The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Nicean Trinity against Socinus' Trinity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,205 times Debate No: 36740
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Trinity simply means " three" per se.

The Bible talks about these three: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Nicean teaching about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that they
are the one God.

Socinus' teaching about the three is that the Father and the Holy Spirit are
one( the spirit being his impersonal presence and power)and the Son is only a
human in nature with no preexistence that was given authority after resurrection
to function as God albeit not deity in nature. ( Modern day adherents are
Socinian Unitarians, Biblical Unitarians, Christadelphians etc.).

Let's have meaningful discussion and debate about theology esp. in the
field of christology.


As my opponent used round 1 to set up the debate, I will only make a brief opening statement for fairness. Also, I believe we have an equal amount of the burden of proof.

Opening Statement:

As Mark 12:28-29 states: One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all? ”Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord". As Jesus himself declared one God, and shares being in subjection to God with every other human by proclaiming "our God", I believe this to be my founding statement for the proof that the Nicene Trinity is the incorrect view of God.

I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking discussion towards the nature of God and His Christ.

Debate Round No. 1


I am happy that Lipricona desired to discuss and debate with me.

This is my explication of Mark 12:28-29:

According to the context( v. 28-27), religious teachers debates with Christ but Christ answers them with all wisdom and knowledge.
Christ said to a certain scribe who uttered a wise reply to him that he's not far away from God's kingdom. From that on no one dared to ask any question to him( seeing that they are content that Jesus held unto the core truths of the Jewish faith ( monotheism and morality towards God and Men). But Christ didn't stopped there. In the temple courts, there he asked a question:

"Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

""The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.""

David himself calls him "Lord." How then can he be his son?"

Notice that Jesus didn't say in v. 37: " David himself calls him "My Lord". How then can be his son?" but on the contrary he just said " Lord". Why Jesus didn't say "my Lord"? but "Lord"only?

Psalm 110:5 LXX says that the one who sits at the right hand of God is "the Lord". So although the "Lord" in Ps. 110:1 is "adoni" the "Lord" in Ps. 110:5 is "adonai". Hence, Jesus Christ is both "My Lord" and "the LORD" according to the same scriptures.

The answer to the question of Christ is the "incarnation". John himself wrote that the Word who was God in eternity became human too in time. Also, Paul wrote: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever." Ireneaus (ca. 125-202) has Romans 9:5 this way though. So that it's an early textual and patristic evidence that Rom. 9:5 calls Christ " God".

As to why Jesus brought up the topic of his divinity after affirming monotheism is because he wants us to know that the deity of the Jewish Shema is not just one person but of plurality specifically of three distinct persons.

How could people of those day who were string ardent monotheist believe something like that of the Nicene Trinity? Simple. It is because of these both reasons: it is non-contradictory to Jewish monotheism and it is rooted from Judaic belief system per se.

Let me explain. The Jewish Sophiology is there for age-old times. In Proverbs we read that YHWH appointed his own Wisdom to create things. This very Wisdom ( LXX: Sophia) is YHWH's attribute or trait. Wisdom was with God before creation for she* was through whom God will create. This is the scriptural stance regarding God's immanent being and economic activity.

So here we have Wisdom as co-Creator with YHWH. Although Wisdom in Proverbs is "personified" ( i.e. treated as if a person) it is now believed that Wisdom is a real person, distinct and living individual, with YHWH per New Testament revelation.

Paul explicitly styled Christ as the " Power of God and Wisdom of God" ( Greek: dynamis theou kai sophia theou) in 1 Cor. 1:24. This must be taken literally, Christ is the Power and Wisdom per se of God. How could Paul believe such thing? Simple. It is very logical and coherently biblical:

The Son is the Wisdom of the Father per se means that God doesn't need experiential knowledge to make sensible decisions and judgments in a situation because he could make all sensible decisions and judgments in all his activities via his Son ( Luke 11:49-Matt. 23:24, 1 Cor. 1:24-Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:3-Wisdom 7:25,26). Both Jesus' claims of Divinity and of Sophiology ensues his Apostles to identify him as the Divine Wisdom in the flesh. The personified attribute in the Old Testament Scriptures had began to be understood as a real person in the New Testament.This fact remains strict monotheism despite of plurality of person within the Jewish Deity.

The Son as the Power of the Father per se means God does'nt need his ability to do all things because he has his own Son to do all things ( John 1:3,Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2,10, Prov. 8:22-30,Rev. 3:14.

These fact shows that God is totally unlike us, that he's indeed incomparable to humans( Isaiah 46:5).

(C) English: Trinity, Latin: Trinitas, Greek: Trias.

This word has two denotations: (1) Group or set of three (2) the no. 3 per se.

The early church chose to use the word with definition no. 1 to encapsulate the Biblical doctrine concerning the Christian Deity revealed in the New Testament.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are a " group of three" persons who equally shares the one name "YHWH" and the one title "God".

As to how they equally share those appelations is because of their relationship to each other:
The Father is the one person who is YHWH and God. He is the only true God ( John 17:3)but the Son is YHWH and God also because he is the Word, Wisdom,Power and Effulgence of the Father. ( John 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:24, Heb. 1:3). The Holy Spirit is YHWH and God too because he is the Spirit i.e. life of both the Father and the Son.

The Son and the Holy Spirit share in the one indivisible nature,one name and one title of the Father as his very attributes that is why there is one God not three Gods.

There are three persons who all equally share in one nature( divinity), one title ( God) and one name( YHWH): the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, by virtue of their relationship to each other as God, Wisdom, and Spirit.

* She- in language, sophia is feminine. This, however, doesn't negate the fact that Wisdom couldn't be Christ because grammatical lexis and theological expressions are not dependent to each other. YHWH himself was called in feminine terms in the Old Testament and that doesn't make him a female. Besides, God himself is without sex i.e. he is neither male nor female but spirit ( John 4:24).



'No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means' -Voltaire

The most important part of this debate will be to analyze the original intentions of the writings in Scripture, that is, we must understand how the first Christians understood the nature of Christ.


Adonai Not Equivalent to Yahweh

"The Lord said to my lord" is an incorrect translation. Correctly translated, it should say "YHWH (tetragrammaton, the name of God) said to my adonai (hebrew word for lord). In this passage, the decendant of David is not called Yahweh, he is called lord, which is a title of honor, not divinity. So also in the Mark 12 passage, it should say "Yahweh our God is one Yahweh." Should my opponent want to prove Jesus' nature is equal to that of Yahweh's, he must show where Jesus is identified not merely as "adonai/lord", but as YHWH, the tetragrammaton. However, as the Jewish Shema clearly teaches one Yahweh, not a plurality of persons within a Godhead, I daresay my opponent will not be able to supply such an identification. Also, the same is true with the definition of god (theos in greek and elohim in hebrew). The title of god is to refer to a divine being, but it is not equivlanet to meaning the Creator of the Universe.

The Wisdom of God

Proverbs 8:22 "Yahweh created me at the beginning of His way." As Paul identified Christ as the wisdom of God, this goes to show that Christ is a created being, not sharing in the uncreated nature of Yahweh.
John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself".

This clearly shows that Yahweh is a being with life in Himself, and that the Son was not, that there was a time when the Son didn't exist; he was given life. As Yahweh was not given life, but Jesus was, this further validates the claim that the Father and Son are not equal in nature.

The Trinity

The trinity itself is a concept that wasn't clearly defined until the Athanasian Creed ( which was probably invented somewhere in the fourth century AD. Before this, the Nicene Creed established the Son and Father has sharing the same nature. The problem with this is, Christ came to the Jews, and the first Christians were Jewish. As gentiles started converting into Christianity, they started taking their pagan philosophies and religious ideas with them, which is how the idea of the Christian trinity came to be. As Constantine was previously a believer in Mithraism, with it's own Trinity God, and as he wanted to create a nationwide religion that was pleasing to everyone, he combined the elements of Mithraism with Christianity, which is why we also celebrate Easter and Christmas on pagan dates. Constantine did preside over the council of Nicea (


The Holy Spirit

The Jews (before Christianity) understood the Holy Spirit as the presence of God, calling it the 'Shekhinah' (, but they did not identify it as a person.
1 Corinthians 2:11 "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." This passage compares the spirit of a man as his thoughts to the spirit of God as His thoughts. This direct comparison disproves the notion that the holy spirit is a person. Should my opponent wish to argue that the spirit is a separate person, he must also explain how a man's spirit is of the same nature but different personality from himself.

Jesus as Angel

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I am going to send Myangel, and he willclear the way before Me. And the lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple;and the angel of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, is coming."
Galations 4:14 "you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself"

An angel means "messenger" and this is what Jesus is called. Jesus is the messenger of Yahweh, and a messenger of someone cannot be of the same identity of that someone.

Ante-Nicean Quotes

Justin Martry, 1st Apology: "For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." (

Irenaeus, Against Herecies: "These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced 415 by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God". (

Both Justin Martry and Irenaeus claim one God- the Creator, and one Messiah, second to the nature of God; subject to the position of God, not equal.

Various Quotes from Jesus and Paul

John 20:17 "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."
John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 "For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."


Most Christians nowadays believe in a trinity because they are endoctrinated with this theology and are taught to defend it and never question it, however, this vein idea of God sets forth a stumbing block to prevent the understand of what Jesus' true purpose was. Jesus is the Wisdom and Word of God, but He is a created being who is second to the Father, Yahweh, the only true God. There were various pagan religions with an idea of a Trinitarian God long before Christianity, so why should the pagans have understood the nature of God before the Jews? The Trinity itself is a mystery, but the point of a revelation from God is to reduce the mystery, not increase it. Yahweh exists as One Being, and He created His son as an angel, or messenger, to redeem us for our sins.

Job 23-24
"If there is an angel as mediator for him,
One out of a thousand,
To remind a man what is right for him,
Then let him be gracious to him, and say,

‘Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom’"
Debate Round No. 2


Adonai Not Equivalent to Yahweh

As I already elucidated in Round #2, Jesus is not just "Adoni" but also "YHWH". I agree with my opponent that Adoni is not equivalent to YHWH, the tetragrammaton whcih is God's name but he has yet to respond to my escriptural proof that Christ is both "Adoni" and "Adonai" based on Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:5.

The Wisdom of God

Proverbs 8:22 LXX won't teach a doctrine contrary to the rest of the Scriptures and Logic.

The Greek word" ektisen (from ktisis)" denotes four things, namely, (1) a creature (2) to create,to form (3) to found (4) to ordain, to appoint.

To translate and view ektisen in Proverbs 8:22 LXX as definition 1,2 and 3 is to say that God's Wisdom is "a creature, created" is to believe that there was a time when God is not wise. This does not only violates immediate context but also the greater context of scripture as a whole.**

The only definition that fits into the word is no. 4 based on the context per se.

"The Lord appointed me (per context v. 30) as the origin of his work, before his works of old."

This is not of my own making.Athanasius agrees.He viewed Proverbs 8:22 as such.

** Revelation 3:14 The source of God's creation.

Colossians 1:15 The First-born over i.e. Preeminent over all creation

The Greek word " prototokos" literally means " first in birth order" and figuratively it means " special status associated with a firstborn even when you're not a literal firstborn * Jer. 31:9 LXX).
The Greek word "Prototokos" doesn't have an inherent partitive value as proven from the scriptures per se:

Colossians 1:18 prototokos ek ton neknon ( ton teknon is partitive genitive because of the preposition EK).

Revelation 1:5 prototokos ton nekron ( preposition EK is NOT present. So we need to see the context to know what genitive it is. Contextually, ton nekron here is impossible to be a partitive genitive because Rev. 1:17-18 explicilty said that Christ was no longer dead so he can't be part of the dead. Context shows that genitive of subordination is the plausible answer. ...Ruler over the dead, ruler over the kings of the earth... v.5)

So, in Col 1:15, the Son must be Over all creation for through him were created all of it as the next verse clearly says.

John 5:26

The Son has the SAME life the Father has their title inevitably and essentially applies. Both are coeval and self-existent therefore both are of same nature ( homoousios). It was styled here as something given,that is, communicated. What this means is about the great and age-old teaching about the Eternal Sonship via Eternal Generation:

The Trinity

The Trinity itself is a teaching in the scriptures that is clearly expressed therein albeit not in systematic theology.It was and has been systematized for only one purpose: to refute heresy. By doing so, Christians are safeguarded against false theology and triumphantly obeys Jude 1:3.

The Trinity is not an evolved doctrine. It was not that people believe in one personed deity into two and then became three. The early church always believe and affirm the Trinity

The Apostles did understand the Trinity and hypostatic union but only expressed it in contemporary terms out of evangelistic needs in the centuries like that of in the 3rd and 5th. The Nicean and Chalcedonian christologies were believed by the primitive church albeit it was systematized theologically later on. It was neither developed as if it was not before as it appears now nor invented as if it was new in the later centuries. And for note, I am not saying that the Apostles understands this quickly for Jesus said that many things he wants them to know that they can't bear now but he lets the Holy Spirit to be the one to tell it in the near future. As we can notice, all of the NT books were presenting Jesus as first Christ and later as the Son of God. Gradual revelation within the Apostolic time, from the humanity to divinity of Christ together with his offices as God and Man.


The Holy Spirit

I agree with my opponent that the Jews (before Christianity) understood the Holy Spirit as the presence of God, calling it the 'Shekhinah' but they did not identify it as a person.But in the advent of Christianity, the Holy Spirit is viewed as a real person just as the Wisdom afore is personified but now a real person too ( 1 Cor. 1:24).

Jesus is a person*, right? Then it means the Holy Spirit must be a person too because he is an another helper ( Greek: allos paracleton). - *1 John 2:1

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; ( John 14:16 NASB)

The Holy Spirit is worshiped:

via Apostolic benediction and Prayer

2 Corinthians 13:14

New International Version (NIV)

14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

via Apostolic Greeting:

Revelation 1:4-6:

To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Jesus as Angel

First, let me elucidate that no where in the Bible is Jesus directly called an angel. Hebrews 1 on the other hand clearly states that Jesus IS NOT an angel.

I agree with my opponent that angel means "messenger" and this is what Jesus is called. Jesus is the messenger of Yahweh, and a messenger of someone cannot be of the same identity of that someone. I totally agree that a messenger of someone cannot be of the same identity of that someone but I will argue that a messenger of someone cannot be of the same nature of that someone.

Jesus sent the Apostles. That doesn't mean they are heteroousios ( of different nature).

The US ambassador was sent to Philippines by an authority. That doesn't mean they are heteroousios ( of different nature).

A human mother sent her human child to school etc. That doesn't mean they are heteroousios ( of different nature).

That is, being sent by somebody doesn't neccessiatate that you are of different nature than the one who sent you.

Look at this verse:

Genesis 19:24 – “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (NASB)

Ante-Nicean Quotes

You misinterpret your quotations from the Ante-Nicean Patristics.Here is the larger context, check it out:

Justin Martyr believes that Jesus is God:

Irenaeus believes that Jesus is God:

Various Quotes from Jesus and Paul

I wholly agree with the verses you mentioned and this is its context:

John 20:21

Jesus is the Word incarnate, thats's why.View my scriptural and logical argument:

John 17:3

I already expalined this clearly in Round #2. Letter (C).

1 Corinthians 8:6

Well, is the Father not "one Lord"?


Again, was there anytime when God was not wise?

There is no historical evidence that there is a pre-christian Trinity. Is there a teaching of one God in three persons B.C. ? If there is, please show one.

I never wrote the word " mystery" in here. Perhaps, you are generalizing how some Trinitarians elucidate the teaching.

An Angel can't redeem us. Hebrews tells us that the Son is not an angel but is consubstantial with God ( 1:3), is God ( 1:8) and that he partook of human nature ( 2:14) , it was humans that he helps not angels.



Adonai Not Equivalent to Yahweh

In both Psalm 110:1 and 5 Christ is referred to as "adonai" not as the tetragrammaton.

Yahweh says to my adonai:

“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
The adonai is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath."

I fail to see how my opponent successfully claims that the Christ is referred to as Yahweh. The adonai/Christ is at Yahweh's right hand, but he is not Yahweh himself.

The Wisdom of God

As already mentioned, the wisdom of God in Proverbs 8 is a personification of wisdom, not literal wisdom, so it is not saying that there was a time when Yahweh was without wisdom.

It appears that my opponent uses faulty translations for some of his quotes.

Revelation 3:14 'The beginning* of God's creation" This shows that the Son is part of creation, not the source.(*Greek-arche, meaning beginning)

Colossians 1:15 The first-born of every creature
Romans 8:29 He would be the firstborn among many brethren

This langauge does not put Christ over creation, as that translation does an injustice to the greek, but puts him as being involved with creation.

We would not say that Yahweh is the firstborn of creation, but we can say that Jesus is the firstborn because he is the Logos, or word, of God. But to be the word of God means you are spoken into existence.

John 5:26
The Father gave the son to have life. If the Son was eternal with the Father, he would not need to be given life.

The Trinity

1 Timothy 6:3 "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness"

The trinity was not taught by Jesus or his disciples. It is not a sound doctrine, as it defies the laws of logic, and therefore this trinity doctrine is a false doctrine.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless theapostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,who opposes and exalts himself aboveevery so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God"

The apostasy is the teaching of the trinity, a concept taught by bishops who exalt themselves in the church, and eventually one bishop exalting himself to the level of pope, changing and altering the creeds of faith.

The trinity is an evolved doctrine. In the nicene creed, it left out the holy spirit. It was essentially a duality of Gods. With the athanasian creed, it became trinitarian.

The Holy Spirit

Yes, the Spirit is another helper. The Father gives us His spirit, that He may be with us forever.
The fellowship of the spirit is a phrase that essentially means having a fellowship while filled with God's presence, or shekhinah.

The seven spirits before the throne isn't talking about the Holy spirit, but of angels, which is mentioned later in the same chapter of Revelation 1

You didn't seem to rebut my proposition on the spirit of God being in the same as comparison to the spirit of man.

Jesus as Angel

Pro "First, let me elucidate that no where in the bible is Jesus directly called an angel"
As I pointed out, Paul explicity calls Jesus an angel of God in Galations 4:14

Pro "Hebrews 1 on the other hand clearly states that Jesus IS NOT an angel"
Hebrews 1:9 "Therefore God, Your God, has
anointed You

With the oil of gladness above Your companions"
If Jesus isn't an angel, then who are his companions?

How can an unbegotten God be of the same nature as a begotten son? That is not logical.

Ante-Nicean Quotes

Pro "You misinterpret your quotations from the Ante-Nicean Patristics"
I deny your objection and present the objection back towards you. I quoted Justin and Irenaeus directly, and supplied a link to their full writings. You, on the other hand, provided links to someone a short treatise of quote mining them and drawing false conclusions.

Justin and Irenaues both described The God as Unbegotten and placed the Begotten Son in a place second to God. This is in direct contrast to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, claiming them to be equal.

Various Quotes from Jesus and Paul

As stated in round 2, we must understand how the original Christians understood Jesus' message. When he makes claims that only the Father is the true God, that the Father is both Jesus' God and our God in the same manner, we must acknowledge that these words were spoken to the common Jewish people, not educated men and women in metaphysics and philosophy. The simple truth of the matter is that the first Jews who met and heard Jesus speak did not think he was claiming to be Yahweh, the creator of the universe.

Pre-Christian Trinity

Pro "There is no historical evidence that there is a pre-christian Trinity"

I can show numerous Trinities:
Hindusim- Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Egyptian- Amun, Re, Ptah
Sumerian- Anu, Enlil, Ea
Aristotle- All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods

Mystery Trinity

You say that the trinity is not a mystery. I ask that you explain the trinity in coherent, logical terms.

An Angel Can't Redeem Us

I quoted the book of Job, showing that it was prophesied an angel had to save us, and Malachi calles him the angel of the covenant. As mentioned, the book of Hebrews calls the angels the companions of Jesus, thus showing that he was an angel, or messenger of God.
Debate Round No. 3


Adonai Not Equivalent to Yahweh

I agree that Yahweh is not equivalent to Adonai but Yawheh also, not just the Messiah, is called "Adonai":

I say to the LORD, "You are Adonai; apart from you I have no good thing." Psalm 16:2

The Wisdom of God

I totally believe that the wisdom of God in Proverbs 8 is a personification of wisdom but that changed as I came to know Christ in the New Testament. I found out that Wisdom is not just personified but is a real person indeed.

The Son is the Wisdom of the Father per se means that God doesn't need experiential knowledge to make sensible decisions and judgments in a situation because he could make all sensible decisions and judgments in all his activities via his Son ( Luke 11:49-Matt. 23:24, 1 Cor. 1:24-Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:3-Wisdom 7:25,26). Both Jesus' claims of Divinity and of Sophiology ensues his Apostles to identify him as the Divine Wisdom in the flesh. The personified attribute in the Old Testament Scriptures had began to be understood as a real person in the New Testament.This fact remains strict monotheism despite of plurality of person within the Jewish Deity.

Revelation 3:14 'The source* of God's creation" This shows that the Son is the Creator not a creature.

* Greek arche. The Father is also called "arche" also in Revelation 21:6 and this definitely doesn't mean the Father has an "origin".

Colossians 1:15 is genitive of subodination while Romans 8:29 is genitive of partitive. It is the immediate context that determines what sort of genitive is in a clause/sentence.

The wider context ALSO highly refutes my opponent's stance on Col. 1:15's prototokos as partitive because Christ as Sophia was said to be the Creator (Hebrews 1:2-3,10, Col. 1:16, Proverbs 8:22 LXX) and Christ as the Logos is said to be the Creator also(John 1:3).

To be the Logos of God is to be God in nature as John 1:1 and 18 puts it.

John 5:26

The Father has " life in himself" and this very same life he gave to his own Son. Therefore, the Son has "life in himself". How was this life given to the Son? Well, the answer is in the text per se, it is by virtue of their relationship as "Father" and "Son". We read that in John 1:18, the Logos is "the only-offspring who is God in nature" ( Greek: monogenes theos).

My opponent should not take it literally as if the Father handed over a book/ a plate of pasta etc. to his Son. No. The verse is to be taken in its language form. John 5:26 strongly supports the Nicean exegesis.I could say that my Parents gave me life like theirs and it means that I am human in nature, flesh and blood.On the ortherhand, Christ himself said that the Father gave him the very same life he has and it means that Christ is God in nature, eternal and almighty. That is, One who is conceived and birthed by someone is a son,of same nature (Greek: homoousios) with the parent and one who is before creation is eternal. The genetic anthropomorphism of "birthed" only denotes " homoousiousness " of the Father and the Son just as one who is born of a human parent is human.

The Trinity

You make assertations you cannot prove. The Trinity did not evovled. The church always believe in the Trinity as one God just as I already explicated clearly in Round #2. The Nicene Creed focused on the divinity of the Son because it was in attack by Arius the Heresiarch. Heresies arises and it must be contended against as commanded in Jude 1:3. Show me historical proof that the early christians, from 1 Century up to the 4th century,don't believe in the Trinity.

The Holy Spirit

The 7 Spirits is the Holy Spirit otherwise John worshiped an angel(s) together with the Father and the Son because he was included in the Triune Greeting ansd shocks! Where else could we find an Angel giving " grace and peace"?

Jesus as Angel

Galations 4:14 even if it's true that he's called an "angel" in here it will not mean that he is a "ethereal creature" but as it is, a "messenger" of God.One who brings message.

Pro "Hebrews 1 on the other hand clearly states that Jesus IS NOT an angel"
Hebrews 1:9 "Therefore God, Your God, has
anointed You

With the oil of gladness above Your companions"
If Jesus isn't an angel, then who are his companions? Humans. Jesus is God incarnate. He is the King of kings and Lord of Lords. I hope I'm very explicit on this.

Ante-Nicean Quotes

Justin and Irenaues both described The God as Unbegotten and placed the Begotten Son in a place second to God.

In place second to God, not in nature but in function and role. The Son is simply the Son per se. The Father is always over the Son just as they are always of one nature.

As I said in Round #2, You misinterpret both Justin and Irenaeus. They believe that Jesus, as the Logos, is birthed* by God that is why we have a Father and Son who are of one nature.

* Birthed- Again, to be born is very different from to be created. One who is conceived and birthed by someone is a son,of same nature (Greek: homoousios) with the parent and one who is before creation is eternal. The genetic anthropomorphism of "birthed" only denotes " homoousiousness " of the Father and the Son just as one who is born of a human parent is human.

Various Quotes from Jesus and Paul

I already elucidated clearly about John 17:3 and there's no need to repeat it here.

People in Jesus' day knew his blasphemies:

John 5:18 The Son is consubstantial with the Father. Equal to him in nature as his own Son PER SE.

John 5:19 The Son co-powerful with the Father. He can do only what the Father do.

John 5:26 The Son coeval and consubstantail with the Father.

John 10:30-38 The Jews clearly accused Jesus of making himself God by saying he and his Father are one.The unity here is something that makes Jesus of one nature with the Father because the Father is God in nature as the Jews wholly understand and Jesus, they say, is blaspheming for he " a human being ( Greek: on anthropon)" makes himself deity/God in nature ( anarthrous theos). The fact that Jesus defended his claim against the Jews using Ps. 82:6* proves that he's eager to reveal his actual being to them albeit they'll not hear and believe because they're not his sheep. The Jews understood Jesus' claim of divinity for they "did not believe"(v. 38) and hence, they had understood the claim.

* some humans (the OT Judges) are called "gods" because they function as deity via "rule" but they are not essentially deity that is why the Psalmist said that they will die, showing their true nature as human.
On the otherhand, Jesus in John 10:30 is not claiming functional godhood but God in nature per se. The immediate context proves this: Jesus has the very same power/ability as the Father in preserving the sheep not to fell. Again, the text is explicitly clear that it was not because of Jesus' "good works" that they were stoning him but of his claim of being God in nature, I and Father, we're One. Whatever that oneness be, the response of the Jews are clear, Jesus is making himself theos/ God out of that oneness with the Father.

Pre-Christian Trinity

I say, show me a Trinity teaching before Christ and you shown me tritheisms instead.

Mystery Trinity

You say that the trinity is not a mystery. I ask that you explain the trinity in coherent, logical terms.

I already did it in Round #2. It is very coherently biblical and logical.

An Angel Can't Redeem Us

I agree that Job 33:23 is Messianic but it didn't say that the "messenger" is angelic in nature.

I don't think God would plan to save people via an angel:

"Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; Job 15:15

Afterall, Hebrews 1:3 is very very explicit that Jesus can't be an angel. He is the exact imprint of the Father's very own nature ( Greek: hupostasis).




Essentially, my opponent and I are arguing past each other. We are both using Scripture to prove our point, and we both interpret it in different ways. Obviously, only one interpretation can be correct, but I argue there is only one way to prove which interpretation is right: The historical-grammatical understanding of it. Jesus did not come to the philosopher's and the fully educated of his day; he went to fishermen and tax collectors and other such people. The New Testament was written for the layman and written by laymen. That being said, I will still present my rebuttals to his interpretations of Scripture, and I will further validate my point that the early Christians did not believe in a trinity.

Adonai not Equivalent to Yahweh

It doesn't matter if Yahweh is called adonai. The angel Gabriel is also called adonai in Daniel 10:16. Should we also argue that Gabriel is also god in nature? No. Jesus is not Yahweh, and nowhere does Scripture make this claim. If my opponent wants to prove his point, he must provide proof showing that early Christians believed Jesus was Yahweh, the one true God.

The Wisdom/Logos of God

The Wisdom of God is created being. Yahweh is called the beginning, but Jesus is called the beginning of creation and the firstborn of creation, not the "source" which is an erroneous translation into english.

The Logos of God is not the same nature as God. The Logos concept is a jewish concept that comes before the apostle John. The Logos concept comes from Philo ( who preceded Christianity.

“And even if there be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his firstborn word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. . . . For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is His most ancient Word.” (Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues,” XXVIII, 146-147, page 247)

“Since whatever is subsequent to God, even if it be the most ancient of all other things, still has only the SECOND PLACE when compared with that omnipotent Being” (IX, 51, p.325)

John was writing writing his gospel to a Jewish audience, who would immediately recognize the logos concept. John was not saying Jesus and Yawhweh were one in nautre, rather he was confirming Philo's teachings.

Jesus as Angel

Pro: "I agree that Job 33:23 is Messianic but it didn't say that the "messenger" is angelic in nature."

I will again quote Job 33:23: ""If there is an angel as mediator for him, One out of a thousand"

Pro agrees that this passage is a messianic prophecy.This is a problem for him, because the messiah had to be "one out of a thousand". If Jesus is Yahweh in nature, this is not possible.

Pro also does not believe an angel could have redeemed us.

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

Jesus could not have been the same nature as God, because a mediator is a third party.

Pro: "Galations 4:14 even if it's true that he's called an "angel" in here it will not mean that he is a "ethereal creature" but as it is, a "messenger" of God.One who brings message"

Please provide one passage of Scripture where "angel of god" does not mean "ethereal creature". If my opponent fails to do this, my point stands that Jesus is not God in nature, but an angel in nature.

Hebrews 1 explicity says Jesus is an angel. Verse 5: "To which angel did he say, "You are my son, today I have begotten you?"
My opponnent wants to argue that this verse is a sarcastic question which would be scolding the reader's audience. On the other hand, the author is asking a question "which angel" and the obvious answer is "Jesus is the angel that God chose." If my opponent wants to prove that it is saying Jesus isn't an angel, he must show evidence that the point of this letter was to scold it's readers for heresy.

Pre-Christian Trinities

I provided evidence of pre-christian trinities, and my opponent rejected them out of ingorance. These deities were most definitely trinities, but they hurt my opponent's argument, so he rejects them. The Christian trinity was not the first trinity.


My opponent calls Arius a heretic. I disagree quite strongly. Arius did not believe in the trinity. Because of this, he was excommunicated from the church, and ultimately he was poisoned and killed by the church. To cover up for their wrongdoing, they proclaimed that God had killed Arius. This is utter blasphemy, and this incident is understood by modern scholars, and a detailed exploitation of this event is covered by Sir Isaac Newton, linked below. After this, anyone else who rejected the trinity or even kept books by Arius were also killed.

Post Nicea

GREGORY OF NYSSA (circa. 335-395 C.E.): “...The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask “Is my bath ready?” the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing...” (

The laymen of the day did not approve of the Trinity doctrine, however as noted previously, they were forced to accept the Trinity theology or they were killed for "heresy". This is the origin of the trinity concept; it's followers accepted it out of fear of persecution and slaughter.

Debate Round No. 4


I concur with my opponent with the said not-so-educated people in Christ just as the scriptures affirm in1 Corinthians 1:26-29.

Jesus is both Adonai and Yahweh

Early Christians believed Jesus was Yahweh albeit neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit but the Son. In fact, there's an abundant of scriptural evidence that Jesus is Yahweh but i'll just provide these, having been seen it as suffice:

John's Testimony

John himself wrote this:

"Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: ‘Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: ‘He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn-and I would heal them.’Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory [eiden teen doxan autou] and spoke about." John 12:37-41

Now read the LXX for yourself:

"And it came to pass in the year in which king Ozias died,that I saw the Lord [eidon ton kurion] sitting on a high and exalted throne, and the house was full of his glory [tees doxees autou]. And seraphs stood round about him: each one had six wings: and with two they coveredtheirface, and with two they coveredtheirfeet, and with two they flew. And one cried to the other, and they said, Holy, holy, holy,is theLord of hosts:the whole earth is full of his glory [tees doxees autou]’. And the lintel shook at the voice they uttered, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said, Woe is me, for I am pricked to the heart; for being a man, and having unclean lips, I dwell in the midst of a people having unclean lips; and I have seen with mine eyes the King, the Lord of hosts… And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said, behold, I amhere, send me. And he said, Go, and say to this people, Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." Isaiah 6:1-5, 8-10 LXX

Theglorywhich Isaiah saw in Isa 6:3 was the glory of Yahweh (typically rendered as "Lord" in the OT). Here John speaks of the prophet seeing the glory of Christ since in the next clauseand spoke about him, "him" can hardly refer to Yahweh, but must refer to Christ. On the basis of statements like 1:14 in the prologue, the author probably put no great distinction between the two. Since the author presents Jesus as fully God (cf. John 1:1), it presents no problem to him to take words originally spoken by Isaiah of Yahweh himself and apply them to Jesus.

Paul's Testimony

In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul quoted the Isaiah 45:23-24LXX and points out that Jesus is Yahweh whom all knees should bow and whom all tongue must confess as Yahweh.
Wisdom/Logos of God

Even my opponent's desired rendering still favors my stance:

The Beginning OF God's creation.

What does beginning mean?

English Dictionaries define it as:

(1) start ; inception
(2) source; origin
(3) the time when or the place where something begins
(4) opening; commencement

John had envisagedthat the Son is the start OF God's creation which means he is the beginning of God's creation to exist.Otherwise God's creation would be the start,origin,source OF the Son and this is cacophonouslyabsurd.

On the Logos

The Greek word " Logos" was used by the Apostles out of evangelistic needs in the contemporary society wherein the they live. The Logos denotes three meanings now:

(1) Greek Philosophy - impersonal force/being of nature,reality and rational beings
(2) Hebraic Adaptation - personified power of YHWH's interaction and intervention with men.
(3) Christian definition - personal entity, the Son per se of the Father.One who is the only offspring who is God as to his nature. The one who exegetes the Father. ( John 1:1,18)

The Apostolic church (A.D. 33-100) and the early church (A.D 100-200) believes in the eternal Sonship of the Logos via eternal generation.

Your stance about the Logos is purely Greek Philosophy. Historical and Biblical evidence proves that the Johannine Logos is a divine person.

Jesus as Angel

The burden of proof is on my opponent because he didn't even qualify and gave substantial evidence that these thousand messengers in Job 33:23 are indeed angelic in nature but rather, my opponent just assumed that it is without contextual evidence.

1 Timothy 2:5, when taken in isolation, it'll inevitably prove my opponent's stance but this is not the case, we must interpret the said verse in coherence with the entire scripture as a whole:

1 Cor. 8:6 said that the one God is the Father.
John 1:1,14 said that Jesus Christ is the Word who was God in the flesh

Therefore, we must not merely surmise on this but clearly present the facts.1 Timothy 2:5 talks about the Word in the flesh as the one singular mediator between the Father and humanity ( akin to John 14:6's yet another revelation about Christ).

The Angel of YHWH: an angel who is not "ethereal creature" but is very God.

Clearly the Angel of Yahweh is a self-manifestation of Yahweh,for He speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God(Gen. 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Ex. 3:2; Jud. 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). Yet He is distinguished from Yahweh (Gen. 24:7; Zech. 1:12-13). That He is a member of the Trinity is indicated by the fact that the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh cease after the Incarnation.This is confirmed by the Old Testament statement that the Angel of God accompanied Israel when they left Egypt (Ex. 14:19; cf. 23:20) and the New Testament statement that the Rock who followed Israel was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4).

I may still agree with my opponent's argument that Jesus is explicitly an angel( from Greek: angelos, messenger) according to Hebrews 1 without resorting to his view.

Hebrews 1 is about the great contrast between the birthed Messenger and the created messengers.

The birthed Messenger ( Heb 1:5)is the "only-offspring who is God in nature" not an "ethereal creature "( John 1:18), He is the" exact imprint of the Father's nature ( Heb 1:3).

pre-Christian trinities

My opponent didn't provide evidence of pre-Christian trinities but tritheisms:

Trinity- teaching that there's one God:the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Tritheism- teaching that there's three gods ( e.g. theEgyptian- Amun, Re, Ptah)

Post-Nicea & Arius

My opponent must know that not all Trinitarians shares every identical beliefs about other things.For example, we will never find Trinitarians in the 1st,2nd and 3rd centuries murdering heretics. This means that what happened in the 4th century has other considerable factors even if that's within religion.

The early church were Trinitarians:
The Son within the Father was birthed out from the womb of his Father's heart anterior to creation. ( Ps. 45:1 LXX, Ps. 110:3, Prov. 8:25,30, 1 Cor. 1:24, Heb. 1:3,5)
Meaning of statement
The Son within ( logos endiathetos) was birthed out ( logos prophorikos) from the Father’s substance shortly near the time of creation. In other words, the Son is a Person who is consubstantial to the Father that is why John speaks of the Word as God in nature and was with God in the beginning of creation (John 1:1-3).


The Apologists are not far from Athanasius' version of the eternal sonship via eternal generation. This proves that the early church believes in the Trinity, from 2nd to 3rd centuries and that Arianism came into existence in the 4th century.

Let us not forget that Arius himself was a Trinitarian before he recanted his faith! Where is his See before his heresy? Where?


Jesus is Adonai, Not Yahweh

John/Isaiah Testimony

My opponent argues that John is attributing as Jesus being the glory that Isaiah saw. I somewhat agree. In Isaiah's vision, he saw Yahweh, (the LORD) as apparant in the text. However, as attributed later in the book of Isaiah, it is said (53:1): "Who has believed our message ? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"

Jesus is not identified as Yahweh (LORD, tetragrammaton), but as the ARM of Yahweh. Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh and Jesus' glory- the "arm".

Paul's Testimony

Phillipians 2:9-11 "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Understand that the emphasis of the bowing is all towards the "glory of God the Father." Also, compare with;

1 Chronicles 29:20 "Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless Yahweh your God." And all the asembly blessed Yahweh, the god of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage to Yahweh and to the king.
Psalms 2:11-12 "Worship Yahweh with reverence..Do homage to the Son"
Jeremiah 30:9 (Messianic Prophecy) "But they shall serve Yahweh their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.'

Under David's reign, they worshipped David as king and Yahweh as God, but did so in one act of reverance. Jesus (as prophesied by the quote I gave from Jeremiah) took the place of David's worship. If Jesus is supposed to be worshipped as Yahweh, and not as taking David's place, then either this prophecy can never be fulfilled, or my opponent is wrong in assuming Jesus is Yahweh. I argue this is sufficient evidenc for Jesus being merely God's servant and our king, but not equal in worship to Yahweh.

On the Logos

My opponent argues for 3 different definitions for the Logos, which he uses no sources, only argues out of the fallacy of assertion, and goes on to say that the early church believed in the eternal generation, again based only on his fallacy of assertion and by no means of actual evidence. As previously mentioned, the Jew Philo wrote about the Logos of God, and it was an actual being, which is why Philo called him the archangel. The archangel is the first being that God created, which is why Paul and John kept referring to Jesus as the beginning of God's creation.

Jesus as Angel

Pro: "The burden of proof is on my opponent because he didn't even qualify and gave substantial evidence that these thousand messengers in Job 33:23 are indeed angelic in nature but rather, my opponent just assumed that it is without contextual evidence."

False. Job 33:23 Shows that the Messiah had to be one out of a thousand. It doesn't matter what the nature of those other thousand are, whether they be angels or humans. Either way the Messiah can't share Yahweh's nature, as God is NOT one out of a thousand. This reference from Job explicitly disproves the Trinity.

Angel of Yahweh

Judges 13: 15 Then Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “Please let us detain you so that we may prepare a young goat for you.” 16 The angel of the Lord said to Manoah, “Though you detain me, I will not eat your [d]food, but if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the Lord.” For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the Lord. 17 Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?” 18 But the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is [e]wonderful?” 19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to the Lord, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his wife looked on. 20 For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.

My opponent argued that the Angel of Yahweh was "very God". I definitely believe the Angel of Yahweh was important, but I disagree on the conention that he was God. As shown from this passage, Manoah offered to sacrifice an animal to the Angel of Yahweh. The Angel said, "if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to Yahweh." If the Angel of Yahweh was indeed truly God, he would have accepted the sacrifice. He rejected the sacrifice and demanded the only one who deserved true worship was Yahweh and no one else.

Hebrews Chapter 1

It should be understood that the phrase "son of God" is a phrase that is only ever used of Angels. Begotten is a term that is used for being born of a woman. When it is said that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, it shows that he is the only angel who was born of a woman. My opponent asserts that Hebrews is calling Jesus the "only-offspring who is God in nature", but that is a blatant misrepresentation of the original Greek. He twists Scripture so he can argue his claim.

Pre-Christian Trinities

A trinity of Gods is three different Gods who are equally God, usually by means of nature. The Hindu God is most definitely a trinity, as it shows the three gods on one neck and three heads, or other similar concepts ( I argue this also severely hurts my opponent's trinitarian claims, as Christianity was the LAST religion to adopt a trinity, NOT the first.

Post-Nicea and Poor Arius

Pro: "we will never find Trinitarians in the 1st,2nd and 3rd centuries murdering heretics."

You won't find any Trinitarians in the first two centuries at all, as you have failed to provide evidence of early Christians writing about a trinitarian Christian God.

Pro: "The Son within the Father was birthed out from the womb of his Father's heart"

This is a concept that only the Gnostic Christians believed. (See: "Gospel of Truth" by Valentinius, leader of the Gnostics After Arius pointed out that this concept would mean that Yahweh was somewhat human in that He could produce a generation after him, the bishops at the Nicean council decided that the Son was 'eternally begotten" which in itself is purely an oxy-moron, having no value in a logical discussion.

My opponent blatantly asserts that Arius "was a Trinitarian before he recantd his faith". This is truly erroneous. Here is a quote from one of Arius' letters:

"Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and proper to greet you through him, remembering at the same time the innate love and affection which you have for the brothers on account of God and his Christ, because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements:
that there was “always a God, always a Son; begotten without begetting". (

Arius was chased down, persecuted, and murdered because he would not accept that the Son was "begotten without begetting" (which, again, is an oxy-moron that is purely ridiculous and not valid for a logical discussion).


My opponent argues that the Trinitarian concept of God is the correct view. If this is so, it discredits the Old Testament prophecies that say Christ would take over the kingly worship of David, and that he would be 'one out of a thousand'. John 10:35 "Scripture cannot be broken." If this is the case, then there is no trinity. Yahweh is alone unbegotten, without beginning, and the true Almighty God. Jesus is his servant that was given to us to to redeem us from sin, and we worship Jesus as our King David and we worship Yahweh as our Creator God.

I thank my opponent for this engaging and thought-provoking debate. I understand his trinitarian concepts of God, but I hope I supplied an alternative view that is both rational and honest.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an amazing debate. It truly was. I unfortunately think I understand only half of it, but that's of course a reflection on my own understanding. Both sides did a fantastic job. In the end, after much deliberation, I felt that of the arguments I understood Con seemed to be ahead toward the end. That's not to say that Pro didn't do a magnificent job. Pro--If I were to offer some advice, I'd give a quick word on sources. When talking about academic interpretations, you do need to give sources; you can't just rely on your knowledge. Also, giving a long list of codes referencing Bible verses is not evidence. You need to always write them out explicitly in the debate and explain them specifically. I cannot be burdened with looking the up and making the debate for you. All in all, great job on both sides. Thanks for the show, and please keep debating! Maybe I'll have the good fortune to butt heads with one of you.