Yes...I have read through most of this debate...however, the premise of what he thinks the Trinity is, is not even really defined
I am Dave Burke, and I thank you for taking an interest in the debate.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to re-evaluate the unnecessary haste with which this thread was closed, and your subsequent re-opening of it.
Even though several of my posts were deleted by others on this forum, and even edited in my name, the thrust of my position still remains intact.
Firstly, defining the Trinity was not my responsibility, but Bowman's. He presented a basic definition and I made it clear that I agreed to work with this definition throughout our debate.
Unless I missed the obvious, where is Bowman's side of the debate located?
You show only one side(yours).
Usually, when a debate is logged, both positions are shown side-by-side for easy comparison and to keep the other honest.
Secondly, I repeatedly demonstrated what I understand the Trinity to be, using orthodox definitions straight from the mouths of Trinitarians.
In Week 1 I defined the two essential formula of Trinitarianism as 'Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God' and 'God = Father + Son + Holy Spirit.' Bowman did not disagree with these definitions, though he disagreed with me over the methodology required to prove them.
In the same week I cited the Athanasian Creed to show that despite his claim to use concepts derived solely from Scripture, Bowman was relying on 4th Century theology:You count the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 'three persons', then you tell me that they are all 'Yahweh', but you don't want to accept that three persons each called 'Yahweh' comprise three Yahwehs. This reflects the logically incoherent statements of the Athanasian Creed, which states:
So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
Here we have a series of unBiblical statements which mirror your own assertions exactly. Our readers should now be asking themselves how you can claim to be only using concepts derived purely from Scripture, whilst simultaneously articulating ideas sourced directly from fourth-century theological traditions, in language inspired directly by the metaphysical language of that period.
Bowman did not disagree with this definition.
Then why are we not allowed to see his comments? />
The plus signs in your definition seem to indicate that you think that summation is required.
Regardless...since you feel that you have a mental grasp as to what the Trinity is, well, then show us your very best Trinity-killer verse and detail to us exactly how it supposedly thwarts the Trinity.
This is the same friendly challenge that I extend to all Trinity-deniers just to keep them honest and to see if they know what they are talking about.
As we can see, no one on this 'Unitarian only'forum was willing to take up the challenge...instead, relying on the delete, edit and lock keys...not impressive...
Will you?