The Instigator
jar2187
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
daley
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Is The Trinity a Logical Concept?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,365 times Debate No: 16464
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (54)
Votes (5)

 

jar2187

Con

I will argue that the concept of the Trinity is not a logical concept...

The Groiler's Encyclopedia of Knowledge states that the Trinity "refers to the Christian understanding of GOD as a unity of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equally God and so are one, each sharing in the divine attributes of ultimacy, eternity, and changelessness; yet they are distinguishable in their relations to each other and in their roles within creaturely and human life and destiny."

Let A = Father, B= Son, C = Holy Spirit, and d = God

Using a logical/mathematical schema:

A = d
B = d
C = d

However,

Ad != Bd
Bd != Cd
Ad != Cd

The Father (who is God) is not the Son (who is God) is not the Holy Spirit (who is God). But the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. Each person is distinguished from another. In addition, each person is God. Therefore, logically, there are three distinguished Gods for each distinguished person. However, my opponent would say that each person are one God, and that there is only one Gods. This is not logically sound. Therefore, the Trinity is not a logical concept.

Sources:
Groiler's Encyclopedia of Knowledge
daley

Pro

The word "God" as used in trinitarianism, refers to the (1) the nature that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess, just as we would say we are "human" without claiming to be each other, so to the Father, Son or Holy Spirit can claim to be God without claiming to be each other. Secondly, the word "God" means (2) the Being that posesses this nature. This being is a tri-personal being, meaning he is three persons. Three centres of consciousness existing inside one omnipresent essense or substance or nature. This is not a contrdiction.

The Father is not the same centre of consciousness or the same mind as the Son geographically; however, he does share the same nature or substance as the Son and Holy Spirit, that is, he too is God. It's like a man with three brains, and this is why the trinity was so represented in ancient trinitarian art. Each mind owns and shares the same body as the other two, so these are not three separate beings; they are all part of the same being. Yet, if each mind presents a individual conscious personality, then we have three persons in one body. The difference with God of course is that he is omnipresent, and therefore only has such bodies as he materializes when revealing himself to man in the OT, or the body of Jesus in the incarnation.

My opponent claims the trinity is not logical because he thinks it presents three gods, but you can only have three gods where each person is separated geographically by posessing different bodies independent of each other. Because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are part of the same being, and one cannot exist without the other, this makes them one being (God) and not three.

True, God the Father is not God the Son, but this in no way implies two Gods. My opponent just doesn't understand trinitarian language. The term "God the Father" is a reference to his "personhood" not his "Godhood," so that he is shown to be another person and not another God.
Debate Round No. 1
jar2187

Con

I thank my opponent for contending to my challenge and participating in my debate.

”The word "God" as used in trinitarianism, refers to the (1) the nature that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess, just as we would say we are "human" without claiming to be each other, so to the Father, Son or Holy Spirit can claim to be God without claiming to be each other.”

Yet, we do not claim to be the same human. Jar2187 and daley are indeed different persons. We do have the same (human) nature. But we are not one human

“Secondly, the word "God" means (2) the Being that posesses this nature. This being is a tri-personal being, meaning he is three persons. Three centres of consciousness existing inside one omnipresent essense or substance or nature. This is not a contrdiction.”
daley wants to convince us that this can be logically possible. Yet, if the three persons each are fully one being and that one being is god, then this entails that each person is must be a god. The word ‘each’ entails this distinction. However, daley believes there is only one god. A contradiction exists. Furthermore…

“Because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are part of the same being…”
But if these persons are merely part of the same being, they cannot be the being itself. That is, for example, if the Father is only part of god, the Father cannot be fully god (only part). This is called the fallacy of composition[1][2][3][4], which is an “error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole”[5]. The same goes for the other two persons…

“God the Father is not God the Son, but this in no way implies two Gods. “My opponent just doesn't understand trinitarian language.””
I do. I understand that the Trinitarian language is not logical. Thank you and thank you to my opponent for his rebuttal.

[1] Fallacy of Composition: http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[2] Not So Fast! The Fallacy of Composition: http://fee.org...
[3] Fallacy of Composition: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] Introduction to Logic (12th edition) – Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen
[5] Fallacy of Composition: http://www.google.com...
daley

Pro

"Yet, we do not claim to be the same human. Jar2187 and daley are indeed different persons. We do have the same (human) nature. But we are not one human…"

Of course we are not one human, because unlike the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we are not inclluded in a tripersonal being, so me and you could not be one human. My point was that having the same nature doesn't make us the same person; similarly, having the same nature (being God), doesn't make the Father and Son the same person.

"daley wants to convince us that this can be logically possible. Yet, if the three persons each are fully one being and that one being is god, then this entails that each person is must be a god. The word ‘each' entails this distinction. However, daley believes there is only one god. A contradiction exists. Furthermore…"

I never said that each person is fully one being! The Father is not a complete being independent of the Son and Holy Spirit; he is part of the trinity, not the trinity itself. He is part of a tripersonal being, not the entire tripersonal being himself. If 3 tronadoes form over an island, lets call the tornadoes F, S and H; the tornadoe F is fully air, or wind, because it has the same nature as S and H. It is made of the same substance or gas as the other two; yet, while there are 3 tornadoes, there is only ONE atomosphere, one air or wind that blows all over the earth. A piece of an apple is still fully apple, for that is its nature. It is hard to find anything in nature that accurately represnts what God is like since he is so unique; but I'm sure my opponent gets the point and so do the readers.

"But if these persons are merely part of the same being, they cannot be the being itself."

I never said they were. No Christian claims that Jesus is the trinity, or that the Father or the Holy Spirit by themselves can each be the whole trinity, even though they can each speak on behalf of the entire Godhead. They are PART of God in the sense that they are part of the tri-personal being we know as God; and each one is FULLY God in the other sense that each has the nature of that divine being, namely, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternality, immutability, and so forth. There is no contradiction when we realize that the word "God" is used in more than one sense.

"That is, for example, if the Father is only part of god, the Father cannot be fully god (only part)"

I answered this objection already, but now who is being illogical? Is it really logical to put restrictions on a limitless God for whom all things are possible? (Matt 19:26)

"This is called the fallacy of composition[1][2][3][4], which is an "error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole"[5]. The same goes for the other two persons…"

A scoup of flour is still flower, just like the whole bag of flower is still flower. A scuoup of ice-cream is still ice-cream just like the whole container of it is ince-cream cause it has the same nature. The characteristics of the Father are the sme as those possessed by the entire trinity Godhoead, and I've listed these attributes above, so in this case what is true of part of the being is true of the being. But there are differences between part of the whole and the whole; for example, the whole is a trinity, but a part of the whole is not! This isn't a contradiction at all. The blood in my left hand is blood, FULLY blood, it has the same nature as all the blood running through my whole body. And it has the same nature as my body by virtue of its DNA.

"I understand that the Trinitarian language is not logical. Thank you and thank you to my opponent for his rebuttal."

My opponent hasn't presented any real contradiction.

One way of stating the doctrine is to say that God is three Persons in one essence.

Essence means, "The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. The most important ingredient; the crucial element. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things." Person means, "The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self."

So essence and Person are somewhat related, but they are not identical. The former refers to intrinsic properties and the latter emphasizes individual personality. So there is no logical contradiction in saying God is three in Person and one in essence. The "things" being compared (i.e. person vs. essence) are not identical in every respect.

In fact, in its definition of "person" The American Heritage Dictionary includes the following, "Theology. The separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them." (Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version)

Another way of looking at God's three-in-oneness is to study His objective knowledge versus His subjective knowledge. Objective can mean, "Based on observable phenomena, or free from bias." (I would add that personal exerience can form a bias)

Since all three Members of the Godhead are omniscient, each knows all things that can be observed. So they all have the same objective knowledge (i.e. each possesses all objective knowledge possible).

On the other hand, subjective can mean, "Particular to a given person; personal subjective experience." So subjective knowledge is attained via personal experience, not observation.

Only the Father sent His Son to die for the sins of His people. Only the Son died for the sins of His people. Only the Holy Spirit regenerates His people.

Now each Member of the Godhead has the objective knowledge that each of these events occurred. But only each respective Member has subjective knowledge of each event. Only the Son knows what it is like to die as a man BY EXPERIENCE. So the Father, Son, and Spirit have the same objective knowledge in these cases but each has distinct subjective (or experiential) knowledge.

Thus God is one in respect to His objective knowledge; three in respect to his subjective knowledge. Since, objective and subjective knowledge are not identical, again, there is no logical contradiction.

Either way it is looked at, the doctrine of the Trinity does not teach three equals one. It teaches God is one in one respect; three in a different respect. So the Trinity is not a logical contradiction.

I thank my opponent for his lively debate.
Debate Round No. 2
jar2187

Con

I thank my opponent for this wonderfully exhilarating and rather “spirited” debate. It is thus far the most intellectually challenging debate that I’ve been in.

“My point was that having the same nature doesn't make us the same person; similarly, having the same nature (being God), doesn't make the Father and Son the same person.”

This sentence captures the main problem of the contradiction. Notice how my opponent is capitalizing the term ‘God’ in this sentence. This capitalization suggests a pronoun, which in turn indicates the being and not the essence/nature. Thus, in this sentence, my opponent has equivocated ‘essence’ with ‘being’ by way of capitalization.

“I never said that each person is fully one being!”
He has; see above.

“The Father is not a complete being independent of the Son and Holy Spirit; he is part of the trinity, not the trinity itself. He is part of a tripersonal being, not the entire tripersonal being himself.”
If the Father is not a complete being indepedent of the Son or the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that he is fully god, how can he be called God? Well, besides mere assertion that is...

“If 3 tronadoes form over an island… the tornadoe F is fully air…It is made of the same substance or gas as the other two; yet, while there are 3 tornadoes, there is only ONE atomosphere, one air or wind that blows all over the earth.”
Tornadoes are air and come from the atmosphere. But there is no distinction between the ‘essence/nature’ of air and the ‘being/thing’ of air in this case. My opponent believes that there is a difference between ‘the essence/nature’ and ‘the being/thing’ with God. However, if he continues to capitalize the term ‘god’ for both, he is merely asserting this and its contradiction simultaneously...

“A piece of an apple is still fully apple…”
“A scoup of flour is still flower, just like the whole bag of flower is still flower.”
“A scuoup of ice-cream is still ice-cream just like the whole container of it is ince-cream cause it has the same nature.”
A piece or a scoop (in the indefinite sense) is not the same as the concept of the thing (in the definite sense) to something. If this is supposed to be an analogy to God, then my opponent is inferring that the Father is ‘god’ (in the indefinite sense), and ‘God’ (in the definite sense), contradicting his analogy. If we are to make any sense of what my opponent is saying, then he must resort to saying that Father is a god (a person that has a god nature) that, combined with the Son and the Holy Ghost, makes up God (which can only occur if there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost). But my opponent does not call the Father ‘god’ (indefinite, noun), only ‘God’ (definite, pronoun), which negates his position. A position that we can see, doesn’t make sense.

“One way of stating the doctrine is to say that God is three Persons in one essence.”
Is that, in one essence or as one essence? The first implies a different position from what my opponent is asserting...
Also, he says "God" when referring to "essence", and "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" when referring to "persons". If these terms are in different categories that cannot be equivocated, then:

1) God refers to essence.
2) The Father, Son and Holy Ghost spirit refer to persons.

Thus, either:

1) God does not refer to 'persons'; it is an essence persons can have.
2) The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not essences, they are persons which have essence.

So then, God is not a person, and thus the persons cannot be God. My opponent’s description of the concepts float from category to category, contradicting each other left and right along the way. Therefore, these are confused assertions of the terms which have been equivocated horribly - especially the term "God", on my opponent’s part.

“Another way of looking at God's three-in-oneness is to study His objective knowledge versus His subjective knowledge…all three Members of the Godhead are omniscient, each knows all things that can be observed.”
Omniscience is the ability to know all things[1][2][3][4][5], both objective or subjective. Now, this debate is not about God’s knowledge. However, I will say that if one person knows something that the other person doesn’t, then they can’t both be omniscient. This brings into doubt that each person is omniscient. This brings up the doubt that each person is fully of the characteristics my opponent describes (one of them being omniscience). Which brings us back to the fallacy of composition[6][7][8][9][10]...

“Now each Member of the Godhead has the objective knowledge that each of these events occurred. But only each respective Member has subjective knowledge of each event.”
My opponent is neither describing the Trinity that I’ve committed to debating nor the Trinity that most Christians believe. He is merely describing his own version of the Trinity, which I have no doubt that he understands. Indeed, I see why he understands it so well, when other Christians don’t. And furthermore, I believe that he is only looking past the contradictions that he’s made.

I thank my opponent once again for his insightful comments and for trying so earnestly to capture God and the concept of the Trinity within the confines of human logic. Thank you.


Sources:
[1] Omniscience: http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] Omniscience: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] The New Oxford Dictionary of English
[4] Omniscience: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[5] Omniscient: http://en.wiktionary.org...
[6] Fallacy of Composition: http://www.fallacyfiles.org......
[7] Not So Fast! The Fallacy of Composition: http://fee.org......
[8] Fallacy of Composition: http://en.wikipedia.org......
[9] Introduction to Logic (12th edition) – Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen
[10] Fallacy of Composition: http://www.google.com......
daley

Pro

"This sentence captures the main problem of the contradiction. Notice how my opponent is capitalizing the term ‘God' in this sentence. This capitalization suggests a pronoun, which in turn indicates the being and not the essence/nature. Thus, in this sentence, my opponent has equivocated ‘essence' with ‘being' by way of capitalization."

Gal 4:8 "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God (Theon), ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods (Theois)." This verse implies the Divine Being is God BY NATURE by contrasting him to those which BY NATURE are no gods. Which shows that in Biblical theology, the word "God" is at times used with reference to the NATURE of the being. Also, notice that in the Greek text, the Greek words for "God," and "gods" beging with a capital Theta, contrary to Con grammaticle rule regarding pronouns. In English translations, Greek scholars (who, by the way, are quite familiar with the rules of English grammar) use the capital "G" in "God" to distinguish him from false gods which they deliberately give a commong "g." So Con is simply ignoring the fact that trinitarian and indeed Biblicall theology has a grammar of its own, and needs to be understood in that context.

"He has; see above."

I am asking Con to give the full quote where is said that each person is fully one being.

"If the Father is not a complete being indepedent of the Son or the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that he is fully god, how can he be called God? Well, besides mere assertion that is..."

Con is claiming that part of the being (God) cannot also be "God" if its not the entire being. That's like saying that an ounce of flour is not flour just because its not a whole pound of flour. Both the ounce, and the pound, are flour by nature, just like the Son is as much God as his Father is.

"Tornadoes are air and come from the atmosphere. But there is no distinction between the ‘essence/nature' of air and the ‘being/thing' of air in this case."

Air is not a being. The tornado is air by nature, but is not all there is to the air (is not the entire atmosphere); so too, the Son is God by nature (John 20:28; John 1:1-3; Phil 2:6), but is not all their is to God (is not the entire Godhead).

"My opponent believes that there is a difference between ‘the essence/nature' and ‘the being/thing' with God."

Wikipedia defines nature as the "essential qualities, innate disposition...intrinsic characteristics." It defines being as "a discrete life form that has properties of mind." So both words carry different meanings. Human nature involves brain capacity, need for food, sleep, etc, none of which are the being, just its nature. God's attributes like monisciene, omnipotence, etc, (sumed in the word "God"), are not his being.

"However, if he continues to capitalize the term ‘god' for both, he is merely asserting this and its contradiction simultaneously..."

Only someone ignorant of English grammar would assume that a cpitalized word cannot have two meanings. At Hosea 12:2-4 (see Gen 32:24-30) the name Jacob means BOTH the man, and the tribe. In that passage, the pronoun "his" also means both the man, and the tribe. I don't see a contradiction between "God" meaning both the nature of each indivisual member of the trinity, and at other times, the triune being itself.

"A piece or a scoop (in the indefinite sense) is not the same as the concept of the thing (in the definite sense) to something. If this is supposed to be an analogy to God, then my opponent is inferring that the Father is ‘god' (in the indefinite sense), and ‘God' (in the definite sense), contradicting his analogy."

What is said was that a scoop of ice-cream is ice-cream BY NATURE just as the whole container of ice-cream is ice-cream BY NATURE; so too, the Father is God BY NATURE just as the entire trinity is God BY NATURE. What do you mean by "definite" and "indefinite" in your response above? What on earth are you contrasting by "indefinite" ice-cream versus "definite" ice-cream? Either its ice-cream, or is isn't, REGARLESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOVLED; so too, either he is God by nature, or he isn't, regardless of how many members of the Godhead are invovled.

"If we are to make any sense of what my opponent is saying, then he must resort to saying that Father is a god (a person that has a god nature) that, combined with the Son and the Holy Ghost, makes up God (which can only occur if there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost). But my opponent does not call the Father ‘god' (indefinite, noun), only ‘God' (definite, pronoun), which negates his position. A position that we can see, doesn't make sense."

Doesn't make sense to you because you are trying to change the meaning of terms in trinitarian theology because of the way capitalization is used. Further, I never said the Father is "a god" anymore than the Atlantic sea is "a water." The Atalnatic is water BY NATURE, and when combined with the Pacific and so on comprize the ocean as a complete body of water. So too, the Father is "God" BY NATURE, and when combined with the Son and Holy Spirit comprize the trinune being God.

"Is that, in one essence or as one essence? The first implies a different position from what my opponent is asserting..."

Fair enough, "AS one essence.

"Also, he says "God" when referring to "essence", and "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" when referring to "persons". If these terms are in different categories that cannot be equivocated, then:

1) God refers to essence.
2) The Father, Son and Holy Ghost spirit refer to persons.

Thus, either:

1) God does not refer to 'persons'; it is an essence persons can have.
2) The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not essences, they are persons which have essence."

I wonder if Con has ever looked up the many meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words used for God? "God" can even mean a person or thing as an object of worship.

So then, God is not a person,"

God, the total Divine Being, is not a person. He is a Being; this being is tri-personal, a group, not an individual.

"and thus the persons cannot be God."

Not in the sense of being, but in the sense of NATURE they can. Its not equivocation if the word God carries different meanings in diffetent contexts just like other words carry different meaninings when used in different contexts.

"I will say that if one person knows something that the other person doesn't, then they can't both be omniscient."

Jesus in his divnity knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17); in his humanity he does not. He is both God (John 20:28; John 1:1-3; Isa 9:6) and man (1 Tim 2:5), and experiences the reality of BOTH NATURES. God is a being that can occupy to radically different positions at the same time. He is both a lion and a lamb (John 1:29; Rev 5:5), Prince of Peace but came to bring division and a sword (Isa 9:6; Matt 10:34-36), was both dead and yet alive in order to raise himself from the dead. (John 2:19-22)

"My opponent is neither describing the Trinity that I've committed to debating nor the Trinity that most Christians believe."

Con provides no statistic to prove that most Christians believe a different version of the trntiy, but in any case, I am defending the Biblical doctrine of the trinity.

Is it really logical to put restrictions on a limitless God for whom all things are possible? (Matt 19:26) If the answer to this question is no, then God can be three persons and only one God. He can be more than one place at once; so God can be Father in heaven, Son nailed to the cross, and the Holy Spirit all at once. If Con agrees that God can't be limited, he cannot deny God can be tri-personal. For that matter, he cannot deny that God can make a square-circle, for it stands to reason that a being with infinitely greater knowledge can defy our limited understanding of quantum-physics and other laws.

If he says God can be limited, he must tell us how he knows this. I thank Con for his efforts.
Debate Round No. 3
jar2187

Con

I must thank my opponent for his well-executed and thought-provoking arguments. This is such a great debate, and I am so glad to be a part of it.

It wasn’t immediately obvious to me before, but my opponent is using the fallacy of equivocation[1][2][3], which occurs when a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. This is why, when convenient, the definition of ‘God’ suddenly changes from essence to being, subtly. Thus, we get statements such as, “God the Father is God, while God the Father is not God”, when he means that “God the Father (has a certain nature), while God the Father (is not the Trinity)”. This is it. Calling both ‘God’ when he could state what he means by 'God' is uncalled for. This is how he has equivocated ‘essence’ and ‘being’ unwittingly. However, since daley believes that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are of one essence, yet still needs a reason to call them God, and that they are one God, he must continue to state this mistake in reasoning...

Furthermore, Christian sources state that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost share the same essence, the same nature, the same attributes. That is, if an entity is to be “God the being”, they must have the essence/nature/attribute necessary to be “God the being”. But the essence/nature/attributes of God are not called ‘God’, they are what makes God. The essence/nature/attributes are called omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolent, etc., regardless of whether or not if these can only pertain to God. These aren’t called God. To call the essence/nature/attributes God would violate logic. They are the “nature of God”, “the essence of God”, “the attributes of God”, and not the nonsensical “God of God” concept as my opponent thinks. This is a cover to explain away why daley wants to call the Father, Son and Holy Ghost God. My opponent has been making this blunder throughout the entire debate. I’m glad I caught it before it was too later. Not a moment too soon, though.

The word ‘God’ is used equivocally in the Bible as well. The context of its grammar is contradictory.

“Con is claiming that part of the being (God) cannot also be "God" if its not the entire being. That's like saying that an ounce of flour is not flour just because its not a whole pound of flour… just like the Son is as much God as his Father is.”
Confusing, isn’t it? However, every scoop of flour is flour in existence, its being, no matter how much. This is a simple tautology. The nature of what makes up flour is the same in every scoop. But flour itself is not the nature of what makes up flour. This is where the tautology, and the confusion, must end.

“The tornado is air by nature, but is not all there is to the air (is not the entire atmosphere); so too, the Son is God by nature...but is not all their is to God (is not the entire Godhead).”
Actually, air is not all that there is to “being” a tornado either[4]. A tornado forms with what is in the atmosphere. Simple science. Also, a tornado is only a mode of the atmosphere. Unless my opponent believes that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate modes of God, then his analogy, like the most that he has used, supports Modalism[15] and I think he does too…

“Human nature involves brain capacity, need for food, sleep, etc, none of which are the being, just its nature. God's attributes like monisciene, omnipotence, etc, (sumed in the word "God"), are not his being.”
Human nature and human beings involve brain capacity, need for food, sleep, etc. Nature and being is not distinguished in this way.

“Only someone ignorant of English grammar would assume that a cpitalized word cannot have two meanings…the name Jacob means BOTH the man, and the tribe...”
Well, I’m glad I’m not ignorant of English grammar (*polite laugh*), nor is this my position. While ‘Jacob’ is a proper noun in each sense, the man and the tribe exists separately. That is, the tribe can exist without the man and the man can exist without the tribe. Unlike Jacob, as my opponent would say, “God can’t exist without God”... [Equivocation]

“What on earth are you contrasting by "indefinite" ice-cream versus "definite" ice-cream? Either its ice-cream, or is isn't, REGARLESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOVLED...”
Weak points shout loud. There's no need to yell. My point: the nature that a god can have (indefinite article) or the God who is the being (definite article).

“I never said the Father is "a god" anymore than the Atlantic sea is "a water." The Atalnatic is water BY NATURE, and when combined with the Pacific and so on comprize the ocean as a complete body of water. So too, the Father is "God" BY NATURE, and when combined with the Son and Holy Spirit comprize the trinune being God.”
The Atlantic sea is “a body of water” and is made “of water”. The Atlantic is water (its being), but its nature is made up of things other than water (like hydrogen and oxygen). Perhaps the Father’s nature is made up of other things than ‘God’ (I’m not talking about it’s nature or being in this sense)? Yes.

“I wonder if Con has ever looked up the many meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words used for God? "God" can even mean a person or thing as an object of worship.”
Irrelevant. Please continue to stick with one definition, sir.

“God, the total Divine Being, is not a person.”
Then God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not really God(s).

“Its not equivocation if the word God carries different meanings in diffetent contexts…”
Actually, it is[1][2][3].

“Jesus in his divnity knows all things…in his humanity he does not. He is both God…and man…and experiences the reality of BOTH NATURES. God is a being that can occupy to radically different positions at the same time. He is both a lion and a lamb…Prince of Peace but came to bring division and a sword…was both dead and yet alive in order to raise himself from the dead.”
No need to preach, sir; this isn’t Sunday school (*chuckles*). Still, if God the Father does not know what God the Son experienced, then God the Father is not omniscient[5][6][7][8][9].This brings into doubt that each person is omniscient, even so that each person is fully of the characteristics my opponent describes (such as omniscience). This brings us back to the fallacy of composition[10][11][12][13][14].

“Con provides no statistic to prove that most Christians believe a different version of the trntiy...”
…than my opponent. However, his arguments and analogies suggest something other than the Trinitarian concept that most Christians would adhere to anyways, so statistics are irrelevant.

“Is it really logical to put restrictions on a limitless God for whom all things are possible?”
If the concept of the Trinity is not to be limited by logic, and all things for God as possible, then my opponent must agree that it is possible for the concept of the Trinity to be illogical as well, regardless of this debate. Why does my opponent need to continue to argue that the Trinity is logical, when he has already made my point that it necessarily isn’t?

Thank you and I thank my opponent, daley, for his attempt to confine the concept of the Trinity to logic.

Sources:
[1] Fallacy of Equivocation: http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[2] Equivocation: http://www.drury.edu...
[3] Equivocation: http://onegoodmove.org...
[4] Tornado: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Omniscience: http://dictionary.reference.com......
[6] Omniscience: http://en.wikipedia.org......
[7] The New Oxford Dictionary of English
[8] Omniscience: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......
[9] Omniscient: http://en.wiktionary.org......
[10] Fallacy of Composition: http://www.fallacyfiles.org.........
[11] Not So Fast! The Fallacy of Composition: http://fee.org.........
[12] Fallacy of Composition: http://en.wikipedia.org.........
[13] Introduction to Logic (12th edition) – Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen
[14] Fallacy of Composition: http://www.google.com.........
[15] Modalism: http://en.wikipedia.org...
daley

Pro

I thank my opponent for his wit and enthusiasm, making this the most lively debate I've had on this site so far.

"my opponent is using the fallacy of equivocation[1][2][3], which occurs when a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. This is why, when convenient, the definition of ‘God' suddenly changes from essence to being, subtly. Thus, we get statements such as, "God the Father is God, while God the Father is not God", when he means that "God the Father (has a certain nature), while God the Father (is not the Trinity)". This is it. Calling both ‘God' when he could state what he means by 'God' is uncalled for. This is how he has equivocated ‘essence' and ‘being' unwittingly."

Does this mean that Trinitarians must always interpret the word "God" in the Bible to mean the Trinity, and that failure to do so is equivocation? What Con proposes above is a false dilemma, based on an apparent misunderstanding of lexical semantics and a caricature of Trinitarian exegesis.

When linguists talk about the meaning of words, they define "meaning" as consisting of several general categories, two of which are:

1. Sense - the dictionary "definition" or the entries in a lexicon.
2. Referent - the specific object or concept referenced by a given word. (Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation; Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning)

For example, consider the word "God" in Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"). We could look up "God" in the dictionary or Elohim in an Old Testament Hebrew lexicon and find several possible definitions listed: 1. The Supreme Being; 2. pagan deities; 3. idols; etc. These are the senses of the word "God." In the Hebrew lexicon, we might also find a listing of verses following each definition, indicating the referent of each instance of "God." The sense of "God" in Genesis 1:1 is definition #1. The referent is the God of Israel, YHWH.

In John 1:1b, the sense of "God" is the same as it is in Genesis 1:1 - the Supreme Being. The noun "God" is preceded by the definite article (ton theon), as is the noun "Word" (ho logos). The definite article signifies that a specific person, place, or thing is in view. The verb "with" (pros) signifies an intimate relationship between the Logos and "the" God, the kind of relationship possible only between two persons or individuals. The referent of "God" in John 1:1b, therefore, is not the Being of God, but rather the Person who is God, just as the referent of "Word" is the person who is ho logos. And context makes clear that the Person with whom the Word enjoys this intimate relationship is the Father (v. 18). So, we may safely conclude that the referent of ho theos is the Father.

"Equivocation" is a logical fallacy in which the same word is used with two different senses. For example, "The end of a thing is its perfection; death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life" The sense of "end" in the first clause is not the same as that in the second. But when Trinitarians interpret ho theos as the Father, we are not changing the sense of ho theos from the Trinity to the Father - we are recognizing that while the sense of ho theos is "God," the referent in this context is the Father.

Thus, when Trinitarians interpret ho theos in John 1:1 as the Father, we are not importing Trinitarianism nor equivocating on the word "God," but are rather using a fundamental tenet of lexical semantics - namely that the sense of a word should not be confused with its referent, and vice versa. John is speaking of a close, personal relationship between the Word and "the" God, and a personal relationship is one between Persons. Trinitarians are therefore following sound linguistic principles in interpreting ho theos as the Father.

Also, note that in John 1:1c, the Word was theos without the definite article (ho). In Biblical Greek, the absence of the article are primarily qualitative in meaning, inasmuch as it describes the nature of the subject and not his person. (Vine's) So here the Word has the NATURE of the Father.

"To call the essence/nature/attributes God would violate logic. They are the "nature of God", "the essence of God", "the attributes of God", and not the nonsensical "God of God" concept as my opponent thinks."

"John was man," the word "man" is a reference to John's nature, that he was human; "the Word was God," the word "God" is a reference to the Word's nature, that he was divine. I've already shown the original writers used the word theos as a reference to nature. (Gal 4:8) "In the Sept. theos translates...the Hebrew words Elohim and Jehovah, the former indicating His power and preeminence, the latter his unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained existence." (W.E. Vine's Expository Dic of Old and NT Words, p.271) So "God" as defined by Greek scolars refers to his nature, attributes, I'll take their word over Con's.

"The nature of what makes up flour is the same in every scoop. But flour itself is not the nature of what makes up flour."

It's impossible to define flour without refering to its nature; can Con name one thing that has the nature of flour which is not flour?

"The Atlantic sea is "a body of water" and is made "of water." The Atlantic is water (its being), but its nature is made up of things other than water (like hydrogen and oxygen). Perhaps the Father's nature is made up of other things than ‘God' (I'm not talking about it's nature or being in this sense)? Yes."

Water is two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, that is the nature of water; now, to say this in reverse, the Atlantic sea is a mass of hydrogen and oxygen molecules (another way of saying, water). The thing, is its nature, for the nature orcomposition of the thing is what makes the thing. Only if tallking about specific aspects of its nature in isolation would the nature of the thing not be the thing. So "God" can still rightly be a reference to his nature.

"Irrelevant. Please continue to stick with one definition, sir."

That's the fallacy in Con's argument. It is irrational to argue that for argument to be coherent, it can only apply one meaning to each word used. "I have to admit, regardless of how unlikely it might be to occur, that that "that," that that boy used, was grammatically sound in that essay." The word "that" having different meanings here doesn't prove the statement illogical, anymore that using more than one meaning for "God" makes the trinity illogical.

In reply to my point that God, the total Divine Being, is not a person, Con says:

"Then God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not really God(s)"

Well, "man has turned away from God, but Jesus came to save man from his sin." Here, "man" does not mean a person, but all the persons on earth, just as the total Divine Being is not a person, but all the persons that comprise the Divine Being. To say that if the Divine being isn't a person means that each person in the Being cannot be God, would be like saying that if "man" (mankind) isn't one person, that no person can be man (that is, human). Con's argument fails to appreciate the logic of having more than one definition of a word.

"No need to preach, sir; this isn't Sunday school (*chuckles*). Still, if God the Father does not know what God the Son experienced, then God the Father is not omniscient[5][6][7][8][9]."

Today is Wednesday, so I guess that makes it Wednesday school then (*chuckles*), should I take up a collection?

I never said that God the Father doesn't know what God the Son experienced. He knows it, but by observation and not by experience. So both of them know it, but not in the same way. I can know what its like to be a surgeon by reading the detailed biography of a surgeon who records his every incision, and feeling, as he did it; but he knows what is is like by experiencing it.
Debate Round No. 4
jar2187

Con

As we near the end of this debate, I think we all were treated to a real intellectual challenge. My opponent daley has clearly demonstrated his knowledge of some of the Bible, even grasping some Biblical concepts and has argued his case to the best of is ability…

“Does this mean that Trinitarians must always interpret the word "God" in the Bible to mean the Trinity, and that failure to do so is equivocation?”
No. But when people argue as my opponent has done, it results in equivocation.

“"Equivocation" is a logical fallacy in which the same word is used with two different senses.”
In one sense, my opponent uses God to mean ‘essence’. In another sense, he uses God to mean ‘the Trinity’. My opponent is literally using the same word in two different senses, even in the same sentence, by his own admission.

It appears that my opponent has been using the term ‘God’ to mean anything for when it suits him, even when it supports and damages his case, simultaneously. This is why, at times, he sounds like he might be a Trinitarian, and at other times a bonafide Modalist...

“I've already shown the original writers used the word theos as a reference to nature…"God" as defined by Greek scolars refers to his nature, attributes, I'll take their word over Con's.”
This reminds me of a humorous quote in “The King’s Speech”. The Duke tells his speech therapist that other doctors have advised him to smoke, as a way to cure his stammering. Logue, his therapist, calls them “idiots.” The Duke states, “They’ve all been knighted.” “Well,” Logue responds, “then it’s official.” (*polite laughter*) These scholars are not idiots of course, but have been making this mistake for centuries. And they’ve only been expounding on the mistake that the original writers made...

The mistake is this:
1. Father is God

2. God is essence
3. An essence is what one can have
4. Thus the Father has God [H.S. 1,2,3]
5. This is not traditional language, as the Father does not have God [M.T. 3]
6. Therefore, the concept of 'God' as 'essence' is inconsistent, perhaps incoherent, but not logical.

According to Christianity, if an entity is to be “God the being”, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost must have the essence/nature/attribute necessary to be “God the being”. But the essence/nature/attributes of God are not called ‘God’ themselves; they are what make God. The essence/nature/attributes are called omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolent, etc., regardless of whether or not these can only pertain to God. These aren’t called God. My opponent holds fast to this blunder, which shows that he has failed in demonstrating that the Trinity is a logical concept.
So, God cannot be an essence (as we see above). God is not something that the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost has; it's what they are. But since God does not refer to essence, it can only refers to the Trinity. My opponent claims that each person is also God. But as we have pointed out, ‘God’ can only refer to the Trinity. Thus, each person can only be the Trinity. But this is absurd. My opponent has found yet another way in which the Trinity is not a logical concept. I still maintain that the Trinity is not a logical concept. Language withstanding, it is still an illogical concept…

“It's impossible to define flour without refering to its nature; can Con name one thing that has the nature of flour which is not flour?”
My opponent has made a mistake in understanding a common philosophical distinction. Flour is the thing (being). One scoop of flour is flour; a simple tautology. But all of what makes up flour’s nature is not flour. That is, flour has a nature, but the nature of what flour is made up of itself is not “flour”. Flour’s nature is a composite of other things that are not necessarily, in-themselves, flour…

“Water is two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule …”
For example, water is the thing (being). Water is water. It has a nature of hydrogen and oxygen. But water’s nature is not water; water’s nature is hydrogen and oxygen. And hydrogen and oxygen alone are not water. Same with God, as I've shown above…

“Well, "man has turned away from God, but Jesus came to save man from his sin." Here, "man" does not mean a person, but all the persons on earth…”
The difference is that, despite the many usages one can designate ‘man’, ‘man’ means “all persons” in this sentence each time. This is not what my opponent is doing. My opponent claims that it is perfectly acceptable to say “God is The Father is part of God” when the first ‘God’ refers to something other than the latter ‘God’.

“I never said that God the Father doesn't know what God the Son experienced. He knows it, but by observation and not by experience...”
If God the Father didn’t experience what the Son experienced, then The Father doesn’t know what something is like. Since not, God the Father isn’t omniscient. My opponent has just proved that God the Father is not omniscient, since God does not know something by experience (objective-subjective distinctions are irrelevant, he's expected to know it all). Then, why does my opponent claim that each person is omniscient when they're not? This is the fallacy of composition. Another way in which the concept of the Trinity is not logical. And since my opponent doesn’t claim to be omniscient, his example is void...

My opponent has been arguing for his own version of Modalism, under the guise of Trinitarian terminology. His examples and analogies show this, from tornadoes, to apples, flour, water and the like...

Furthermore, many Christians believe that the concept of the Trinity can’t be, and doesn’t have to be, confined to man's logic, which makes it possible that the concept of the Trinity can be, as I’ve maintained, not logical. Even my opponent daley has twice questioned our logic, asking us if it really logical to put restrictions on a limitless God, while he simultaneously argues that the Trinity is a logical concept. This is absurd. Why bother? I wonder if he is also trying to insult our intelligence. Since last round, he has merely dropped questioning us, for no reason…

Still, my opponent has put together brilliant arguments to confine the concept of the Trinity to man’s logic, even if what he is describing is his own Modalistic opinion of God using Trinitarian terminology. I still hold that my opponent has not made his case. I thank my opponent for this great Trinitarian debate, and put my exhausting case to rest for the final round. Thank you all.

Sources:
Fallacy of Equivocation: http://www.fallacyfiles.org......
Omniscience: http://en.wikipedia.org.........
Introduction to Logic (12th edition) – Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen
Modalism: http://en.wikipedia.org......
daley

Pro

In my closing comments I don't want to go over to many of the same points again. So on to the most relevant.

"It appears that my opponent has been using the term ‘God' to mean anything for when it suits him, even when it supports and damages his case, simultaneously. This is why, at times, he sounds like he might be a Trinitarian, and at other times a bonafide Modalist."

Modalism teaches that God is only one person, not three, I never said that. Con's misinterpreting what I say doesn't prove my position illogical.

"The mistake is this:
1. Father is God
2. God is essence
3. An essence is what one can have
4. Thus the Father has God [H.S. 1,2,3]
5. This is not traditional language, as the Father does not have God [M.T. 3]
6. Therefore, the concept of 'God' as 'essence' is inconsistent, perhaps incoherent, but not logical."

1. The Father is God
2. God is essence
3. The Father is essence (that is his nature)
4. An essence is what one can have, so to, a body is what one can have as well
5. The Father has essence, just as each of us has a body, and yet, I am a body (a living human body). I have it, and I AM it; its not illogical for the Father to be something he also has. The word "myself" suggests your ownership over my own person, which is just a way of saying "me." Con looks for logic problems where non exist.

"According to Christianity, if an entity is to be "God the being", the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost must have the essence/nature/attribute necessary to be "God the being". But the essence/nature/attributes of God are not called ‘God' themselves; they are what make God."

They are not called God in isolation, but as a set they are summed up in the word "God," for those qualities are what come to mind when we think of God, that is what God is.

"So, God cannot be an essence (as we see above). God is not something that the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost has; it's what they are."

Con HAS a human body, so I guess he doesn't beleive he IS a human body, what then is he? (*laugh*) A square HAS 4 straight lines and 4 corners; a square IS 4 square lines with 4 corners. No logic problems here.

"But since God does not refer to essence, it can only refers to the Trinity. My opponent claims that each person is also God. But as we have pointed out, ‘God' can only refer to the Trinity. Thus, each person can only be the Trinity. But this is absurd. My opponent has found yet another way in which the Trinity is not a logical concept. I still maintain that the Trinity is not a logical concept. Language withstanding, it is still an illogical concept"

"Flour's nature is a COMPOSITE of other things that are not necessarily, in-themselves, flour…"

Note the word COMPOSITE. It is the COMPOSITE of these things that gives you flour, so to talk about the composite of these things is to talk about flour. To talk about lime and suger mixed in water is to talk about lemonade; this is its nature and this is the thing itself! Con is arguing in circles. This reminds me of a dog I once saw chasing his tail.

"For example, water is the thing (being). Water is water. It has a nature of hydrogen and oxygen. But water's nature is not water; water's nature is hydrogen and oxygen. And hydrogen and oxygen alone are not water. Same with God, as I've shown above"

Hydrogen and oxygen in the right combination is water.

"If God the Father didn't experience what the Son experienced, then The Father doesn't know what something is like."

Yes he does, by observation, not by experience. I once met a girl who did social work for rape victims, and she could relate in her own words what its like for victims of rape that you would think she too was one of them; but she wasn't! She knew what it was like by investigation, not experience.

"My opponent has been arguing for his own version of Modalism, under the guise of Trinitarian terminology. His examples and analogies show this, from tornadoes, to apples, flour, water and the like."

Modalism doesn't teach three persons, I do, so no, this isn't modalism.

"Furthermore, many Christians believe that the concept of the Trinity can't be, and doesn't have to be, confined to man's logic, which makes it possible that the concept of the Trinity can be, as I've maintained, not logical. Even my opponent daley has twice questioned our logic, asking us if it really logical to put restrictions on a limitless God, while he simultaneously argues that the Trinity is a logical concept. This is absurd. Why bother? I wonder if he is also trying to insult our intelligence. Since last round, he has merely dropped questioning us, for no reason…"

My point was that it isn't logical to claim that God cannot be a trinity, because logically, a being that has infinite knowlelge and power can do anything he wants, and would be rrestricted to only being in one location at a time either. So it makes perfect sense that God can be Jesus on the cross, the Father in heaven, and the Holy Spirit, without violating his oneness os being one Being (one God).

"Still, my opponent has put together brilliant arguments to confine the concept of the Trinity to man's logic, even if what he is describing is his own Modalistic opinion of God using Trinitarian terminology. I still hold that my opponent has not made his case. I thank my opponent for this great Trinitarian debate, and put my exhausting case to rest for the final round. Thank you all."

If Tom, Dick and Harry were each a doctor, and they claimed to be 3 persons in one doctor, I would call their claim illogical. When Christians say the Father is God, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit, and these are just one God; I say Amen! Why is this illogical in one case but not in the other? Well, its illogical to think that a humans who are limited by time and space, could be 3 and at the same time one; however, God is not in that category which is limited by time and space; not is he limited by other natural laws as he is a supernatural and divine entity. So it isn't illogical to say that God can be 3 persons in one God.

Words have always had more than one meaning sinc the beginning of written language. If Con thinks this is equivocation and illogical then I would have to defend such said equivocation as a NORMAL and LOGICAL concept. It is perfectly within logic for a word to have more than one meaning, even in the same sentence.

"His wife LIED down next to him, looked him in the face, and LIED to him." In this sentence, the word "lied" has two different meanings (equivocation?), well, what can I say, its linguisticly a valid sentnce without any contradiction. A contradiction invovles TWO IDEAS THAT CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE SIMULTANEOUSLY; and it is perfectly possible for God to be more than one person and each still be God, just as it is perfectly possible for a woman to lie on a bed and llie to her husband! My opponent's arguments about equivocation haven't produced any real contradiction in the trinity doctrine because he hasn't shown any two things about it that are IMPOSSIBLE!!!

His entire debate has been on word games, aguing the semantics. But consider this: even if my vocabulary isn't the most fitting vocabulary to use to describe the trinity doctrine, does that prove the concept itself is IMPOSSIBLE? I did enjoy this debate and it has been nice for the first time taking on this interesting issue on wheather the trinity is a logical concept. I thank Con for presenting his well-thought-out points and I thank you all for reading andosting your comments on this deabate. Please vote...
Debate Round No. 5
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
really? well, why don't you post an argument against the trinity and have a debate on it? i would love the challenge. i doubt you are up to that though, since you don't know what you are talking about. u claim the israelites didn't worship a trinity god, so wasn't Thomas an Isrealite when he called Jesus "MY God"? (John 20:28) Wasn't Isaiah and Israelite when he called Jesus "eternal" and "the Migty God"? (Isaiah 9:6) They taught the diety of the Holy Spirit as well, but you wouldn't know, cause you don't know the Bible.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
The israelites know the name is YHWH- and they knew God thousands of years before the after death people did. Funny thing they never once in their existence knew him as a trinity God, because he isnt a trinity God. Otherwise the trinitarian scholars and teachers would have to agree that Moses,Solomon, David, Daniel, etc served a false God because they did not serve the trinitarian God of today. But we know they served the true God- The God Paul taught- 1 cor 8:6- there is one God to all the Father ( not Father,son,hs ) The same God Jesus learned about in the synagogues and taught- John 17:1-6 -- The Father is the only true God. Jesus,s God- rev 3:12
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
If the name Jehovah was so important, why didn't the New Testament writers put it in the Gospels? We have 5,300 Greek manuscritps, plus manuscripts and fragments in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Spanish, and other languages dating from as early as the John Rhylands fragment (125 CE) onward, and none use YHWH, they all use Lord, even in quotes from the OT. Could all these have been corrupted? How could any scribe have gotten all mss from all over the medditerranean to change them? And if they could, would not the true Christians have cried out against this tampering with God's word? Yet, there is not one historical record in all of history saying that there was even a discussion about it among the early church fathers. To the contrary, we can recreate the entire New Testament from the quotes of the early church fathers starting from those who knew the apostles in the before 100 AD, going up to 300 CE, and all the church fathers used Lord instead of YHWH when quoting the NT! So kjw47 doesn't know what he's talking about. He's defending a name the NT Gospel writers deliberately abandoned!
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Indeed we will. I hope you find the truth before the end.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
we will see
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Jehovah is NOT the English form of Yahweh... how little you know.

When the Hebrews wrote the divine name (YHWH) it had no vowels, as Hebrew has no vowels. When the Masoretes invented Vowel pointing for the language, they added the vowel points for the word "My Lord." Adonai is the Hebrew word for "My Lord" so when you combine the two words you have Yahowa, which when Anglicized becomes "Jehovah."

I wish that you would do your research before you make assertions... you continually prove that you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
Jehovah is the english form of Yahweh-- There isnt a human alive that knows if the apostles used the name in the nt, Not one of their original writings exist.
Posted by wolfhaines 6 years ago
wolfhaines
It is all fairy tales anyway, none of it exists.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
KJW... the word Jehovah doesn't actually appear in the Bible... that is a word that came into existence because of a poor understanding of Hebrew.

You seem to be very frustrated about the names of certain holidays having pagan roots... do you have a problem with Monday (Moon Day) which was part of Pagan celebration involving the renewal of the moon's... What about January (Dedicated to the Roman god Janus, who was the god of the new year), March (Mars... Roman god of war), July (Dedicated to Julius Caesar), August (Caesar Augustus) October (Octavian)... a lot of things get their names from other things... that doesn't mean that the name dictates where the worship comes from.
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
the name Jehovah wasn't even used in the New Testament. When the apostles wrote the Gospels, the used Lord, not Jehovah, Jehovah is only found in the Old Testament. In all the examples where Jesus prayed in the whole New Testament, not once does he call God "Jehovah"...He always calls him Father, or God, but never Jehovah. None of the disciples in the Bible ever callled Jesus by his personal name when addressing him. They always called him Lord or Master.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KnowItAll 6 years ago
KnowItAll
jar2187daleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "Since all three Members of the Godhead are omniscient, each knows all things that can be observed. So they all have the same objective knowledge (i.e. each possesses all objective knowledge possible)." Omnisicient means to know all things infinitely.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
jar2187daleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Jar2187 stretches his own arguments too far while misunderstanding the nature of God and the doctrine of the trinity.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
jar2187daleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: All in all this was a decent debate. Conduct - Con was rude and cynical and overall talked past and around Pro. He did not really engage Pro except to take his arguments out of context (Straw Man). Arguments were pretty even... Pro took an unafirmable resolution, but Con did not deal directly with Pro's arguments. Sources go to Con, because he had cited sources.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
jar2187daleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Enjoyable exchange by Con, I would give this 3:1 for Con simply because Con was leading the exchange, controlling the debate and putting Pro on the defensive and simply attacking with ruthless aggression the statements of Pro.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
jar2187daleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was just trying to play word games and made poor arguments