Is the Trinity Biblical?
Debate Rounds (5)
Trinity - the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit are one united being.
Biblical - truthful and supported according to the Bible
Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only
Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals)
Round 3 - Rebuttals Only
Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals
Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements
- The Bible should be assumed as true simply for the purposes of this debate.
- Definitions from Pro should be provided in Round 2. Beyond that, the most popular contemporary definitions should be assumed.
- Forfeiture, breaking round setup, and breaking rules result in an automatic win for the opposing side.
I will be using the New World Translation of the Bible for my quotes in my part of the debate, as it is my preferred translation. My opponent may choose which translation he/she wants to use.
Opening Statement - I believe that the Trinity is not a biblical teaching and that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are different and separate.
And, of course, you prefer the perverted NWT, but no Hebrew or Greek scholar does.
I should make it known that the NWT Bible uses "Jehovah" as the name of god. Most modern Bibles today do not use this name. However, if you have an older Bible on hand, you may find this name at Psalm 83:18.
I will start my arguments by saying that in the entire Bible, not once is the term "trinity" used. In the entire Bible, only one verse can reasonably be misconstrued to mean that Jesus is God.
"Jesus said to him: 'Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also. How is it you say, "Show us the Father"?' " (John 14:9)
It's this latter part that is used to support the Trinity: "Whoever has seen me has seen the father also". However, notice the full context of the verse. Look at verse six of the same chapter.
"...No one comes to the Father except through me."
Why would someone have to approach the Father through Jesus if Jesus was the Father? If that does not convince you, look at verse ten, immediately following the scripture that is used to support the Trinity.
"Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works."
If Jesus himself was God, it wouldn't make any sense that the things he said to his apostles were not of his own originality.
Take a look at some more verses that go to disprove the idea that Jesus and God are one.
"And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form" - John 5:37. How could they have not heard the Father's voice or seen his form if they had seen Jesus and Jesus was the Father?
"...God is only one." - Galatians 3:20.
"And he withdrew from them about a stone"s throw away, and he bent his knees and began to pray, saying: 'Father, if you want to, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.' " How does this prayer make sense if Jesus and God are the same person? This verse shows that Jesus worshiped the Father, not that he was the Father. John 14:28 proves this thought: "...my Father is greater than I am". (Here, Jesus was speaking) The Father couldn't possibly be greater than Jesus if he and Jesus were the same united being. However, Jesus was acting as a Son willingly subjective to his loving Father.
That leads me into my next point - if Jesus was not God, what did he mean at John 14:9? The answer is simple. Jesus reflected his father's qualities so well that anyone who had known Jesus had, in effect, known Jehovah (God's name, as explained earlier). No human has ever seen God, barring Jesus. However, many people did see Jesus. Jesus came to Earth to do God's will, to be born and die a perfect human. While on Earth, Jesus showed love and compassion to mankind. He reflected the qualities of his father.
Notice John 14:6 again. "No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus is thus acting as the intermediary between man and God. Again, he is acting as God's loyal servant, not as God himself. As God's servant, Jesus came to Earth so our sins could be redeemed. God is absolutely perfect and is literally unable to make mistakes, so what good would it do if he came to Earth as a human and died sinless? Unless Jesus was a separate entity from the Father, the same would apply to him. But Jesus is not the Father. He had the capacity to make mistakes as a human. The fact that his death made sins redeemable proves this thought.
These have been my opening arguments. I look forward to yours, con. Please remember that according to the round setup, you may not make rebuttals until the next round.
Matt 28 makes it clear that the Father, Son and Spirit all share one name: God.
The Holy Spirit is, in fact, not a being as many believe, but the active force of God. Some verses from the Bible say that people were baptized or anointed with the Holy Spirit. These do not seem to be characteristic of a person. In fact, nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit shown to be a person. Throughout the Bible, The Spirit is spoken of impersonally. The Holy Spirit refers to the power and force of God. We always think of God as being a powerful entity, but the name for his power is never given - or so many assume. The Holy Spirit is the term for this power that Jehovah God has.
Matthew 28 also goes to show that the Trinity is impossible. God cannot die. "...O my God, my Holy One, you do not die..." (Hab 1:12) However, here and in preceding chapters we see that Jesus was clearly dead. If Jesus was God, then God would be dead, which is impossible. But if Jesus was not dead, then he would not have fulfilled God's will.
And now you parrot JW bilge and without Scripture, though I love how you rely on how things seem to you, as if you are th final arbitrator of realty. All sin, including all heresy, starts with an denial of Bible and elevation of self. Good job.
BTW, perhaps you should check out Acts 5, to see that th Spirit was lied to and then identified as God. I did not know one could lie to an impersonal force. But cultists have to come up with nonsense to justiy their nonsense.
God did not die, but the God-man did. Keep reading in Hebrews to see this and that God the Father called God the Son His God. Perhaps the Father knows something you do not.
You used the ad hominem fallacy by attacking my personal traits (being a JW) and my style of argument without trying to refute any of my arguments. Out of all my points, you only tried to refute my rebuttals. However, we are in the counter-rebuttals round now, so you missed your chance.
I recognize, though, that my arguments may seem to be purely pro-JW. So, for this round, I will still argue that the Trinity is not Biblical without using the NWT and using the assumption that the Holy Spirit IS a person. I would be glad to debate over the topic of the Holy Spirit being a person, but that somewhat detracts from the core of this debate - that the Holy Spirit and The Son are separate entities from the father. So for this round, I will not use the NWT and I will assume the Holy Spirit is a person.
To counteract your rebuttal of Matthew 28:19, I will use the scripture from the King James Bible.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".
Notice the phrase "and of the" before each name. It doesn't take a linguistics expert to realize that this implies that they all have a different name.
"...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [the name] of the Son, and [the name] of the Holy Ghost".
This makes sense, as each name represents a different role, which would make even more sense if each were a different person.
I realize that you may be skeptical of this, and may think it a stretch. That's okay. It's good to be skeptical of some things. However, let me show you how this really isn't a stretch. Read this line of dialogue:
"Write down the name of the President, and of the CEO, and of the Vice President."
If you heard this quote, you wouldn't assume that the President, Vice President, and CEO all had the same name, would you? So why would you drop that logic when the exact same language is used in the Bible?
"God did not die, but the God-man did." How is this possible, or even sensible? Remember, I defined the Trinity back in round one as "the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit are one united being," and you did not contest this definition in round two when you had the chance. How could The Son die but not The Father if they were one united being? It's impossible and, frankly, illogical.
"Keep reading in Hebrews to see this and that God the Father called God the Son His God. Perhaps the Father knows something you do not." Yes, God knows things we do not. However, he wants us to get to know him and to have a personal relationship with him. He wants us to know the truth about him.
Hebrews 1:10-12 (which I assume you were referring to) is actually quoting Psalm 102:25-27. In the book of Psalms, the message is addressed to God, not Jesus. Why does it apply to The Son, Jesus, here? Because God and Jesus worked together to create the universe. God created the universe through Jesus. "[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" - Colossians 1:15, 16.
Remember, this round is the counter-rebuttals, so you may only rebut my arguments from round three. The reason for this is because if you were able to rebut my rebuttals in this round (round four), it would objectively give you an unfair advantage, especially since round five we return to our closing arguments.
My turn is over; I look forward to seeing what you have to say.
Next, you utterly failed to show the trinity is not Biblical (with or without the wretched NWT) and the fact of the Holy Spirit being a person is inferred from Scripture, not assumed.
Next, when a cultist has to throw out their own mis-translation, they always go with the KJV and not the Greek. I wonder why? Oh yea, it is because ancient English forms can be used by wolves to deceive sheep. Fortunately, I do not have that problem.
Next, you need to take some basic Engligh grammar lessons and learn the difference between the singular usage of nouns and the plural usage. The passage speaks of the singular name, which is to say which all three share (i.e., I AM). In your example, to be correct, you would say the "the names of the president, and of the CEO,..." But Scripture does not. It refers to the single name they all share.
Next, I did correct you silly view of the trinity when I said:
The trinity is the doctrine that there is one God, eternally existence in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, but is God. The Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit, but is God. The Spirit is neither the Father not the Son, but is God.
Your view of the trinity is actually modalism, which is another heresy. You are fighting a straw man.
Next, lhowever Ps 102 uses the passage, the writer of Hebrews uses it to have the Father call the Son God. And it is not because they worked togather to create the universe, for the Bible says Jesus is the sole Creator of the universe, but because the Son is the Father's God.
Finally, you ignored Acts 5, which I expected.
Pro broke this rule that I set for the debate by rebutting my arguments from round four when (s)he was only supposed to rebut arguments from round three. Pro therefore broke the rules.
However, I would like to take the time to point out that although you criticized both of my Bible translations that I used, you never once quoted a single scripture. Saying something exists within a source without quoting it or otherwise directly referencing it whatsoever is just as bad as using a questionable source. Not only that, but presuming that anything within a certain source cannot be used because the source itself is questionable is a logical fallacy in itself.
I really think that the debate over Bible translations is ridiculous because they are just that - translations. The exact wording may be different, but they carry the same general meanings, so picking on the specific wording of a translation is rather petty.
Pro broke my rules. Therefore, vote Con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate