does. Augustine defined it as 'that of which there are 3'. It's a verbalism without any real underlying semantic content. Usually, it would be trivial to explain something and move on, no? But you refuse because you know it's a quagmire.

"My problem isn't with the categories, even though I've said it is, and I keep wanting to dispute one of them"

See,if you'd be honest, we could move on and you could offer whatever the Watchtower or UU church has trained you to say about personhood.

But while you're denying that your dispute is with an underlying category, I'm not moving on

As debating people who have to claim victory on every single point and won't admit that a noncentral argument was flawed is a waste of time.

Personhood's an underlying category, and that's where your dispute is.

Concede it. Why the pride?

@SeanOConnor Although I think JWs have an interesting (and ancient, really - basically 2nd century logos-theorists) Christology, I'm neither JW or UU. My background is contained in my profile.

@SeanOConnor Ok, not trying to force you to debate - God bless.

Repent and be saved. May God bless you with the truth.

@SeanOConnor Showing the Trinity is scripturally sound is one thing. Showing belief in the Trinity (whatever we mean by that) is required for salvation is another. But I still consider you a brother in Christ. I don't think you lose salvation for making a conceptual error. Peace.