Trinity talk

I just had a Jehovah Witness man stop by the house today. It has been many months since a JW representative came by the manse. The man who came by was named David. He was well dressed and seemed to be truly enjoying walking around in the beautiful Merrill sunshine.
I introduced myself to David and told him I was the pastor of the Church right across the street. David's beaming smile dimmed and his hopeful stance shrugged when I shared this news. He was somewhat out of sorts when I next invited him to chat for a while.
David was unsure of how to proceed so I suggested that we might talk about the Trinity (a doctrine the JW, as neo-Arians, deny). David had a lot of trouble with the concept of God as three persons. He kept wanting to tell me that I was dividing the one God into three parts (modalism). I told him that I respected the diversity of the persons of God and that he did not respect their essential unity, trying to seperate the Son and the Spirit from the Father in some kind of hierarchy that I neither suggested nor implied.
David turned me to the popular JW passage for 'dealing' with my 'error.' He quoted the JW prooftext Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Actually, he first told me to read Colossians 1:18, "He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything," which ironically is where his argument collapsed. As an orthodox Christian, I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, that God is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit; three in one, one in three. I stand with the historic Church affirming that Jesus Christ is fully human AND fully divine. In quoting from Colossians, David took things out of context. The remainder of the paragraph affirms the supremacy of Christ and qualifies the 'firstborn' status of Jesus as the 'firstborn' from the dead, i.e. the firstborn of the NEW creation. (See also Hebrews 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. "for the eternal existence of the Son of God).
Now I am an arrogant man, one prone to harsh interrogation and cruel inquisition. This is my modis oprandi as a sinner. With David, however, God, the Holy Spirit, gave me the fruit of gentleness, and I am very thankful. David accused me of not being open to God's leading in my reading of Scripture (an unusual accusation coming from a JW). He told me that I was unable and unwilling to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, despite (in his opinion), there being little evidence of the Trinity in Scripture. I thought, though did not say, that it is odd to me that he is unable and unwilling to consider the possibility of the Trinity when he reads Scripture.
We discussed the topic for a while, but really made no headway in coming to a shared understanding. David denied the basic orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and would not countenance its possibility. I denied the Arian heterodox teaching of the Son as a creature and would not countenance such a possibility.
David said some strange things. He assured me that it was Satan and not God who led the magi to the Christ child. He questioned why Jesus would take time to speak to the Father if they were the same person (I attempted to correct him, explaining the Trinitarian viewpoint on such matters, but David continually returned to his old argument, which is evidence of programmed talking points, and not of clear investigation and thought). He finally attacked the Church (all of us orthodox folks) for not using the name of God, YHWH, (which he insists is correctly pointed 'Jehovah,' and I assured him it was not). His argument was that we DIShonor God by not using God's name in worship. I told him we refer to Jesus all the time and call God the Father by the name Jesus used for him, i.e. 'Father.' David also told me that the word, 'Lord' in the Old Testament was inappropriate in place of the name of God, despite its historical precedent (a point he categorically denied, i.e. the Septuagint did not use 'kurios' in place of 'YHWH'). It is clear that David and I were not easy conversation partners on matters of theology.
We parted company cordially, with David assuring me he would look deeper into the doctrine of the Trinity for my sake (with the implication that in our next meeting, he would set me straight). I welcome David's future visit, hoping that the Holy Spirit will break through the walls he has erected around his beliefs and reveal God's Trinitarian truth.